News stations can legally lie all they want.

[truthmatters]

http://www.foxbghsuit.com/complaint.htm

This is the suit that desided it.

Fox news ordered two employees to falsify the facts in a story about growth hormones in milk cows to please the corporate world and they sued fox.

They won the case and on appeal the Judge handed Fox the win because the Judge found Fox news had a point that News stations dont have to tell the truth.

The judge said Fox news can lie all they want legally.

Makes you proud dont it?

[Dilloduck]

http://www.foxbghsuit.com/complaint.htm

This is the suit that desided it.

Fox news ordered two employees to falsify the facts in a story about growth hormones in milk cows to please the corporate world and they sued fox.

They won the case and on appeal the Judge handed Fox the win because the Judge found Fox news had a point that News stations dont have to tell the truth.

The judge said Fox news can lie all they want legally.

Makes you proud dont it?

And only Fox lies ? :poke:

[truthmatters]

When was the last time someone sued one of the other stations for trying to make them lie?

When was the last time one of the other stations defended themselves in a court of law by saying it was their legal right to lie to the public?

Im sure they probably do lie from time to time to curry corporate favor this is just the best evidence of who REALLY does this.

[Dilloduck]

When was the last time someone sued one of the other stations for trying to make them lie?

When was the last time one of the other stations defended thenselves in a court of law by saying it was their legal right to lie to the puplic?

Im sure they probably do lie from time to time to curry corporate favor this is just the best evidence of who REALLY does this.

Nice try---They all lie and THAT is the real danger. But naturally you're gonna ignore that.

[truthmatters]

I just gave you hard proof of Fox being liars and said others probably do the same to curry corporate favor .How pray tell is that me ignoring anything such as you claim?

[Dilloduck]

I just gave you hard proof of Fox being liars and said others probably do the same to curry corporate favor .How pray tell is that me ignoring anything such as you claim?

You focus on the evils of conservative-ANYTHING. It makes you intellectually blind

[stephanie]

I find it amusing all the people who have a hard on for Fox news...

It must be that #1 status they have...:laugh2:

[PostmodernProphet]

http://www.foxbghsuit.com/complaint.htm

This is the suit that desided it.

Fox news ordered two employees to falsify the facts in a story about growth hormones in milk cows to please the corporate world and they sued fox.

They won the case and on appeal the Judge handed Fox the win because the Judge found Fox news had a point that News stations dont have to tell the truth.

The judge said Fox news can lie all they want legally.

Makes you proud dont it?

??....TM?....the link you provided is to the complaint and answer of the parties to that case.....if you read the complaint and answer you will find that both parties accuse the other of falsifying information....

now, if you want to read the final decision of the court, it is here....

http://www.2dca.org/opinion/February%2014,%202003/2D01-529.pdf

the court did not decide, as you put it, that Fox news can lie all it wants, or that the reporters they hired can lie all they want...what the court did decide, when they decided in favor of the Fox News affliliate, was that the reporters had sued under the whistleblower's act and the whistleblower's act did not apply because no FCC law, rule, or regulation had been violated.....

thank you for this opportunity to correct your error.....

[truthmatters]

Nice try---They all lie and THAT is the real danger. But naturally you're gonna ignore that.

Where did I ignore that others lies?????

Can you answer honestly?

[Dilloduck]

Where did I ignore that others lies?????

Can you answer honestly?

Fox was the ONLY channel that you named personally. Can you honestly say that you think Democrats lie?

[Dilloduck]

I just gave you hard proof of Fox being liars and said others probably do the same to curry corporate favor .How pray tell is that me ignoring anything such as you claim?

Calling what you found as "proof" is a fine example of how badly you WANTED it to be the truth but I suspect you probably heard it from a liberal website. Dishonesty Is everywhere these days

[manu1959]

??....TM?....the link you provided is to the complaint and answer of the parties to that case.....if you read the complaint and answer you will find that both parties accuse the other of falsifying information....

now, if you want to read the final decision of the court, it is here....

http://www.2dca.org/opinion/February%2014,%202003/2D01-529.pdf

the court did not decide, as you put it, that Fox news can lie all it wants, or that the reporters they hired can lie all they want...what the court did decide, when they decided in favor of the Fox News affliliate, was that the reporters had sued under the whistleblower's act and the whistleblower's act did not apply because no FCC law, rule, or regulation had been violated.....

thank you for this opportunity to correct your error.....

hey look...the TRUTH.....rember...truth matters....:laugh2:

[manu1959]

Where did I ignore that others lies?????

