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

FoxNews: "we report, you decide"

Dawg

President
Supporting Member
Since when ? They have doctored more stories than all of the other networks combined. You must be kidding.
I'm sure you can prove that and wouldn't want to be a LIAR__________go
lets see who was it ABC that did get caught, haven't read of Fox doing the same.
 

Dino

Russian Asset
They didn't sue for the right to tell liberals anything. They sued for the right to LIE in their news stories.
Spam, once again, is LYING.

Variations of the story abound on the internet. Here are excerpts from one that is fairly representative of the general charge:

The Media Can Legally Lie
By Mike Gaddy
In February 2003, a Florida Court of Appeals unanimously agreed with an assertion by FOX News that there is no rule against distorting or falsifying the news in the United States.
Back in December of 1996, Jane Akre and her husband, Steve Wilson, were hired by [FOX affiliate and owned station]… WTVT in Tampa Bay, Florida. In 1997 the team began work on a story about bovine growth hormone (BGH), a controversial substance manufactured by Monsanto Corporation…
According to Akre and Wilson, the station… 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.
. 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.

Other sites report the tale with similar outrage. A sample:

Fox News Wins Lawsuit To Misinform Public – Seriously
Six years ago, Fox News successfully argued in court that it had a constitutional right to report lies
Fox News Has a First Amendment”right to lie”- Updated

Needless to say, those who are not fans of FOX have quickly seized upon this story to bolster the idea that FOX is somehow less than a “legitimate” news organization. After all, what kind of news organization would go to court to protect the”right to lie”to their audience?

For example, reader comments on a recent article at the Huffington Post on the Obama/FOX controversy include multiple references to the story:
“FOX News went to Court, to Sue for the”right to lie”to their viewers.”
“A court in Florida… ruled that Fox was allowed to spread false propaganda on their Fox channels.”
“Fox news is on record in court stating that they lie in their content. Their chief counsel admits this and says so what. It doesn’t matter that we lie and obfuscate as a matter of course in our fake news company. The judge in Florida of course agreed this was fine…”

Clearly, the story that FOX News got a court ruling in favor of its right to “lie” in its news broadcasts has become something of a talking point among the cable news channel’s detractors. There’s only one problem – the story as popularly told is completely false, and is based almost exclusively on hysteria, hyperbole, and half-truths.

There was indeed a lawsuit filed by journalists Jane Akre and Steve Wilson over their dismissal from FOX affiliate WTVT in Tampa, Florida. After that fact, however, the story is far different than how it is popularly portrayed.
To begin with, the popular portrayal almost always omits the rather crucial fact that Akre and Wilson lost almost every one of their claims at the trial court. As the Florida Second District Court of Appeal noted in their ruling:
Akre and Wilson sued WTVT alleging… that their terminations had been in retaliation for their resisting WTVT’s attempts to distort or suppress the BGH story and for threatening to report the alleged news distortion to the FCC. Akre also brought claims for declaratory relief and for breach of contract. After a four-week trial, a jury found against Wilson on all of his claims. The trial court directed a verdict against Akre on her breach of contract claim, Akre abandoned her claim for declaratory relief, and the trial court let her whistle-blower claims go to the jury. The jury rejected all of Akre’s claims except her claim that WTVT retaliated against her in response to her threat to disclose the alleged news distortion to the FCC.
The St. Petersburg Times reported on the jury verdict and similarly reported on the failure of Akre and Wilson to win most of their claims:

The jury of three men and three women deliberated nearly six hours before finding that Fox affiliate Channel 13 had retaliated against Jane Akre for a story about a controversial hormone manufactured by the Monsanto Corp.
However, jurors refused to give any money to Akre’s husband, Steve Wilson, an Emmy-winning reporter who also worked on the story.
And the jury did not believe the couple’s claim that the station bowed to pressure from Monsanto to alter the news report.
Despite the limited victory, Akre and Wilson found vindication in the verdict…

It is also not correct to claim, as the Gaddy story quoted above states, that the jury ruled that the FOX affiliate had, in fact, found that the station had attempted to force Akre and Wilson to air “a false, distorted or slanted story…”
Juries do not write opinions, instead they answer specific questions contained in jury instructions. According to a web site maintained by Akre, the jury question on which she prevailed was:

“Do you find that the Plaintiff Jane Akre has proven, by the greater weight of the evidence, that the Defendant, through its employees or agents, terminated her employment or took other retaliatory personnel action against her, because she threatened to disclose to the Federal Communications Commission under oath, in writing, the broadcast of a false, distorted, or slanted news report which she reasonably believed would violate the prohibition against intentional falsification or distortion of the news on television, if it were aired?”

