I don’t think it’s the same thing. Our excerpts and articles have links to the source material- That’s above the line between articles and user posts. Material in user posts are distanced from FR by disclaimer.
These CAIR clowns took bits of recorded material out of context and made a fund raising commercial out of it.
They didn’t merely use excerpts for fundraising either. They used them to induce advertisers to quit their sponsorships. That is tantamount to lying, to damage Savage’s livlihood. That has nothing to do with news, or fair use, or discussing news, does it? There has to be damages there. I’m not an expert on fair use, but what Cair did with respect to the pressure on Savage advertisers (not the fundraising) doesn’t seem remotely close to the purpose or activities of FR. Of course, that also isn’t the premise of the lawsuit, so Savage might have to go back a second time with a different suit, if there is anything to what I’ve speculated. The copyright thing does seem spotty. I just want CAIR exposed for what it is.
I'm no expert, but from a legal perspective I'm not sure it matters. After all books and newspaper reviews and the like don't actually have any links to source material at all other than citation. Whether or not the material excerpted is an accurate rendition of the views of an author isn't the subject of copyright vs. fair use - it's the extent of how much the copyrighted material is copied and for what purpose.
There are some strong free speech issues in terms of determining whether or not such out-of-context excerpts can be legally challenged. It's not as if in the political fundraising game that most fundraisers present the fair-and-balanced approach to their opponents positions.
Given the somewhat capricious nature of fair use doctrine however Savage might have a something of a case, but it's not a really strong one.