Can you answer honestly?

post #8.....read all the words.....

[avatar4321]

http://www.foxbghsuit.com/complaint.htm

This is the suit that desided it.

Fox news ordered two employees to falsify the facts in a story about growth hormones in milk cows to please the corporate world and they sued fox.

They won the case and on appeal the Judge handed Fox the win because the Judge found Fox news had a point that News stations dont have to tell the truth.

The judge said Fox news can lie all they want legally.

Makes you proud dont it?

Of course the news can lie. Why do you think Dan Rather was fired?

[avatar4321]

When was the last time someone sued one of the other stations for trying to make them lie?

When was the last time one of the other stations defended themselves in a court of law by saying it was their legal right to lie to the public?

Im sure they probably do lie from time to time to curry corporate favor this is just the best evidence of who REALLY does this.

Why would they sue when they agree with the lie?

[JohnDoe]

??....TM?....the link you provided is to the complaint and answer of the parties to that case.....if you read the complaint and answer you will find that both parties accuse the other of falsifying information....

now, if you want to read the final decision of the court, it is here....

http://www.2dca.org/opinion/February%2014,%202003/2D01-529.pdf

the court did not decide, as you put it, that Fox news can lie all it wants, or that the reporters they hired can lie all they want...what the court did decide, when they decided in favor of the Fox News affliliate, was that the reporters had sued under the whistleblower's act and the whistleblower's act did not apply because no FCC law, rule, or regulation had been violated.....

thank you for this opportunity to correct your error.....
ok.

So what was the "end" result? Can Fox news and CNN or whoever continue to lie? or are you saying, the lying was not addressed...only the whistle blower part? but again, the lying was not addressed therefore the lying could and can continue?
DISCLAIMER!!!
haven't gone in to the full link yet, so if I am being an idiot, please allow me to eat crow LATER! hahahaha anyway, going in to the link now!!! ;)

jd

thus they can comtinue to lie?

[truthmatters]

??....TM?....the link you provided is to the complaint and answer of the parties to that case.....if you read the complaint and answer you will find that both parties accuse the other of falsifying information....

now, if you want to read the final decision of the court, it is here....

http://www.2dca.org/opinion/February%2014,%202003/2D01-529.pdf

the court did not decide, as you put it, that Fox news can lie all it wants, or that the reporters they hired can lie all they want...what the court did decide, when they decided in favor of the Fox News affliliate, was that the reporters had sued under the whistleblower's act and the whistleblower's act did not apply because no FCC law, rule, or regulation had been violated.....

thank you for this opportunity to correct your error.....

Which means that the lies about the growth hormone were not breaking FCC law meaning that News can lie and not break any laws.

Several lower courts decided in the favor of the reporter. The appeal was based on the idea that there was no law against a news station lying.

[Yurt]

Of course the news can lie. Why do you think Dan Rather was fired?

:lmao:

uh, "yellow journalism" anyone...


And props to PMP for showing what an idiot TM is. PMP, I can tell the truthmatters to you.

[Yurt]

ok.

So what was the "end" result? Can Fox news and CNN or whoever continue to lie? or are you saying, the lying was not addressed...only the whistle blower part? but again, the lying was not addressed therefore the lying could and can continue?
DISCLAIMER!!!
haven't gone in to the full link yet, so if I am being an idiot, please allow me to eat crow LATER! hahahaha anyway, going in to the link now!!! ;)

jd

thus they can comtinue to lie?

When something is not addressed, that means it is NOT addressed. It does NOT mean that "anything" can continue, because "anything" was not addressed.

[Yurt]

*clarification*

This thread title is totally BS. It is yellow jounalism and false. Another "truthmatters" lie, because liesreallymatter.

[actsnoblemartin]

Ya know, I thought lying was bad, I dont remember the commandment, thou shall not lie if thou are conservative, i thought if said thou shall not lie

i thoughtit was common sense, lying is not acceptible.

Should i assume you only care about IF fox lies, and not the rest of the media?

Ill give you the benefit of the doubt truthmatters, but please be fair

[truthmatters]

http://www.foxbghsuit.com/090201amicusbrief.pdf

start at page 16 and read down where they say they determined that the jury did not have the right to deside if Fox breached the law. Then it goes on where the FCC basically says they cant get involved because it would be them interfering in journalism.

