New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

FoxNews: "we report, you decide"

Dino

Russian Asset
We agree with WTVT 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.

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/fl-district-court-of-appeal/1310807.html

Which is short mean they sued for the right to lie in their broadcast. Whether a jury was asked decide on that issue does not make any difference.
So you're admitting the truth CAN'T sink into your thick skull, no matter what the ruling actually said?

Got it! Wow, you're an amazingly stupid individual.
 

Spamature

President
So you're admitting the truth CAN'T sink into your thick skull, no matter what the ruling actually said?

Got it! Wow, you're an amazingly stupid individual.
The ruling does not matter. The fact is they presented the argument does. They presented that claim in front of 3 different judges. Whether or not they prevail on their suit as a whole does not erase their intent.

If someone shoots at you and misses during a robbery and the jury only decides on whether or not they committed the robbery does not mean that the shooting did not happened.
 

Caroljo

Senator
If Obama doesn't have the support, it's not because of Obama lies. It's because of the lies of bush that took us into Iraq in the first place.
If they thought it was the right thing to do they would do it, but they also don't trust him to do what he says (he hasn't yet)..Bush has nothing to do with it.
 

GreenBean

Council Member
Your dedication to Fox News is admirable, and I'm sure they appreciate the ratings boost.
Your dedication to Socio-Fascism is admirable, unfortunatel y they don't appreciate the ratings boost.
I know. They are the network who sued for the right to be able to lie to the public.


Bullshit - That nonsense has been debunked -simply because you were idiotic enough to drink the Kool-Aid don't expect the rest of society o follow you over the cliff of ignorance.

In the case you are referring to - two so-called journalists were terminated by a Fox affiliate - they were terminated because they Were attempting to alter the facts to support the Liberal point of view - The affilliates biggest screw-up was in hiring these two"yellow-journaslists" thinking they could contribute to fair and balanced News without infusing their left-wing assinine hyperbole into story after story.

"....in WTVT’s response to the initial Akre and Wilson complaint filed in court, WTVT claims that “…Defendant’s news managers realized the series could not be re-worked in time for the scheduled air date, due to the biased and undocumented nature of the pieces themselves…” and “…Defendant’s news managers had begun to suspect… that Plaintiffs were not interested in a fair, accurate, and balanced report on BGH.”

In the “Affirmative Defenses” section of WTVT’s initial filing, the station alleges that “…[station managers'] insistence upon fair, accurate and balanced news reporting does not violate any law, rule, or regulation” and “…The First Amendment [and] Florida Constitution prohibit judicial review of Defendant’s news judgments and the exercise of editorial discretion…”


As with everything your left wing clowns get your hands on - you have so completely convoluted this story and turned it upside down and inside out - it's a complete logical fallacy - The fox affilliate was striving for fair and balanced reporting - the reporters were Liberal Lackeys - leftist boot lickers and could not conform to the high standards of Fox News - hence they were terminated . .... Go Fish
 
Last edited:

Caroljo

Senator
Your dedication to Socio-Fascism is admirable, unfortunatel y they don't appreciate the ratings boost.




Bullshit - That nonsense has been debunked -simply because you were idiotic enough to drink the Kool-Aid don't expect the rest of society o follow you over the cliff of ignorance.

In the case you are referring to - two so-called journalists were terminated by a Fox affiliate - they were terminated because they Were attempting to alter the facts to support the Liberal point of view - The affilliates biggest screw-up was in hiring these two"yellow-journaslists" thinking they could contribute to fair and balanced News without infusing their left-wing assinine hyperbole into story after story.

"....in WTVT’s response to the initial Akre and Wilson complaint filed in court, WTVT claims that “…Defendant’s news managers realized the series could not be re-worked in time for the scheduled air date, due to the biased and undocumented nature of the pieces themselves…” and “…Defendant’s news managers had begun to suspect… that Plaintiffs were not interested in a fair, accurate, and balanced report on BGH.”

