This paper examines recent court decisions that indicate the extent of constitutional protection extended to opinionated statements made during broadcast commentaries. A brief overview of both the common law and constitutional privileges protecting the expression of opinion is also included in the paper. Specifically, the paper evaluates the effect a United States Supreme Court ruling in Falwell v. Flynt may have on broadcast commentary. The paper discusses the test to distinguish between fact and opinion as set forth in Ollman v. Evans. This test encourages that: (1) the meaning of the specific language of the challenged statement be analyzed to determine whether the statement has a precise meaning for a consensus or is ambiguous; (2) the statement be capable of proof or disproof; (3) the context in which the statement appears be examined; and (4) the broader context in which the statement appears also be examined. The paper concludes that broadcast commentators have been extended a considerable degree of constitutional protection for their opinionated statements although that protection is by no means absolute. Sixty-six notes are included. (Author/MS)