[freepatriot32]

the scary thing is this is fox news channel doing this

[jpl]

If lying, concealing, and distorting information by the press were a punishable crime, there wouldn't be enough prisons in the world to hold all the journalists you'd have to throw in there.

Rupert Murdoch may be a sleazebag, but at least he's our sleazebag.

[frnewsjunkie]

The scary thing is Fox is the only one being charged.

The other media have gotten by with it for too many years.

[thoughtomator]

Fox is no angel, it's a company looking out for its own financial interests. It's largely conservative because it correctly saw conservatives as a huge untapped market for television news. So they slant information to cater to that market. What media organization doesn't cater to its market?

Free speech means freedom to lie. Otherwise we might as well put bars on the borders and not let anyone out. It's not as if you need to swear an oath to tell the truth when you buy a TV studio.

[Notwithstanding]

the sary thing is that this chick was awarded $25k by a jury whom the OTHER media have fooled (by the media's lust for "enviromental" junk science) into thinking that bovine growth hormone is bad for us (this is the same media who encourage women to take handfulls of articficial hormone pills every year to avoid pregnancy)

the chick is a enviro nazi whom Fox stopped dead in her tracks

[discostu]

That seems to be a misreading of the judgement to me. We know from successful slander suits that indeed it is illegal for the media to lie. What this suit seems to be proving, in my reading anyway, is that talking heads are paid to say what's put in front of them and if they won't say it they can be fired. The talking head should let the network lawyers worry about whether what's being said is legal, it's just their job to say it and it's perfectly OK to terminate them for refusing to do their job.

[TexRef]

Note that this is a FOX station — not the Fox news channel.

---

Reporter's court award struck down on appeal
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

LAKELAND - A state appeals court overturned a $425,000 jury award to a former Tampa television news reporter who claimed she was fired for refusing to include misleading information in a story.

In a unanimous decision Friday, the 2nd District Court of Appeal said Jane Akre failed to show the Tampa station, Fox affiliate WTVT, had violated any state laws.

"It's vindication for WTVT, and we're very pleased," station general manager Bob Linger said. "It's the case we've been making for two years. She never had a legal claim."

Akre still can appeal the decision. She could not be reached for comment because she does not have a listed phone number.

Akre and then-husband Steve Wilson claimed WTVT executives and a Fox network attorney encouraged inclusion of false statements in a story about bovine growth hormone, or BGH, a substance manufactured by the Monsanto Corp.

The couple produced a four-part series that said Florida supermarket chains did little to avoid selling milk from cows treated with the hormone, despite assuring customers otherwise.

Akre and Wilson claimed they were wrongfully fired for refusing to use misleading information in the story and because they had threatened to report the station to the Federal Communications Commission.

The station said they were fired because of insubordination.

In August 2000, a jury awarded Akre $425,000, saying the station retaliated against her for threatening to blow the whistle on a false or distorted news report.

The appeals court said Akre's threat to report the station's actions to the FCC didn't deserve protection under the state whistle-blower's statute.

[dpwiener]

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.

Sorry, but I don't want a six-person jury to be second-guessing news outlets as to whether their stories are "false, distorted, or slanted". The truth or falsity of a story should not be subject to a jury trial, and journalists should not have to prove anything just to avoid huge damage awards.

When it comes to matters of slander and libel, there is a very high legal standard which the victim must meet in order to prove intentional, false and malicious action by the supposed slanderer/libeler and to prove that the victim was damaged. We must always be extremely cautious about any laws which threaten to infringe on our First Amendment rights.

In a free society, people have a right to say unpleasant and hurtful things, to vigorously disagree with each other, and even to lie.

[singsong]

"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."

If the policy is not enforcable it would be wise to abandon it. Otherwise it gives the false impression that there is some assurance of truth in media.

[Sloth]

I didn't think you had to break any laws to have a civil judgment brought against you.

[Cicero]

The judge didn't say that Fox lied. He said that news organizations are entitled to say whatever they want, including what their opponents say are lies.

It sounds bad, but what's the alternative? Sending people to jail because somebody else says they lied?

One of the chief problems in our country is lying journalists. But if you put the government in charge of punishing them, is that likely to improve the problem? Just think if clinton and Reno had been in a position to do that.

No, I think the only thing you can do with media liars is shame them, expose them, attack them in their ratings, and maybe persuade them that lying for a living isn't very honorable.

[tang-soo]

More details available here

snip
The four-part series questioning the safety of milk tainted with the controversial hormone BGH became a year-long debate after Monsanto, ...

[Tolerance Sucks Rocks]

Better back up your FNC with such media as The Washington Times, The New York Post, National Review, etc.

[DonQ]

The significant element about this decision was not that it isn't a crime to lie (if it were, Washington would be ghost town) but that it was permissible for a news service (here a TV network) to fire one of its journalists for refusing to lie.

Previously there had been cases of journalists fired when they were caught lying, but here is one fired for not lying.

[Ethan_Allen]

Operation Mockingbird
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/MOCK/mockingbird.html

It's out of control.

[max61]

If the government is allowed to lie, why would not that which the government creates be allowed to lie (corporations)?.

Think about it.

---max

[tcostell]

This whole article is paraphrased, and that leads me to believe that we're not hearing the whole story, and that an agenda is being promoted.
Call me cynical.