[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
U.S. Constitution Title: Fox News gets okay to misinform public, court ruling A brother in law told me of this. I hadn't heard about it so I looked it up. Sure enough, there it was. Fox News gets okay to misinform public, court ruling The attorneys for Fox, owned by media baron Rupert Murdoch, successfully argued the First Amendment gives broadcasters the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on the public airwaves. We are pushing for a consumer protection solution that labels news content according to its adherence to ethical journalism standards that have been codified by the Society of Professional Journalists (Ethics: http://spj.org). A News Quality Rating System and Content Labeling approach, follows a tradition of consumer protection product labeling, that is very familiar to Americans. The ratings are anti-censorship and can benefit consumers. Appellate Court Rules Media Can Legally Lie. By Mike Gaddy. Published Feb. 28, 2003 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 Murdoch, 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. http://ceasespin.org/ceasespin_b..._to_misinform_public.html Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 31. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jane Akre and her husband Steve Wilson are former employees of Fox-owned-and-operated station WTVT in Tampa, Florida. In 1997, they were fired from the station after refusing to knowingly include false information in their report concerning the Monsanto Company's production of RBGH, a drug designed to make cows produce more milk. They successfully sued under Florida's whistle-blower law and were awarded a US $425,000 settlement by jury decision. However, Fox appealed to an appellate court and won, after the court declared that the FCC policy against falsification that Fox violated was just a policy and not a "law, rule, or regulation", and so the whistle-blower law did not apply.[1] The court agreed with WTVT's (Fox) argument "that the FCC's policy against the intentional falsification of the news -- which the FCC has called its "news distortion policy" -- does not qualify as the required "law, rule, or regulation" under section 448.102.[...] Because the FCC's news distortion policy is not a "law, rule, or regulation" under section 448.102, Akre has failed to state a claim under the whistle-blower's statute."[2] In 2001, Akre and Wilson won the Goldman Environmental Prize as a recognition for their report on RBGH. [3] In 2004, Fox filed a US$1.7 million counter-suit against Akre and Wilson for trial fees and costs. Akre and Wilson both appear in a major portion of the 2004/5 critical documentary, The Corporation. In 2007 Akre became the editor-in-chief of the national news desk at InjuryBoard.com.[4]
#7. To: We The People (#6) From Wikipedia, Sheesh, you can do better than that, can't you? You don't build credibility by using Wiki as a source.
#8. To: Ibluafartsky (#7) You don't build credibility by using Wiki as a source. You must be under the false impression that I'm trying to impress or build credibility. I'm not. And I really don't care if you believe me credible or not. I'm simply sharing information that I'm finding on an issue that interests me. If it doesn't interest you, see ya.
#9. To: We The People (#8) build credibility. I'm not. Honor and credibility are usually important to most people.
#11. To: Ibluafartsky (#9) Honor and credibility are usually important to most people. Why aren't they important to you?
#13. To: We The People (#11) Why aren't they important to you? You are without either honor or credibility as evidenced by your idiotic question. Where were you educated? Did you manage to complete elementary school?
#20. To: Ibluafartsky (#13) Speaking of honor, why are you incognito? Why are you here under a sock puppet of Blutarsky's screen name? Don't speak to me of honor.
#26. To: We The People (#20) Blutarsky's screen name? Eric should feel honored, yes? I know, in your case it is a total waste of time and energy.
#27. To: Ibluafartsky (#26) Eric should feel honored, yes? Someone should feel honored because you've made a satirical sock puppet account of their screen name? And YOU speak to me of honor? Son, you need to get your shit together. There is nothing honorable in identity theft, even on an internet forum. If you have any honor at all, you'll ask Stone to delete that account and register under your own screen name.
#30. To: We The People (#27) Someone should feel honored because you've made a satirical sock puppet account of their screen name? Have you asked? What "own" screen name should I use?
#31. To: Ibluafartsky (#30) What "own" screen name should I use? I believe 'illegal alien' is available.
Replies to Comment # 31. There are no replies to Comment # 31.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 31. Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|