In the “Affirmative Defenses” section of WTVT’s initial filing, the station alleges that “…[station managers'] insistence upon fair, accurate and balanced news reporting does not violate any law, rule, or regulation” and “…The First Amendment [and] Florida Constitution prohibit judicial review of Defendant’s news judgments and the exercise of editorial discretion…”


As with everything your left wing clowns get your hands on - you have so completely convoluted this story and turned it upside down and inside out - it's a complete logical fallacy - The fox affilliate was striving for fair and balanced reporting - the reporters were Liberal Lackeys - leftist boot lickers and could not conform to the high standards of Fox News - hence they were terminated . .... Go Fish
They've heard all of this before and still lie about it. It was debunked LONG ago, but it doesn't fit their agenda of trying to bring Fox down so they just keep it up thinking someone might believe them. They just hate the truth being told. They don't hear it on MSNBC so it can't be true.....idiots.
 

Spamature

President
Your dedication to Socio-Fascism is admirable, unfortunatel y they don't appreciate the ratings boost.




Bullshit - That nonsense has been debunked -simply because you were idiotic enough to drink the Kool-Aid don't expect the rest of society o follow you over the cliff of ignorance.

In the case you are referring to - two so-called journalists were terminated by a Fox affiliate - they were terminated because they Were attempting to alter the facts to support the Liberal point of view - The affilliates biggest screw-up was in hiring these two"yellow-journaslists" thinking they could contribute to fair and balanced News without infusing their left-wing assinine hyperbole into story after story.

"....in WTVT’s response to the initial Akre and Wilson complaint filed in court, WTVT claims that “…Defendant’s news managers realized the series could not be re-worked in time for the scheduled air date, due to the biased and undocumented nature of the pieces themselves…” and “…Defendant’s news managers had begun to suspect… that Plaintiffs were not interested in a fair, accurate, and balanced report on BGH.”

In the “Affirmative Defenses” section of WTVT’s initial filing, the station alleges that “…[station managers'] insistence upon fair, accurate and balanced news reporting does not violate any law, rule, or regulation” and “…The First Amendment [and] Florida Constitution prohibit judicial review of Defendant’s news judgments and the exercise of editorial discretion…”


As with everything your left wing clowns get your hands on - you have so completely convoluted this story and turned it upside down and inside out - it's a complete logical fallacy - The fox affilliate was striving for fair and balanced reporting - the reporters were Liberal Lackeys - leftist boot lickers and could not conform to the high standards of Fox News - hence they were terminated . .... Go Fish
Funny thing is, is that it became a " the Liberal point of view" after Monsanto contacted Roger Ailes to stop the piece the the excrement started rolling down hill. Do you suppose the station would have taken that point of view without pressure from a behemoth in the corporate world like Monsanto ? And what about the effects on the animals

In 1994 a European Union scientific commission was asked to report on the incidence of mastitis and other disorders in dairy cows and on other aspects of the welfare of dairy cows.[15] The commission's statement, subsequently adopted by the European Union, stated that the use of rBST substantially increased health problems with cows, including foot problems, mastitis and injection site reactions, impinged on the welfare of the animals and caused reproductive disorders. The report concluded that, on the basis of the health and welfare of the animals, rBST should not be used

Monsanto-sponsored trials reviewed by the FDA asked whether the use of rBST makes cows more susceptible to mastitis.[27] According to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, which used data from eight Monsanto-sponsored trials in its decision in 1993 to approve Monsanto's rBST product (POSILAC), the answer is yes. The data from these eight trials, which involved 487 cows, showed that during the period of rBST treatment, mastitis incidence increased by 76% in primiparous cows and by 50% for multiparous cows. Overall, the increase was 53%.[27]

Also let's hear from the people your source slimes.

 

GreenBean

Council Member
Funny thing is, is that it became a " the Liberal point of view" after Monsanto contacted Roger Ailes to stop the piece the the excrement started rolling down hill. Do you suppose the station would have taken that point of view without pressure from a behemoth in the corporate world like Monsanto ? And what about the effects on the animals

In 1994 a European Union scientific commission was asked to report on the incidence of mastitis and other disorders in dairy cows and on other aspects of the welfare of dairy cows.[15] The commission's statement, subsequently adopted by the European Union, stated that the use of rBST substantially increased health problems with cows, including foot problems, mastitis and injection site reactions, impinged on the welfare of the animals and caused reproductive disorders. The report concluded that, on the basis of the health and welfare of the animals, rBST should not be used

Monsanto-sponsored trials reviewed by the FDA asked whether the use of rBST makes cows more susceptible to mastitis.[27] According to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, which used data from eight Monsanto-sponsored trials in its decision in 1993 to approve Monsanto's rBST product (POSILAC), the answer is yes. The data from these eight trials, which involved 487 cows, showed that during the period of rBST treatment, mastitis incidence increased by 76% in primiparous cows and by 50% for multiparous cows. Overall, the increase was 53%.[27]

Also let's hear from the people your source slimes.


