- Joined
- Dec 3, 2009
- Messages
- 52,009
- Reaction score
- 33,944
- Location
- The Golden State
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
I got this as a passed around email. How much of it is true, I'm not sure. I posted it here to see what comments it might get, and whether anyone was familiar with the story.
If it is true, it is quite an indictment.
I got this as a passed around email. How much of it is true, I'm not sure. I posted it here to see what comments it might get, and whether anyone was familiar with the story.
If it is true, it is quite an indictment.
This is from a movie, actually, that's intended to say bad thing about Fox News (it's a very flawed movie, despite what problems I may have with Fox News) - however, the story clipped here is 100% true.
And I don't see it as an indictment against Fox News at all (considering, this was about a local station, not the cable network) - but it is an indictment about how giant corporations have the ability to squelch free speech with threats of lawsuits.
The bigger news is that.
Oh, and there are 13 states where you can be sued for saying that you think a food is unhealthy: Food libel laws - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This story has been around for a while and it's all true...Fox doesn't deny it, and conservative media ignores it. But what the legal decision on this matter did was make it perfectly okay to lie as far as the FCC is concerned on news broadcasts. Fox was also ordered to pay that woman in the story $425,000 for wrongfull firing and threatening to fire her if she went to the FCC.
They lost on a technicality......
" .... The trial commenced in summer 2000 with a jury dismissing all of the claims brought to trial by Wilson, but siding with one aspect of Akre's complaint, awarding Akre $425000 and agreeing that Akre was a whistleblower because she believed there were violations of the 1934 Federal Communications Act and because she planned on reporting WTVT to the Federal Communications Commission. Reason magazine, referring to the case, noted that Akre's argument in the trial was that Akre and Wilson believed news distortion occurred, but that they did not have to prove this was the case.[16]
An appeal was filed, and a ruling in February 2003 came down in favor of WTVT, who successfully argued that the FCC policy against falsification was not a "law, rule, or regulation", and so the whistle-blower law did 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."[17] The appeal did not address any falsification claims, noting that "as a threshold matter ... Akre failed to state a claim under the whistle-blower's statute," but noted that the lower court ruled against all of Wilson's charges and all of Akre's claims with the exception of the whistleblower claim that was overturned.[17] .... "
As for how others feel...
" ... In Japan, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada, rBST is not approved for use.[35]
In 1990, The European Union placed a moratorium on its sale by all member nations. It was turned into a permanent ban starting from January 1, 2000.[36]
Canada's health board, Health Canada, refused to approve rBST for use on Canadian dairies, citing concerns over animal health.[14] The study found the occurrence of an antibody reaction, possible hypersensitivity, in a subchronic (90-day) study of rbST oral toxicity in rats that resulted in one test animal's developing an antibody response at low dose (0.1 mg/kg/day) after 14 weeks."[37] ... "
Bovine somatotropin - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I got this as a passed around email. How much of it is true, I'm not sure. I posted it here to see what comments it might get, and whether anyone was familiar with the story.
If it is true, it is quite an indictment.
So the suit was lost on appeal on a technicality. Doesn't exactly throw doubt on there having been a cover up, does it? It sounds like the video was legit.
The court decision did not answer the question of whether the story in the video is legit or not. In fact, the appeals decision neatly sidestepped the question, making it irrelevant as far as the court was concerned.
Reminds me of this a bit: OUTFOXED: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism
I think it's a Canadian piece, as I recognize the TVO logo (TV Ontario).
There wasn't a single Fox News anchor mentioned, producer, nothing. This occurred when Fox News had been a station on the air a few months.
A nice little deceptive title, don't cha think? "Fox News whistle blower video" when you break it down you only mean "A local Fox station whistle blower video."
You're as bad as Fox News will ever be, DHN. The people on here just itching for that "gotcah" video or audio piece, and this is the best they can come up with? I would say it's safe to say that Fox News, the TRUE FOX NEWS, must be pretty damn reliable.
EPIC FAIL.
There wasn't a single Fox News anchor mentioned, producer, nothing. This occurred when Fox News had been a station on the air a few months.
A nice little deceptive title, don't cha think? "Fox News whistle blower video" when you break it down you only mean "A local Fox station whistle blower video."
You're as bad as Fox News will ever be, DHN. The people on here just itching for that "gotcah" video or audio piece, and this is the best they can come up with? I would say it's safe to say that Fox News, the TRUE FOX NEWS, must be pretty damn reliable.
EPIC FAIL.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?