reply to post by GradyPhilpott
"The facts of the case are not outined in your citation" - k, LOOK. I'm not your student. If you can't Google news the articles or you didn't
read the New York Times pieces on this, then that's not really my problem. I get really annoyed reading so often on these forums, people posting
simple "can you find this for me, or can someone research this for me." If you have questions, look it up. If you can't find it, then ask, but so
much of this is readily available. I wouldn't be upset if it wasn't so readily available.
My points were not preposterous. The reporters were working on an investigation into Monsanto.
Monsanto is responsible for dozens of contaminated sites. Their genetically engineered corn has been shown to cause obesity. As well as liver and
kidney toxins to build in your body. They created terminator seeds, that basically requires food producers to buy from them every year a new stock.
Ironically, the first seeds they patented were stolen. They took seeds from the Indian farms and altered them so the seed would not reproduce. They
patented it. Then told all the farmers to grow anything with their original seed was against the law. Thankfully, there was enough push back that they
agreed not to do this for now. It only took thousands of farmers committing suicide to draw enough attention to the matter. The bovine growth hormone
they were using, which the Fox reporters uncovered, was found to cause cancers, which was the major thing that Monsanto wanted cut from the story. So
that's a short little description of the most recent events with that company.
You know, questions like "was Ruprt Murdoch involved" or the exact subsidiary that was involved is ridiculous. Fox has put a lot of money, and
fought this case under direction of the parent company. I understand that in a legal sense, all these different companies have barriers existing
between them but in every practical way they are connected and controlled.
We don't obsolve Enron for their own collapse, for purposely cutting power to Californians to mess with the energy market and reap profits, or for
their array of dummy companies to hide debt because there's a complex legal structure in place. In fact, in Enron's case, the bulk of the bad debt
was held outside the parent company. So to claim, because they slap a different company label on it, it's somehow outside the organization is how
business attempts to shrug liability while continuing to maintain control.
I have one question that I would like you to answer. Do you believe it is a good sign that a news organization actively makes the claim that they have
no obligation under any FCC policy, or any law, to report the truth, and the courts agree with them?
The case between the reporters and Fox is also an entry but it's very sparse and in depth news articles had more information than Wikipedia. The case
is ongoing so that may be a reason. There are websites devoted to following it.