Truth be damned! Fox News Wins Lawsuit to Legally DISTORT news!

[Tref]

In other news, the Wall Street Journal has just announced the winner of the 2008 presidential race!

... Fox News reporters Jane Akre and Steve Wilson ... (they) discovered the harmful effects of bovine growth hormone (BGH) on Florida cows, tainting drinking milk, their Fox bosses immediately requested grand revisions. Evidently, BGH’s chief manufacturer, Monsanto Corporation, had filed a lawsuit against Fox to pull the “distorted story.”

Akre and Wilson declined ... (and) were then promptly fired from the station. Not willing to be squashed by Big Media, the reporters promptly sued Fox for wrongful dismissal and won a settlement. But Fox retaliated with an appeal and the verdict was over-turned.

... Fox ... told the courts there are no rules against distorting the news. They argued the First Amendment Right protected broadcasters when they deliberately lie in their news reports. Yes, that’s right: the media can legally report bullsh*t.

The appeals judge ruled that distorted reporting is not illegal. This angered journalists at Project Censored so intensely, they wrote:
The position implies that First Amendment rights belong to the employers – in this case the five power media groups. And when convenient, the First Amendment becomes a broad shield to hide behind. Let’s not forget, however; the airwaves belong to the people. Is there no public interest left—while these media giants make their private fortunes using the public airwaves?


To read story, click here (http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/207068/
Is_American_Media_Failing_Us_)

[sleepyjeff]

I just don't get why so many non-conservatives have an obsession with Fox News.....

It's not like you watch it(or do you;) )

It would be like me constantly harping on the low level of theme at Magic Mt.....a park I never visit and have no intention of visiting :confused:

[Tref]

I just don't get why so many non-conservatives have an obsession with Fox News.....

Should we ignore evil? Should we ignore lies? Should we ignore abuse?

Who drinks the majority of the milk produced? Children? Probably. Fox was willing to lie to YOU to support a growth hormone in OUR food that could be harmful to our children.

Does that make sense?

This is bad, folks. Take a look at what happens when you deregulate -- how many more cases of botulism in our food, how many more sewer pipes need to explode, before we realise how bad things are right now. And we want to give more control to corporations?

This is not a left or right wing thing -- this is about purposely distorting potentially harmful information to satisfy an advertiser.

Ronald Reagan was the worst president we ever had. More dangerous then Bush, because for some reason many folks still respect the guy. I see that Reagan quote on the board from time to time, saying (paraphrase) the worst thing you can hear is "I'm from the government and I am here to help"

No. Worse ... Hi, I am from Monsanto (insert coporate name here) and I am here to help.

[Ghoulish Delight]

So because it's not aimed at me as its target audience, I shouldn't be concerned about the fact that it spreads lies as news?

[innerSpaceman]

But ... um why would spreading lies as news be illegal? There's no reason for it to be. It is, indeed, a free speech right. The right to lie. They cannot slander, but they may indeed lie.

[sleepyjeff]

Should we ignore evil? Should we ignore lies? Should we ignore abuse?





So because it's not aimed at me as its target audience, I shouldn't be concerned about the fact that it spreads lies as news?

Let me try an example here(and I am horrible at these analogies so bear with me) to better illustrate what I am saying:

If you were standing at a bus stop and someone said something that wasn't true(in your opinion, of course) to someone else standing there you might interupt and tell them that they are wrong.........but would you follow them around all day telling everyone they encountered that they are wrong?

Concerened is one thing but I am talking about what seems to me to be an obsession.

[Tref]

Let me try an example here(and I am horrible at these analogies so bear with me) to better illustrate what I am saying:

If you were standing at a bus stop and someone said something that wasn't true(in your opinion, of course) to someone else standing there you might interupt and tell them that they are wrong.........but would you follow them around all day telling everyone they encountered that they are wrong?

Concerened is one thing but I am talking about what seems to me to be an obsession.

Well, what if that person told somebody else the lie and they told somebody else the lie and so on and so on. Pretty soon it is the truth as we know it. In the meantime, our children drink milk with growth hormones and we have girls reaching puberty at nine, abnormally tall five year olds, etc ...

But anyway ... I am hep to what you are saying, SJ. I just don't agree.

[Gemini Cricket]

All I know is if I had to choose between Anderson Cooper and Bill O'Reilly, I'd sleep with Mr. Cooper.
:D

[Ghoulish Delight]

If you were standing at a bus stop and someone said something that wasn't true(in your opinion, of course) to someone else standing there you might interupt and tell them that they are wrong.........but would you follow them around all day telling everyone they encountered that they are wrong?

And if I came across that same person at the same bus stop every day, and he had a bullhorn yelling the same lies to every person who passed by?

[sleepyjeff]

Should we ignore evil? Should we ignore lies? Should we ignore abuse?



I suppose not.

And if I came across that same person at the same bus stop every day, and he had a bullhorn yelling the same lies to every person who passed by?

Good point.

Still; not too long ago we were talking about how horrible Fox was for doing a story about Mr. Rogers.....when NPR did the same story. To me this says that you're more concerned about conservatives being lied to than non-cons.....which is where my confusion comes in.

[sleepyjeff]

All I know is if I had to choose between Anderson Cooper and Bill O'Reilly, I'd sleep with Mr. Cooper.
:D

Me too....but ONLY if I had to choose between the two:eek:

[Ghoulish Delight]

I suppose not.



Good point.

Still; not too long ago we were talking about how horrible Fox was for doing a story about Mr. Rogers.....when NPR did the same story. To me this says that you're more concerned about conservatives being lied to than non-cons.....which is where my confusion comes in.It's not about what stories are covered, it's how they're covered.

I didn't hear the NPR version of the story, so I can't comment on it.

[scaeagles]

I don't know.... (http://atlanta.creativeloafing.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A13239)

Sounds like these guys are pretty self serving. But I guess it's all about what you want to believe.

Court documents show Wilson conceded "there's not really a lot of difference between" their script and what was approved by their managers.


And Sugg wrote that the two had been fired by the station for repeated acts of insubordination. That was the station’s position. The reporters claimed they were fired for being whistleblowers. The station prevailed when an appeals court ruled the state’s whistleblower statute didn’t apply.

[alphabassettgrrl]

I guess the end result is to recognize which news outlets can be trusted for something resembling truth, and which lie or ... interpret the happenings in ways that mirror a particular objective.

[€uroMeinke]

This all presumes the existence of truth - the existence of lies is easy to determine, but truth is another matter

[Ol' Bill]

All news on tv now are based on opinions and lies. That's why I don't watch it.

[sleepyjeff]

All news on tv now are based on opinions and lies. That's why I don't watch it.

Not even the 700 Club:D

[Ol' Bill]

Not even the 700 Club:D

No I watch that, it's good entertainment. ;)