not because ppl provide a link, means it's true. (including this link)
http://www.relfe.com/media_can_legally_lie.html
The Media Can Legally Lie
By Mike Gaddy
Writer for lewrockwell.com.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In February 2003, a Florida Court of Appeals unanimously agreed with an assertion by FOX News that there is no rule against distorting or falsifying the news in the United States.
Back in December of 1996, Jane Akre and her husband, Steve Wilson, were hired by FOX as a part of the Fox “Investigators” team at WTVT in Tampa Bay, Florida. In 1997 the team began work on a story about bovine growth hormone (BGH), a controversial substance manufactured by Monsanto Corporation. The couple produced a four-part series revealing that there were many health risks related to BGH and that Florida supermarket chains did little to avoid selling milk from cows treated with the hormone, despite assuring customers otherwise.
According to Akre and Wilson, the station was initially very excited about the series. But within a week, Fox executives and their attorneys wanted the reporters to use statements from Monsanto representatives that the reporters knew were false and to make other revisions to the story that were in direct conflict with the facts. Fox editors then tried to force Akre and Wilson to continue to produce the distorted story. When they refused and threatened to report Fox's actions to the FCC, they were both fired.(Project Censored #12 1997)
Akre and Wilson sued the Fox station and on August 18, 2000, a Florida jury unanimously decided that Akre was wrongfully fired by Fox Television when she refused to broadcast (in the jury's words) “a false, distorted or slanted story” about the widespread use of BGH in dairy cows. They further maintained that she deserved protection under Florida's whistle blower law. Akre was awarded a $425,000 settlement. Inexplicably, however, the court decided that Steve Wilson, her partner in the case, was ruled not wronged by the same actions taken by FOX.
FOX appealed the case, and on February 14, 2003 the Florida Second District Court of Appeals unanimously overturned the settlement awarded to Akre. The Court held that Akre’s threat to report the station’s actions to the FCC did not deserve protection under Florida’s whistle blower statute, because Florida’s whistle blower law states that an employer must violate an adopted “law, rule, or regulation." In a stunningly narrow interpretation of FCC rules, the Florida Appeals court claimed that the FCC policy against falsification of the news does not rise to the level of a "law, rule, or regulation," it was simply a "policy." Therefore, it is up to the station whether or not it wants to report honestly.
During their appeal, FOX asserted that there are no written rules against distorting news in the media. They argued that, under the First Amendment, broadcasters have the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on public airwaves. Fox attorneys did not dispute Akre’s claim that they pressured her to broadcast a false story, they simply maintained that it was their right to do so. After the appeal verdict WTVT general manager Bob Linger commented, “It’s vindication for WTVT, and we’re very pleased… It’s the case we’ve been making for two years. She never had a legal claim.”
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
UPDATE BY LIANE CASTEN: If we needed any more proof that we now live in an upside down world, the saga of Jane Akre, along with her husband, Steve Wilson, could not be more compelling.
Akre and Wilson won the first legal round. Akre was awarded $425,000 in a jury trial with well-crafted arguments for their wrongful termination as whistleblowers. And in the process, they also won the prestigious “Goldman Environmental” prize for their outstanding efforts. However, FOX turned around and appealed the verdict. This time, FOX won; the original verdict was overturned in the Appellate Court of Florida’s Second District. The court implied there was no restriction against distorting the truth. Technically, there was no violation of the news distortion because the FCC’s policy of news distortion does not have the weight of the law. Thus, said the court, Akre-Wilson never qualified as whistleblowers.
What is more appalling are the five major media outlets that filed briefs of Amici Curiae- or friend of FOX – to support FOX’s position: Belo Corporation, Cox Television, Inc., Gannett Co., Inc., Media General Operations, Inc., and Post-Newsweek Stations, Inc. These are major media players! Their statement, “The station argued that it simply wanted to ensure that a news story about a scientific controversy regarding a commercial product was present with fairness and balance, and to ensure that it had a sound defense to any potential defamation claim.”
“Fairness and balance?” Monsanto hardly demonstrated “fairness and balance” when it threatened a lawsuit and demanded the elimination of important, verifiable information!
The Amici position was “If upheld by this court, the decision would convert personnel actions arising from disagreements over editorial policy into litigation battles in which state courts would interpret and apply federal policies that raise significant and delicate cons utional and statutory issues.” After all, Amici argued, 40 states now have Whistleblower laws, imagine what would happen if employees in those 40 states followed the same course of action?
The position implies that First Amendment rights belong to the employers – in this case the five power media groups. And when convenient, the First Amendment becomes a broad shield to hide behind. Let’s not forget, however; the airwaves belong to the people. Is there no public interest left—while these media giants make their private fortunes using the public airwaves? Can corporations have the power to influence the media reporting, even at the expense of the truth? Apparently so.
