Reporters Blow Whistle on FOX News

[bonito]

Run time: 10:00 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9E-5KivgwO4   Posted on YouTube: June 12, 2007 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: January 20, 2008 By DU Member: bonito Views on DU: 884

 
Reporters Steve Wilson and Jane Akre were first asked by FOX News and later bribed, to downplay a story they had on a cancer-causing growth hormone called Posilac. The reporters decided to blow the whistle on FOX News and filed a law suit. After the ordeal was over, it was discovered in the appeals court that it's actually not against the law to falsify the "News."

[RC]

1. I hate this. Nothing on why I should press the GO button.

It would be nice if people would present a clue or two on what their videos are about.

[bonito]

2. Your right, I added the info, Thanks

[Caretha]

3. Thanks for posting this

Well worth the 10 minutes of my time it took to watch this. I Want my country back. :(

[Joanne98]

4. So its not illegal to falsify the "news". Put that on the to-do list.

[barbtries]

5. go to google video

and watch the 3 hr movie "The Corporation"

interesting that you posted this today - i just watched the entire movie for the first time. just finished about five minutes ago in fact

[Mika]

6. Here's a 2003 story on the case.

Appellate Court Rules Media Can Legally Lie.

By Mike Gaddy
Published 02. 28. 03 at 19:31 Sierra Time

On February 14, a Florida Appeals court ruled there is absolutely nothing illegal about lying, concealing or distorting information by a major press organization. The court reversed the $425,000 jury verdict in favor of journalist Jane Akre who charged she was pressured by Fox Television management and lawyers to air what she knew and documented to be false information. The ruling basically declares it is technically not against any law, rule, or regulation to deliberately lie or distort the news on a television broadcast.

On August 18, 2000, a six-person jury was unanimous in its conclusion that Akre was indeed fired for threatening to report the station's pressure to broadcast what jurors decided was "a false, distorted, or slanted" story about the widespread use of growth hormone in dairy cows. The court did not dispute the heart of Akre's claim, that Fox pressured her to broadcast a false story to protect the broadcaster from having to defend the truth in court, as well as suffer the ire of irate advertisers.

Fox argued from the first, and failed on three separate occasions, in front of three different judges, to have the case tossed out on the grounds there is no hard, fast, and written rule against deliberate distortion of the news. The attorneys for Fox, owned by media baron Rupert Murdock, argued the First Amendment gives broadcasters the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on the public airwaves.

In its six-page written decision, the Court of Appeals held that the Federal Communications Commission position against news distortion is only a "policy," not a promulgated law, rule, or regulation.

Fox aired a report after the ruling saying it was "totally vindicated" by the verdict.


© 2003 SierraTimes.com

http://www.sierratimes.com/03/02/28/arpubmg022803.htm

-