Irrelevant to the case being quoted - just another aluminum hat conspiracy theory - still fishing ?
 

GreenBean

Council Member
Did you not what the video ? It is the case. This is what happened and how Fox News responded. How is it not relevant ?

Did you not what the video ?
No I did not "not what" the video Did you "not what" the thread. Did you did , or did you not what the thread - you did ? Did you not ?

Sour grapes and horse shit from a couple of piss pour discredited former so called journalists - Monsanto is not the issue of this thread - what is of the issue is the "so-called" journalists slanting a story to suit their ideology - which they did. Did you not understand that did you what not what I wrote nit wit.
 
Last edited:

Spamature

President
No I did not "not what" the video Did you "not what" the thread. Did you did , or did you not what the thread - you did ? Did you not ?

Sour grapes and horse shit from a couple of piss pour discredited former so called journalists - Monsanto is not the issue of this thread - what is of the issue is the "so-called" journalists slanting a story to suit their ideology - which they did. Did you not understand that did you what not what I wrote nit wit.
So you're admitting the truth CAN'T sink into your thick skull, no matter what the ruling actually said?

Got it! Wow, you're an amazingly stupid individual.
Okay so you think a right wing blog's biased description 4th hand description of the case gives a more accurate portrayal of the the incident than the people who actually lived it. Also you're saying that Fox News' reaction to a threat from a major advertiser on their network has nothing to do with their behavior. The whole thing was about liberals so bent on spreading a biased "lie" that they would lose their livelihoods and suicide bomb the careers they had worked decades in building.

But what about this:

We agree with WTVT 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.
Here is the text of under section 448.102..

448.102 Prohibitions.—An employer may not take any retaliatory personnel action against an employee because the employee has:

(1) Disclosed, or threatened to disclose, to any appropriate governmental agency, under oath, in writing, an activity, policy, or practice of the employer that is in violation of a law, rule, or regulation. However, this subsection does not apply unless the employee has, in writing, brought the activity, policy, or practice to the attention of a supervisor or the employer and has afforded the employer a reasonable opportunity to correct the activity, policy, or practice.

(2) Provided information to, or testified before, any appropriate governmental agency, person, or entity conducting an investigation, hearing, or inquiry into an alleged violation of a law, rule, or regulation by the employer.

(3) Objected to, or refused to participate in, any activity, policy, or practice of the employer which is in violation of a law, rule, or regulation.

Fox made the case that
intentional falsification of the news in this case does not violate the law as written because it is not a violation of a law, rule or regulation as far as the whistle blower statute is concerned.

In other words Fox sued for the right to lie to the public when reporting the news.
 
Last edited:

GreenBean

Council Member
Okay so you think a right wing blog's biased description 4th hand description of the case gives a more accurate portrayal of the the incident than the people who actually lived it. Also you're saying that Fox News' reaction to a threat from a major advertiser on their network has nothing to do with their behavior. The whole thing was about liberals so bent on spreading a biased "lie" that they would lose their livelihoods and suicide bomb the careers they had worked decades in building.

But what about this:

We agree with WTVT 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.
Here is the text of under section 448.102..

448.102 Prohibitions.—An employer may not take any retaliatory personnel action against an employee because the employee has:

(1) Disclosed, or threatened to disclose, to any appropriate governmental agency, under oath, in writing, an activity, policy, or practice of the employer that is in violation of a law, rule, or regulation. However, this subsection does not apply unless the employee has, in writing, brought the activity, policy, or practice to the attention of a supervisor or the employer and has afforded the employer a reasonable opportunity to correct the activity, policy, or practice.

(2) Provided information to, or testified before, any appropriate governmental agency, person, or entity conducting an investigation, hearing, or inquiry into an alleged violation of a law, rule, or regulation by the employer.

(3) Objected to, or refused to participate in, any activity, policy, or practice of the employer which is in violation of a law, rule, or regulation.

Fox made the case that
intentional falsification of the news in this case does not violate the law as written because it is not a violation of a law, rule or regulation as far as the whistle blower statute is concerned.

