You mean the story by the guy that (successfully!) used this legal defense in court: > The "'general tenor' of the show should then inform a viewer that [Carls

You mean the story by the guy that (successfully!) used this legal defense in court: > The "'general tenor' of the show should then inform a viewer that [Carlson] is not 'stating actual facts' about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in 'exaggeration' and 'non-literal commentary.' and > Fox persuasively argues, that given Mr. Carlson's reputation, any reasonable viewer 'arrive[s] with an appropriate amount of skepticism' about the statement he makes." So if even the guys lawyers tell you any reasonable person would take him with a grain of salt, I would assume that everything he says is indeed exaggerated and non-literal as they phrase it. Or phrased differently: he will say what he thinks his audience wants to hear. What he says might be completely made up, have some important bits omitted or contain a kernel of truth with a truckload of fantasy. From a European perspective this guy seems so over the top that I thought it was meant to be parody when I first saw a clip from him. source: https://www.npr.org/2020/09/29/917747123/you-literally-cant-believe-the-facts-tucker-carlson-tells-you-so-say-fox-s-lawye https://www.npr.org/2020/09/29/917747123/you-literally-cant-...