In ohter words no one is in a position to determine if they breached the trust which means they can breach the truth with impunity.

[Abbey Marie]

??....TM?....the link you provided is to the complaint and answer of the parties to that case.....if you read the complaint and answer you will find that both parties accuse the other of falsifying information....

now, if you want to read the final decision of the court, it is here....

http://www.2dca.org/opinion/February%2014,%202003/2D01-529.pdf

the court did not decide, as you put it, that Fox news can lie all it wants, or that the reporters they hired can lie all they want...what the court did decide, when they decided in favor of the Fox News affliliate, was that the reporters had sued under the whistleblower's act and the whistleblower's act did not apply because no FCC law, rule, or regulation had been violated.....

thank you for this opportunity to correct your error.....

AGAIN with a deliberately misleading thread? This is getting beyond ridiculous. It's not even funny anymore. :mad:

[JohnDoe]

Florida's private
sector whistle-blower's statute, section 448.102, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1998). We
reverse.
In December 1996, WTVT hired the appellee, Jane Akre, and her
husband, Steve Wilson, as a husband-and-wife investigative reporting team. Shortly
after Akre and Wilson arrived at WTVT, they began working on a story about the use of
synthetic bovine growth hormone (“BGH”) in Florida dairy cattle. Their work on this
story led to what could be characterized as an eight-month tug-of-war between the
reporters and WTVT’s management and lawyers over the content of the story. Each
time the station asked Wilson and Akre to provide supporting documentation for
statements in the story or to make changes in the content of the story, the reporters
accused the station of attempting to distort the story to favor the manufacturer of BGH.
In September 1997, WTVT notified Akre and Wilson that it was exercising
its option to terminate their employment contracts without cause. Akre and Wilson
-3-
responded in writing to WTVT threatening to file a complaint with the Federal
Communications Commission (“FCC”) alleging that the station had “illegally” edited the
still unfinished BGH report in violation of an FCC policy against federally licensed
broadcasters deliberately distorting the news. The parties never resolved their
differences regarding the content of the story, and consequently, the story never aired.

In April 1998, Akre and Wilson sued WTVT alleging, among other things,
claims under the whistle-blower's statute. Those claims alleged that their terminations
had been in retaliation for their resisting WTVT’s attempts to distort or suppress the
BGH story and for threatening to report the alleged news distortion to the FCC. Akre
also brought claims for declaratory relief and for breach of contract. After a four-week
trial, a jury found against Wilson on all of his claims. The trial court directed a verdict
against Akre on her breach of contract claim, Akre abandoned her claim for declaratory
relief, and the trial court let her whistle-blower claims go to the jury. The jury rejected all
of Akre’s claims except her claim that WTVT retaliated against her in response to her
threat to disclose the alleged news distortion to the FCC. The jury awarded Akre
$425,000 in damages.
While WTVT has raised a number of challenges to the judgment obtained
by Akre, we need not address each challenge because we find as a threshold matter
that Akre failed to state a claim under the whistle-blower's statute. The portion of the
whistle-blower's statute pertinent to this appeal prohibits retaliation against employees
who have “[d]isclosed, or threatened to disclose,” employer conduct that “is in violation
of” a law, rule, or regulation. § 448.102(1)(3). The statute defines a “law, rule or
regulation” as “includ[ing] any statute or . . . any rule or regulation adopted pursuant to
-4-
any federal, state, or local statute or ordinance applicable to the employer and
pertaining to the business.” § 448.101(4), Fla. Stat. (1997). We agree with WTVT that
the FCC’s policy against the intentional falsification of the news – which the FCC has
called its “news distortion policy” – does not qualify as the required “law, rule, or
regulation” under section 448.102.