In other words Fox sued for the right to lie to the public when reporting the news.
Give me a break - "The people who actually lived it " - Really !

Charlie Manson "actually lived" the Tate-LaBianca murders - does that mean we take his word for it ????

David Berkowitz "actually lived" the Son of Sam Killings -does that mean we take his word for it ????

Bill Clinton "actually lived" the sexual assault and harassment of many women -does that mean we take his word for it ???? Hell - he's almost as good at semantics as you are "Define Sex - [Really !]

The video is a one sided propaganda assault - there are two sides to every story -

....intentional falsification of the news....
Allow ne to reiterate ....

Bullshit !

In the case you are referring to - two so-called journalists were terminated by a Fox affiliate - they were terminated because they Were attempting to alter the facts to support the Liberal point of view .

In the “Affirmative Defenses” section of WTVT’s initial filing, the station alleges that “…[station managers'] insistence upon fair, accurate and balanced news reporting does not violate any law, rule, or regulation” and “…The First Amendment [and] Florida Constitution prohibit judicial review of Defendant’s news judgments and the exercise of editorial discretion…”


Fox made the case that intentional falsification of the news in this case does not violate the law
Let me repeat it once more time - perhaps it might sink in a tad ....

Double Bullshit !

In the “Affirmative Defenses” section of WTVT’s initial filing, the station alleges that “…[station managers'] insistence upon fair, accurate and balanced news reporting does not violate any law, rule, or regulation” and “…The First Amendment [and] Florida Constitution prohibit judicial review of Defendant’s news judgments and the exercise of editorial discretion…”


Got it !? - GOOD - I'm glad we see eye to eye
 

Spamature

President
Give me a break - "The people who actually lived it " - Really !

Charlie Manson "actually lived" the Tate-LaBianca murders - does that mean we take his word for it ????

David Berkowitz "actually lived" the Son of Sam Killings -does that mean we take his word for it ????

Bill Clinton "actually lived" the sexual assault and harassment of many women -does that mean we take his word for it ???? Hell - he's almost as good at semantics as you are "Define Sex - [Really !]

The video is a one sided propaganda assault - there are two sides to every story -



Allow ne to reiterate ....

Bullshit !

In the case you are referring to - two so-called journalists were terminated by a Fox affiliate - they were terminated because they Were attempting to alter the facts to support the Liberal point of view .

In the “Affirmative Defenses” section of WTVT’s initial filing, the station alleges that “…[station managers'] insistence upon fair, accurate and balanced news reporting does not violate any law, rule, or regulation” and “…The First Amendment [and] Florida Constitution prohibit judicial review of Defendant’s news judgments and the exercise of editorial discretion…”




Let me repeat it once more time - perhaps it might sink in a tad ....

Double Bullshit !

In the “Affirmative Defenses” section of WTVT’s initial filing, the station alleges that “…[station managers'] insistence upon fair, accurate and balanced news reporting does not violate any law, rule, or regulation” and “…The First Amendment [and] Florida Constitution prohibit judicial review of Defendant’s news judgments and the exercise of editorial discretion…”

Got it !? - GOOD - I'm glad we see eye to eye
So instead according to you we are supposed to believe that a broadcaster who has been threatened by one of their advertisers is more honest about their behavior than the people who created the report in the first place. A report mind you that station had scheduled for broadcast and created and aired promos for before they were threatened by Monsanto. Why didn't they tell the reporters it was liberally biased and unfair BEFORE they agreed to run commercial for it and put it on their broadcast schedule ?

Yeah I get you alright. You're insane if you believe that load of hokum.
 
Last edited:

GreenBean

Council Member
So instead according to you we are supposed to believe that a broadcaster who has been threatened by one of their advertisers is more honest about their behavior than the people who created the report in the first place. A report mind you that station had scheduled for broadcast and created and aired promos for before they were threatened by Monsanto.

Yeah I get you alright. You're insane if you believe that load of hokum.

So instead according to you we are supposed to believe that a broadcaster who has been threatened by one of their advertisers
Or so the broadcaster claims - this so clalled journalist has no credibility - perhaps they can find work with Dan Rather - lol

A report mind you that station had scheduled for broadcast and created and aired promos for before they were threatened by Monsanto.
Conspiracy theories are a dime a dozen - I wouldn't even spend a nickle for a dozen of yours .
 