A careful reading of the jury instruction reveals that the jury was only answering whether they believed Akre had been fired for threatening to lodge a complaint with the FCC alleging broadcast of a false, distorted, or slanted news report, not whether the news report was in fact false, distorted, or slanted.
Akre disputes this interpretation on her own web site, claiming that “The jurors in my case said YES to the fact that Fox was guilty of pressuring me to falsify the news… When you look at the actual jury verdict form, the jury determined it was actually false, distorted, or slanted. In fact, if jurors did not accept that premise, they could not have gone on to find in my favor…”
But the FCC does not share Akre’s interpretation of the jury verdict. In a 2007 decision by the FCC denying a petition by Akre and Wilson demanding that WTVT’s broadcast license not be renewed, the FCC includes the following footnote:

Although there has been much back-and-forth among the parties about whether the jury in the employment lawsuit found that Station WTVT(TV) violated the news distortion policy, the verdict form did not ask the jury to determine whether WTVT(TV) violated the news distortion policy, but rather to determine whether Station WTVT(TV) fired either employee for threatening to disclose what the Petitioners reasonably believed would be a violation of the news distortion policy.
In addition, Akre’s claim that “…if jurors did not accept that premise, they could not have gone on to find in my favor…” is undermined by her own filing with the 2nd District Court of Appeal in response to the appeal filed by WTVT. Akre’s brief states that “Akre had to prove three elements to establish her claim under the Whistle-Blower Act: (1) that WTVT retaliated against her (2) because she threatened to disclose to the FCC (3) conduct she reasonably and in good faith believed was a violation of the FCC’s News Distortion Policy.”
The same brief later devotes several pages to support this contention, stating in part that “WTVT argues that the Act does not prohibit employer retaliation unless the employee proves an “actual” violation of a law, rule, or regulation… [but the] term “violation” as used in the Act has no obvious meaning, and could encompass both perceived violations or proven ones…”
So the trial jury never reached a conclusion on whether the FOX affiliate had violated the news distortion policy, nor did they have to in order to determine she had been fired in response to the threat by Akre and Wilson to file a complaint with the FCC.
More importantly, and more relevant to the examination of whether WTVT actually asserted a”right to lie”in its newscasts, is that there is nothing on record to show that this argument was ever advanced in court.

http://www.campaignfreedom.org/2009/11/03/fox-lies-videotape-debunking-an-internet-myth/
 

Dino

Russian Asset
So you think its fair and balanced to complain about the non action of a coalition of other nations whose existence was only revealed 10 days ago ? The leaders of those other countries don't need to prepare their public or debate the issue within their own governments or prepare their militaries. As far as you and fox are concern they should already be there on the ground ?
10 days?? Yes sure. How long do you think it takes to get a fighter off the ground to conduct a sortie?
There's no "debate" once you join the coalition. You've claimed to be willing to donate to the effort by that point.
 

ya-ta-hey

Mayor
They didn't sue for the right to tell liberals anything. They sued for the right to LIE in their news stories.
Mr. Spam,

Again, just because they say something liberals hate to hear, it doesn't mean it's a lie. However, calling someone a liar is a liberal defense mechanism when they can counter something a conservative says with honest debate.
 

Bugsy McGurk

President
10 days?? Yes sure. How long do you think it takes to get a fighter off the ground to conduct a sortie?
There's no "debate" once you join the coalition. You've claimed to be willing to donate to the effort by that point.
GOP cultists were fine with Poppy Bush and GWB taking months to form their coalitions and refine their military plans as to Iraq.

As to Obama? A few days go by and the "He's dithering!" nonsense begins.

;-)
 

Dino

Russian Asset
GOP cultists were fine with Poppy Bush and GWB taking months to form their coalitions and refine their military plans as to Iraq.

As to Obama? A few days go by and the "He's dithering!" nonsense begins.

;-)
You should learn to read for context before flying off the handle like a buffoon.

This post had NOTHING to do with Obama, dipshiit.
 

Spamature

President
10 days?? Yes sure. How long do you think it takes to get a fighter off the ground to conduct a sortie?
There's no "debate" once you join the coalition. You've claimed to be willing to donate to the effort by that point.
The US is still holding hearing in congress about this matter as we speak. Yet you say the other countries don't need any kind debate the issue before they commit troops.
 

Dino

Russian Asset
The US is still holding hearing in congress about this matter as we speak. Yet you say the other countries don't need any kind debate the issue before they commit troops.
Did we "commit troops"...or fly sorties?

Are you ever honest?
 

Spamature

President
GOP cultists were fine with Poppy Bush and GWB taking months to form their coalitions and refine their military plans as to Iraq.

As to Obama? A few days go by and the "He's dithering!" nonsense begins.

;-)
Let's not forget he offered Turkey a $26 billion bribe if they signed on. Maybe they're holding back hoping they can fleece Obama the same why they did bush.
 

Dino

Russian Asset
Troops haven't been sent to Iraq ?
Does being in a coalition automatically include "sending in troops"? Has it EVER?

Save your tangential rant for someone actually decrying nations not sending in any troops.

And in the meantime, tell us how FoxNews got it wrong- which WAS the subject of this post.
 

Spamature

President




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.
 
Last edited:

Spamature

President
Does being in a coalition automatically include "sending in troops"? Has it EVER?

Save your tangential rant for someone actually decrying nations not sending in any troops.

And in the meantime, tell us how FoxNews got it wrong- which WAS the subject of this post.
Wasn't the stated purpose of gathering a coalition partially to get ground troops other than US troops ?

The subject was Fox conflicting itself in a single screen shot.
 

write on

Senator
Why not? But I don't think they'll show up anyway. They may help in some ways, but I doubt they'll have any boots in Iraq. He doesn't have the support that Bush had, he's lied too often, he doesn't do what he says he'll do, and nobody trusts him any longer.
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.
 
Last edited:
Top