The FCC has never published its news distortion policy as a regulation
with definitive elements and defenses. Instead, the FCC has developed the policy
through the adjudicatory process in decisions resolving challenges to broadcasters’
licenses. The policy’s roots can be traced to 1949 when the FCC first expressed its
concern regarding deceptive news in very general terms stating that “[a] licensee would
be abusing his position as a public trustee of these important means of mass
communications were he to withhold from expression over his facilities relevant news of
facts concerning a controversy or to slant or distort the news." See Chad Raphael, The
FCC’s Broadcast News Distortion Rules: Regulation by Drooping Eyelid, 6 Comm. L. &
Policy 485, 494 (2001) (quoting Editorializing by Broadcast Licensees, 13 F.C.C. 1246,
1246 (1949)).
The policy did not begin to take shape, however, until 1969 when the FCC
was called upon to investigate complaints regarding news distortion. Raphael at 494.
Notably, the FCC did not take the initiative to investigate these complaints, but rather
acted only after Congress referred complaints it had received to the FCC. In a series of
opinions issued in licensing proceedings between 1969 and 1973, the FCC stated that
when considering the status of a broadcaster’s license, it would take into consideration
proven instances of “deliberate news distortion,” also called “intentional falsification of


.....

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. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment in her favor and remand for entry of a
judgment in favor of WTVT.
Reversed and remanded.
CASANUEVA, J., and GREEN, OLIVER L., SENIOR JUDGE, Concur.

I think this is an interesting case and I am no lawyer, but after reading your link Post Modern, I would say that in my humble opinion, you have it PARTIALLY RIGHT, they did rule against the claim under the whistle blower act, but if you look at the link you gave me it is CLEAR AS DAY that this ruling gave all news agencies the ability to lie... period.

this is what the result was, they said the FCC's rule about news stations lying was not a rule after all... they nullified the FCC's policy about lying, DIDN'T they?

thus giving the okay to lie for all News stations?

again, am I missing something?

jd

[truthmatters]

It is not misleading you just have jaundiced eyes.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.foxbghsuit.com/090201amicusbrief.pdf

start at page 16 and read down where they say they determined that the jury did not have the right to deside if Fox breached the law. Then it goes on where the FCC basically says they cant get involved because it would be them interfering in journalism.

In ohter words no one is in a position to determine if they breached the trust which means they can breach the truth with impunity.

[JohnDoe]

AGAIN with a deliberately misleading thread? This is getting beyond ridiculous. It's not even funny anymore. :mad:

Since you are a lawyer, maybe you could explain the end result of this case's ruling???

pretty please.

jd

[Abbey Marie]

It is not misleading you just have jaundiced eyes.

If my eyes are jaundiced, yours are totally blind. But the good news is, it's reversible. You will have to be deprogrammed from your left wingnut knee-jerk reactions, though. The first step is to drop the lib talking points and start to think for yourself. The second step is to actually read your own cited articles before posting about them.

[Gunny]

http://www.foxbghsuit.com/complaint.htm

This is the suit that desided it.

Fox news ordered two employees to falsify the facts in a story about growth hormones in milk cows to please the corporate world and they sued fox.

They won the case and on appeal the Judge handed Fox the win because the Judge found Fox news had a point that News stations dont have to tell the truth.

The judge said Fox news can lie all they want legally.

Makes you proud dont it?

Why shouldn't they let Fox? They've been letting all the liberal MSM outlets do it for years.

Just more of you being the pot calling the kettle black. Hell, ever read some of YOUR posts?

[truthmatters]

Who got sued?

Now there is no reason to sue anyway because Fox won on appeal by argueing that there is no FCC reg against lying. The FCC basically agreed with them by saying they cant get involved in journalism.

[truthmatters]

If my eyes are jaundiced, yours are totally blind. But the good news is, it's reversible. You will have to be deprogrammed from your left wingnut knee-jerk reactions, though. The first step is to drop the lib talking points and start to think for yourself. The second step is to actually read your own cited articles before posting about them.

Did you read page 16 on?

[JohnDoe]

agai, what does this mean, from the link of the ruling that post modern prophet posted?

to me, it means they can lie.

what does it mean to all of you?


