Fair and Balanced?

FAIR AND BALANCED?



February 27, 2003, 1400 PST (FTW) -- Last year FTW reported on an encouraging lower court victory by two TV reporters who had been fired by a Florida FOX affiliate for refusing to air a story containing false and inaccurate information. The story, describing the dangers of widespread growth hormone use by dairy farmers, was ultimately slanted by FOX to protect its advertising revenues.

An Organic Consumers report now brings us the saddening news that a Florida Appeals court has overturned the original ruling on the grounds that there is absolutely nothing illegal about lying, concealing or distorting information by a major press organization. -- FTW

organicconsumers.org...



Court Reverses Ruling on Jane Akre's rBGH Suit

Feb. 21, 2003

Accepting a defense rejected by three other Florida state judges on at least six separate motions, a Florida appeals court has reversed the $425,000 jury verdict in favor of journalist Jane Akre who charged she was pressured by Fox Television management and lawyers to air what she knew and documented to be false information.

In a six-page written decision released February 14, the court essentially ruled the journalist never stated a valid whistle- blower claim because, they ruled, it is technically not against any law, rule, or regulation to deliberately lie or distort the news on a television broadcast.

In the lawsuit filed in 1998, Akre claimed she was wrongfully terminated for threatening to blow the whistle to the FCC. After a five-week trial that ended August 18, 2000, a six-person jury was unanimous in its conclusion that she was indeed fired for threatening report the station's pressure to broadcast what jurors decided was "a false, distorted, or slanted" story about the widespread use of growth hormone in dairy cows.

In overturning the jury on what amounts to a legal technicality, the court did not dispute the heart of Akre's claim, that Fox pressured her to broadcast a false story to protect the broadcaster from having to defend the truth in court, as well as suffer the ire of irate advertisers.

Nonetheless, the station aired a report in wake of the ruling saying it was "totally vindicated" by the verdict.

The "threshold issue," the court wrote-and all it ruled upon--was whether the technical qualifications for a whistleblower claim were ever met by Akre. In Florida, to file such a claim, the employer's misconduct must be a violation of an adopted law, rule or regulation. Fox argued from the first-and failed on three separate occasions in front of three different judges-to have the case tossed out on the grounds there is no hard, fast, and written rule against deliberate distortion of the news.

In essence, the news organization owned by media baron Rupert Murdoch, argued the First Amendment gives broadcasters the right to even lie or deliberately distort news reports on the public airwaves.

In its opinion, the Court of Appeal held that the Federal Communications Commission position against news distortion is only a "policy," not a promulgated law, rule, or regulation. The court let stand without comment the jury verdict that awarded nothing to Steve Wilson, Akre's husband and co-plaintiff in the case. He aggressively represented himself at trial, paving the way for Fox attorneys to suggest he was as aggressive in the newsroom as he was in the courtroom and perhaps that was why he was fired.

Akre and Wilson were meeting with their attorneys to discuss a possible appeal of the ruling to Florida's Supreme Court and are expected to have an announcement and further comment soon. For further information:

www.foxBGHsuit.com...

[Reposted under Fair Use Copyright Laws]

www.fair.org...

Well, now we know we can believe the media, so many of us get our news from.

Lift your glasses high to a well informed public.

Hate to say it, but this is nothing new, and it doesnt surprise me in the least. The Cabal has been controlling the news media for years. The one and only method for people to get even halfway correctly informed has been through small independent sources on the internet, and by and large, many of these have been branded as heretical or otherwise fringe based lunatics by the major media as a method of debunking them.


A few excellent sources of less-than-normal biased sources are:


www.drudgereport.com...


www.surfingtheapocalypse.com...


www.infowars.com...

www.page1news.com...

"The one and only method for people to get even halfway correctly informed has been through small independent sources on the internet"


this is not true, the stories on the internet are even more suspect than those on TV or newspaper. The websites you list do contain interesting stories and links to other fringe sites but they are just as bad CNN, CBS whatever.

If you want to know the truth or halfway to it do some research from first hand sources, try to build some contacts and make sure you don`t get taken in by the crap on the TV, Newspaper or net.

cassini,

How very unfortunate that I have to agree with you. We live in a world where communication is taken for granted, yet one needs to constantly question what exactly is being communicated.

It takes a high degree of discretion and previously absorbed wisdom to discern most information being pumped at us.

I have a common practice when interesting information comes to my attention...I don't believe it until proven otherwise. Don't construe this with receiving and believing the daily weather report...the key word is *interesting* info.

For instance, I don't believe some information provided by:

> The Bush administration
> NASA
> Our historians' view on the history of our planet
> Current religious theory and practice

This is but a smattering of subject matter I would regard as more disinformation than information.

deleted

www.fauxnewschannel.com...

Considering all the disinformation that is being spread, I think the safe thing is to reconsider everything we have ever been taught. Remember, a building built on a bad foundation, wont stand the test of time

Information is no different

All Seeing Eye,

Thanks for your compliment, however, I would like to point out that I am no longer thinking about subject matter, rather reacting to it.

Your comment about reconsidering everything we've been taught is interesting. Suppose an intelligent, enlightened individual works for 30 years developing and publicizing a book of profound discoveries. Would the average person absorb this radical information? My answer would be an emphatic NO.

Why? Because we have all been programmed to accept the current facts of life with no exceptions. Let's face it, there are only a small percentage of people who have the guts to challenge current beliefs and dogma. My hats off to all of the challengers of status quo.

deleted

Personally, I consider the author Douglas Adams (Author of the five-book trilogy for Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy) to be very skilled at turning social mores & common assumptions upside down...And doing it in a humorous & irrelevant manner.