Spamature

President
Or so the broadcaster claims - this so clalled journalist has no credibility - perhaps they can find work with Dan Rather - lol



Conspiracy theories are a dime a dozen - I wouldn't even spend a nickle for a dozen of yours .
It's not a conspiracy theory. The video I posted showed the promo commercial the station ran the report and an announcement on when it would air. Just like they do for all of the shows on their schedule. Again. If it was so biased WHY did they give it a spot on the schedule and create a commercial for it ? Why didn't they just say no you have to redo this before we will give it a spot on station schedule and create promos for it because it is a biased report ? Why wait until AFTER they have done all of that before they say its a biased report if not because Monsanto threatened them.
 

GreenBean

Council Member
It's not a conspiracy theory. The video I posted showed the promo commercial the station ran the report and an announcement on when it would air. Just like they do for all of the shows on their schedule. Again. If it was so biased WHY did they give it a spot on the schedule and create a commercial for it ? Why didn't they just say no you have to redo this before we will give it a spot on station schedule and create promos for it because it is a biased report ? Why wait until AFTER they have done all of that before they say its a biased report if not because Monsanto threatened them.

Conspiracy theories are a dime a dozen - I wouldn't even spend a nickle on this one . They expected the "journalists" to do their job and produce a non biased expose - they took their words for it that they had done what they were hired to do - before airing on the final screening, senior editors found it to be crap - largely unsubatantiated crap and speculation at that - unworthy of airing on FOX . But well worthy of CBS NBC ABC MSNBC because that's all they produce is crap - unlike FOX which is fair and balanced .


In the “Affirmative Defenses” section of WTVT’s initial filing, the station alleges that “…[station managers'] insistence upon fair, accurate and balanced news reporting does not violate any law, rule, or regulation” and “…The First Amendment [and] Florida Constitution prohibit judicial review of Defendant’s news judgments and the exercise of editorial discretion…”

Socio-fascists and their useful idiot lackeys such as yourself , simply salivate at the opportunity to discredit FOX - the shining beacon on the horizon that absolutely refuses to fall into line with their agenda. Fox never sued for the "right to Lie" as you [Unwelcome language removed] have tried to depict it - they went to court and won the right to maintain fair, accurate and balanced news reporting - end of discussion - You Lose .
 
Last edited:

Spamature

President
Conspiracy theories are a dime a dozen - I wouldn't even spend a nickle on this one . They expected the "journalists" to do their job and produce a non biased expose - they took their words for it that they had done what they were hired to do - before airing on the final screening, senior editors found it to be crap - largely unsubatantiated crap and speculation at that - unworthy of airing on FOX . But well worthy of CBS NBC ABC MSNBC because that's all they produce is crap - unlike FOX which is fair and balanced .


In the “Affirmative Defenses” section of WTVT’s initial filing, the station alleges that “…[station managers'] insistence upon fair, accurate and balanced news reporting does not violate any law, rule, or regulation” and “…The First Amendment [and] Florida Constitution prohibit judicial review of Defendant’s news judgments and the exercise of editorial discretion…”

Socio-fascists and their useful idiot lackeys such as yourself , simply salivate at the opportunity to discredit FOX - the shining beacon on the horizon that absolutely refuses to fall into line with their agenda. Fox never sued for the "right to Lie" as you [Unwelcome language removed] have tried to depict it - they went to court and won the right to maintain fair, accurate and balanced news reporting - end of discussion - You Lose .
Nobody but you would be dumb enough to believe that a station would schedule a program for airing let alone make commercials promoting the story before the people responsible for the station's content would have seen the report. In fact they would have seen the various parts of the story while the reporters were working on it.


NO CONSPIRACY JUST THE FACTS.

16. After initial review of the PLAINTIFFS’ reports, NEW WORLD’s agents were sufficiently satisfied with the quality and truthfulness of each and all of them that NEW WORLD purchased, at great expense, commercial air time on local radio stations for the purposes of broadcasting promotional announcements produced by NEW WORLD to alert television viewers that the four-part series would be broadcast on Channel 13 beginning Monday, February 24, 1997.

