Fox hates the truth
Fox has sued to have the right to LIE
The Right to Lie in the "News"
If ever we needed to know why the biggest media consumers in the world are so badly informed, this pretty well tells it all. The Media Can Legally Lie.
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.
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.
[...] 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.
OK, pick your jaw up off the floor. That some court thinks they CAN is bad enough, that these people assert their right to do so pretty well kicks it all down the hole. And these guys wonder why their credibility is in the toilet and the net is burning them left right and centre.
Oh, and February 2003, 30 days before Iraq.
2007-06-06 04:04:01
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
7⤋
It's obvious that CNN is best friends with the left. That is why I stopped watching them. They are too blatant with their attempts to promote the democrats...this is why you will see dems avoid FOX.
Also dems call Fox the Bush network because they don't bash the president as they do. Hmmmmm? Does that mean they would be fair and balanced if they joined forces with them and bashed?
So what is CNN if the continually attack the President Bush and twist every good thing he does as bad? Does that make them the ligitimate?
The Dems don't want to be asked the hard questions, so let them stay with their buddies.
2007-06-06 04:27:21
·
answer #2
·
answered by egg_sammash 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
Do you think that all decisions are motivated by fear?
Actually, that explains a lot of the posts on this site.
The answer is, they're not "afraid." They show a preference to CNN for the same reason YOU show a preference to Fox. Opinion, and nothing more.
Besides, they know that Democrats don't watch trash news like Fox.
2007-06-06 04:13:33
·
answer #3
·
answered by Bush Invented the Google 6
·
0⤊
1⤋
Opinionated no nothings have become the norm in broadcasting the last 20 years. Fox is, of course, notorious in their pushing of a pro-military, pro-Republican agenda. This is why front runners have declined the Fox invitation. However, it is a mistake to do so. Biden, among others, plans to be present unless the debate is cancelled.
2007-06-06 04:20:45
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
They are not as fair and balanced as they self- describe but I watch them too at times. Some never did get the Imus thing. Then that thin lady from the against obesity organization said Jordin should be thinner and wanted to know would not that be be nicer for American youth?
Let them interview their own until they can do it politically proper. Are they hosting a Republicans' Reagan seance? They call him up frequently.
2007-06-06 04:10:56
·
answer #5
·
answered by Dawnita R 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Because they need liberals to control the agenda and allow the dem candidates to continue to answer questions that weren't asked. They wouldn't want someone to hold Hillary's feet to the fire on why she voted for the war and now says it's Bush's war, or what qualifications Obama actually has to be President. Or how they plan to PAY for all these entitlements they are planning
If FOX is "The Bush Network" then why is every opinion show on there denouncing Bush's immigration bill??? Use your brain
2007-06-06 04:06:54
·
answer #6
·
answered by stepped on the Third Rail 2
·
3⤊
2⤋
Because it is like a sport. Fox is right wing, CNN is left wing, and like any good sports team, the democrats prefer home court advantage.
2007-06-06 04:05:25
·
answer #7
·
answered by Crazy LP 3
·
4⤊
0⤋
That's the way of it these days. We don't get any unbiased news anymore. All media is owned by big business and special interest groups.
2007-06-06 04:10:02
·
answer #8
·
answered by Chief Yellow Horse 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
If they can't stand up in a debate amongst themselves, how can they handle the job of president. This is just another attempt from the so call free speech crowd to censor the media.
2007-06-06 04:04:20
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
3⤊
2⤋
Because Fox would not let the Lib Dems spin the issues.
2007-06-06 04:04:06
·
answer #10
·
answered by Obama, 47 y/o political virgin 5
·
3⤊
2⤋