In addition, the five “friends” referred to FCC policies. The five admit they are “vitally interested in the outcome of this appeal, which will determine the extent to which state whistleblower laws may incorporate federal policies that touch on sensitive questions of editorial judgment.”
Anyone concerned with media must hear the alarm bells. The Bush FCC, under Michael Powell’s leadership, has shown repeatedly that greater media consolidation is encouraged, that liars like Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter are perfectly acceptable, that to refer to the FCC interpretation of “editorial judgment” is to potentially throw out any pretense at editorial accuracy if the “accuracy” harms a large corporation and its bottom line. This is our “Brave New Media”, the corporate media that protects its friends and now lies, unchallenged if need be.
The next assault: the Fox station then filed a series of motions in a Tampa Circuit Court seeking more than $1.7 million in trial fees and costs from both Akre and Wilson. The motions were filed on March 30 and April 16 by Fox attorney, William McDaniels—who bills his client at $525 to $550 an hour. The costs are to cover legal fees and trial costs incurred by FOX in defending itself at the first trial. The issue may be heard by the original trial judge, Ralph Steinberg—a logical step in the whole process. However, Judge Steinberg must come out of retirement if he is to hear this, so the hearing, set for June 1, may go to a new judge, Judge Maye.
Akre and her husband feel the stress. “There is no justification for the five stations not to support us,” she said. “Attaching legal fees to whistleblowers is unprecedented, absurd. The ‘business’ of broadcasting trumps it all. These news organizations must ensure they are worthy of the public trust while they use OUR airwaves, free of charge. Public trust is alarmingly absent here.”
Indeed. This is what our corporate media, led by such as Rupert Murdoch, have come to. How low we have fallen.
"How low we have fallen."
Repugs/conservatives: "Everything's fine, endless wars are cool, pollution doesn't matter, America's the Best Damn Country in the Universe Ever, corporations are wonderful, Greed Is Good, bankers are rich, Jesus saves, Think Positive"
Last edited by boutons_deux; 10-21-2009 at 01:32 PM.
why else would you watch fox?
The real tragedy is that broadcasters will suppress news at the behest of corporations who don't like the reporting.
Yep, I remember the case.
Fox wanted them to include in their reporting the "balance' of the opposing viewpoint. It doesn't matter if it was fact or not, they wanted the opinion of the other side to be reported. Fox regularly does this. They were fired for refusing to follow Fox's policies.
Now as for the legal argument, Fox took the most obvious legal argument. Moral arguments don't fly in court, just the black and white ones.
Fox has every right to sue for legal expenses. They should have never had to defend themselves in court for en employee not following what they were paid to do.
Whistle blower laws are for protecting a report of law violations. Not for reporting methods.
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 10-21-2009 at 01:02 PM.
Yep. Powerful people too.
Remember what happened to the Clinton do entary?
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 10-21-2009 at 01:04 PM.
i think it's in the same place that all the wmds are at.
The Clintons had everyone killed.
There are 3 sides. One side of the story, the other and the facts. The other 2 sides can contradict each other, but neither one can contradict facts, or it's not a side, it's a lie.Fox executives and their attorneys wanted the reporters to use statements from Monsanto representatives that the reporters knew were false and to make other revisions to the story that were in direct conflict with the facts. Fox editors then tried to force Akre and Wilson to continue to produce the distorted story.
No, what you just quoted is the reporters opinion of the facts.
Have a court transcript by chance, that outlines the evidence?
Besides, you ignored the fact than an employer can tell an employee what to do as long as it's legal, and fire them for cause if they don't.
Even if I am wrong about the exact happenings, that fact remains indisputable.
facts are not opinion.
sky is blue - fact
today is wednesday - fact
get it?
Yes, are you telling me that an employer cannot fire an employee for following legal directions?
unsurprisingly, you missed the point of the thread completely.
Let me help you out. This thread is reminding us that the media can legally lie. And they do it all the time, like when Lou Dobbs said 1/3 of inmates are illegal. And they can't be held accountable in any court of law.
Then why pick an example that has so many facets. Why not a clearly obvious one that everyone knows, like the repeating the lies againsts Sarah Palin? Both the Fox News story and Lou Dobbs 1/3rd example are poor ones, because they have not been disproved.
.
Any intelligent person knows the media has been lying for years.
Did people even have to lie about Palin? She was the political equivalent of a self-cleaning oven as far as I could tell.
How many times have the idiot media leftists had to apologize for telling lies? I think the most recent was some idiot spreading lies about Limbaugh...but, Blather and others come to mind as well.
SIG
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
