Holy Cripes!  ...read disgusting 'court decision' attached below...
Where are our 'Best Role Models' ?
 
'Real' honest TV Announcers should fight for their
 'Only the Truth!' reputations.
 
and ...
 
We now have 3 - 6 advertisements between TV segments ... 
should we 'doubt' so called 'truth' in every Ad?
Rupert Murdoch ???
 

 
Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 6:59 AM
Subject: FLORIDA COURT RULING SAYS MEDIA CAN LEGALLY LIE


**       FLORIDA COURT RULING SAYS MEDIA CAN LEGALLY LIE  **

On February 14, a Florida Appeals Court ruled that there is absolutely nothing illegal in a major media organisation lying, concealing or distorting information. The
court reversed the US$425,000 jury verdict of 2000 that was in favour 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. 

On August 18, 2000, a six?person jury was unanimous in its conclusion that Akre was indeed fired for threatening to report the station's pressure to broadcast what
jurors decided was "a false, distorted or slanted" story about the widespread use of Monsanto's rBGH, a genetically engineered growth hormone given to dairy
cows. 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. 

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 there is no hard,
fast and written rule against deliberate distortion of the news. The attorneys for Fox, owned by media baron Rupert Murdoch, argued that the First Amendment
gives broadcasters the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on the public airwaves. 

The Court of Appeals, in its six?page written decision, held that the Federal Communications Commission's position against news distortion is only a "policy", not a
promulgated law, rule or regulation. 

Fox aired a report after the ruling was handed down, saying that it was "totally vindicated" by the verdict. 

(Source: Sierra Times, March 1, 2003, http://www.sierratimes.com/O3/02/28/arpubmg022803.htm; also see the website http://www.foxBGHsuit.com)

 



 

Appellate Court Rules Media Can Legally Lie. 

By Mike Gaddy. Published 02. 28. 03 at 19:31 Sierra Time 

 

On February 14, a Florida Appeals court ruled there is absolutely nothing illegal about lying, concealing or distorting information by a major press organization. The court 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. The ruling basically declares it is technically not against any law, rule, or regulation to deliberately lie or distort the
news on a television broadcast. 

 

On August 18, 2000, a six-person jury was unanimous in its conclusion that Akre was indeed fired for threatening to 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. 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. 

 

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. The attorneys for Fox, owned by media baron Rupert Murdock, argued the First Amendment gives
broadcasters the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on the public airwaves. 

 

In its six-page written decision, the Court of Appeals held that the Federal Communications Commission position against news distortion is only a "policy," not a promulgated law, rule, or regulation. 

 

Fox aired a report after the ruling saying it was
 "totally vindicated" by the verdict.

 

 SierraTimes.com 

 

Hidden Danger in Your Milk?

 

http://www.foxBGHsuit.com

 

JURY VERDICT OVERTURNED ON LEGAL ECHNICALITY 

 

Welcome to the online news source for anyone who drinks milk or consumes other dairy products…and depends on the news media to report suspected health concerns accurately and honestly. 

 

Here you will find behind-the-scenes details about how a large share of America’s milk supply has quietly become adulterated with the effects of a synthetic hormone (bovine growth hormone, or BGH) secretly injected into cows…and how pressure from the hormone maker Monsanto led Fox TV to fire two of its award-winning reporters and sweep under the rug much of what they discovered but were never allowed to broadcast. 

 

After a five-week trial and six hours of deliberation which ended August 18, 2000, a Florida state court jury unanimously determined that Fox "acted intentionally and deliberately to falsify or distort the plaintiffs' news reporting on BGH." In that decision, the jury also found that Jane's threat to blow the whistle on Fox's
misconduct to the FCC was the sole reason for the termination... and the jury awarded $425,000 in damages which makes her eligible to apply for reimbursement for all court costs, expenses and legal fees.

 

Fox appealed and prevailed February 14, 2003 when an appeals court issued a ruling reversing the jury, accepting a defense argument that had been rejected by three other judges on at least six separate occasions. CLICK HERE for more details on latest ruling. CLICK HERE to view how Fox13 reported the ruling. 

 

The whistle-blowing journalists, twice refused Fox offers of big-money deals to keep quiet about what they knew, filed their landmark lawsuit April 2, 1998 and survived three Fox efforts to have their case summarily dismissed. It is the first time journalists have used a whistleblower law to seek a legal remedy for being fired
by for refusing to distort the news. Steve and Jane are now considering an appeal to the Florida state Supreme Court. 

 

The journalists happen to be married to each other and this website, created by their friend and former television news producer Jon Duffey, was posted on the day the whistleblower suit was filed. It continues to provide details of the suit and subsequent appeals, as well as recent developments regarding rBGH and other
genetically engineered foods. 

 

Click the buttons to the right to learn more about this lawsuit and the controversy surrounding milk and other genetically modified foods and how they are being covered in the media, learn what you can do to help, and even post your own thoughts on our Bulletin Board. New developments in the journalists’ lawsuit and the latest important news about BGH and GE foods and media coverage issues are posted regularly. You are invited to return often and click the blue box at the top of
this page to keep up to date with these important issues. 

 

Copyright ©2000-2003 Target Television Enterprises, Inc. "

  

. .

and now .... the stations......