17. On Friday, February 21, 1997, the last business day prior to the scheduled broadcast of the reports, the president of another division of NEW WORLD’s parent company, News Corp Inc, received a letter (attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit "C") from John J. Walsh, an attorney for the New York law firm of Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft, retained by the Monsanto Company to challenge and stifle PLAINTIFFS’ reports. Citing false claims and innuendo based on hearsay, Mr. Walsh advised the News Corp executive that "Monsanto officials and scientists who have been interviewed by AKRE and WILSON or talked to them on the telephone have no confidence now in their ability to write a fair and unbiased story."

18. Later the same Friday, officials of WTVT’s parent corporation transmitted the letter to DEFENDANT’s representative in Tampa who, in turn, provided it to PLAINTIFFS. After careful examination and review, PLAINTIFFS advised station news management that nothing in the letter raised any credible claim as to the truthfulness, accuracy, or fairness of the reports. Nonetheless, PLAINTIFFS made it clear they were concerned about the threatening nature of the Cadwalader letter, particularly the part which read: "There is a lot at stake in what is going on in Florida, not only for Monsanto, but also for Fox News and its owner¼" and "on behalf of Monsanto, I ask that you and your Fox News colleagues consider thoroughly what is at stake and the enormous damage that can be done by the reckless presentation of unsupported speculation as fact and the equally reckless publication of unsupported accusations or innuendo of fraud, deception and bribery in connection with something as serious as the obtaining of approvals for a product such as rBST."


19. NEW WORLD notified PLAINTIFFS later that same day of the decision to postpone the planned broadcasts to more carefully review claims made in the letter. The station’s news director at the time, Daniel Webster, admitted to PLAINTIFFS that the reports were being withheld solely because of the Cadwalader letter. Despite their decision, radio announcements continued to run through the weekend and most of the day Monday.
 

GreenBean

Council Member
Nobody but you would be dumb enough to believe that a station would schedule a program for airing let alone make commercials promoting the story before the people responsible for the station's content would have seen the report. In fact they would have seen the various parts of the story while the reporters were working on it.


NO CONSPIRACY JUST THE FACTS.

16. After initial review of the PLAINTIFFS’ reports, NEW WORLD’s agents were sufficiently satisfied with the quality and truthfulness of each and all of them that NEW WORLD purchased, at great expense, commercial air time on local radio stations for the purposes of broadcasting promotional announcements produced by NEW WORLD to alert television viewers that the four-part series would be broadcast on Channel 13 beginning Monday, February 24, 1997.

17. On Friday, February 21, 1997, the last business day prior to the scheduled broadcast of the reports, the president of another division of NEW WORLD’s parent company, News Corp Inc, received a letter (attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference as Exhibit "C") from John J. Walsh, an attorney for the New York law firm of Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft, retained by the Monsanto Company to challenge and stifle PLAINTIFFS’ reports. Citing false claims and innuendo based on hearsay, Mr. Walsh advised the News Corp executive that "Monsanto officials and scientists who have been interviewed by AKRE and WILSON or talked to them on the telephone have no confidence now in their ability to write a fair and unbiased story."

18. Later the same Friday, officials of WTVT’s parent corporation transmitted the letter to DEFENDANT’s representative in Tampa who, in turn, provided it to PLAINTIFFS. After careful examination and review, PLAINTIFFS advised station news management that nothing in the letter raised any credible claim as to the truthfulness, accuracy, or fairness of the reports. Nonetheless, PLAINTIFFS made it clear they were concerned about the threatening nature of the Cadwalader letter, particularly the part which read: "There is a lot at stake in what is going on in Florida, not only for Monsanto, but also for Fox News and its owner¼" and "on behalf of Monsanto, I ask that you and your Fox News colleagues consider thoroughly what is at stake and the enormous damage thcan be done by the reckless presentation of unsupported speculation as fact and the equally reckless publication of unsupported accusations or innuendo of fraud, deception and bribery in connection with something as serious as the obtaining of approvals for a product such as rBST."

19. NEW WORLD notified PLAINTIFFS later that same day of the decision to postpone the planned broadcasts to more carefully review claims made in the letter. The station’s news director at the time, Daniel Webster, admitted to PLAINTIFFS that the reports were being withheld solely because of the Cadwalader letter. Despite their decision, radio announcements continued to run through the weekend and most of the day Monday.

Look little fella -I already told you this conservation is over, you lost -better luck next time - regards -good bye - see ya - f. off - caio- have a nice life sore loser - sayonara
 
Top