The portion of the
whistle-blower's statute pertinent to this appeal prohibits retaliation against employees
who have “[d]isclosed, or threatened to disclose,” employer conduct that “is in violation
of” a law, rule, or regulation. § 448.102(1)(3). The statute defines a “law, rule or
regulation” as “includ[ing] any statute or . . . any rule or regulation adopted pursuant to
-4-
any federal, state, or local statute or ordinance applicable to the employer and
pertaining to the business.” § 448.101(4), Fla. Stat. (1997). We agree with WTVT that
the FCC’s policy against the intentional falsification of the news – which the FCC has
called its “news distortion policy” – does not qualify as the required “law, rule, or
regulation” under section 448.102.
The FCC has never published its news distortion policy as a regulation
with definitive elements and defenses. Instead, the FCC has developed the policy
through the adjudicatory process in decisions resolving challenges to broadcasters’
licenses. The policy’s roots can be traced to 1949 when the FCC first expressed its
concern regarding deceptive news in very general terms stating that “[a] licensee would
be abusing his position as a public trustee of these important means of mass
communications were he to withhold from expression over his facilities relevant news of
facts concerning a controversy or to slant or distort the news." See Chad Raphael, The
FCC’s Broadcast News Distortion Rules: Regulation by Drooping Eyelid, 6 Comm. L. &
Policy 485, 494 (2001) (quoting Editorializing by Broadcast Licensees, 13 F.C.C. 1246,
1246 (1949)).

[Dilloduck]

Who got sued?

Now there is no reason to sue anyway because Fox won on appeal by argueing that there is no FCC reg against lying. The FCC basically agreed with them by saying they cant get involved in journalism.

Do you really think any of this is new or significant?

[hjmick]

You know, to continue referring to the station in question as "Fox News" is somewhat misleading. It was a local affiliate, not the cable news network division. Just saying.

[manu1959]

You know, to continue referring to the station in question as "Fox News" is somewhat misleading. It was a local affiliate, not the cable news network division. Just saying.

remember truth matters.............

[Dilloduck]

You know, to continue referring to the station in question as "Fox News" is somewhat misleading. It was a local affiliate, not the cable news network division. Just saying.

of course she knows----the whole point of this thread is to trash fox news

[truthmatters]

You know, to continue referring to the station in question as "Fox News" is somewhat misleading. It was a local affiliate, not the cable news network division. Just saying.

Who do you think payed for the lawyers to defend them?

[JohnDoe]

of course she knows----the whole point of this thread is to trash fox news
piddley poo!

Was it a CNN affiliate?

Was it a Msnbc affiliate?

Was it an NBC, or CBS, orABC affiliate?

NO, it wasn't.

I would bet my bottom dollar if this was a CNN affiliate or a CBS affiliate you all would be barking up the same tree and mention that it was a CNN/CBS affiliate....and also I would bet my bottom dollar that you all would be taking the side of the whistleblower....

Do you disagree? (You can answer for just yourself....don't expect you to know if all the others would. :) )

I still see it as all news stations can lie...not just fox, but all!
jd

[Dilloduck]

Who do you think payed for the lawyers to defend them?

Fox of course-- isn't that who you have singled out here?

[darin]

TM - this thread shows why you have no credibility on this site

[Yurt]

I think this is an interesting case and I am no lawyer, but after reading your link Post Modern, I would say that in my humble opinion, you have it PARTIALLY RIGHT, they did rule against the claim under the whistle blower act, but if you look at the link you gave me it is CLEAR AS DAY that this ruling gave all news agencies the ability to lie... period.

this is what the result was, they said the FCC's rule about news stations lying was not a rule after all... they nullified the FCC's policy about lying, DIDN'T they?

thus giving the okay to lie for all News stations?

again, am I missing something?

jd

That was not a "ruling" it was dicta. They did not hold that anyone can lie, they said the FCC has not yet defined that area and it is the FCC's area to define that. Justiciability.

No ruling. This thread is a farce.

[Yurt]

JohnDoe;133988]piddley poo!

[/QUOTE]

:eek:

[JohnDoe]

That was not a "ruling" it was dicta. They did not hold that anyone can lie, they said the FCC has not yet defined that area and it is the FCC's area to define that. Justiciability.

No ruling. This thread is a farce.so the fcc policy in place since 1969 was useless because these supremes decided that now, it was not defined enough???

do you know if the fcc defined it since then? if not, then it would be the fcc that has been the facilitator... of continued lies in the media?

what was the end result of this ruling yurt?

the affiliate was not breaking the law or fcc rules by lying because they said it was not defined enough, right? or WHAT?

please explain it...the end result???


jd

[Yurt]

JohnDoe;134045]so the fcc policy in place since 1969 was useless because these supremes decided that now, it was not defined enough???

Never said that, nor did the court.



do you know if the fcc defined it since then? if not, then it would be the fcc that has been the facilitator... of continued lies in the media?

Hmm, are you the truth judge of all media? What is truth? Let us see:


AMERICA DESERVES PEARL HARBOR

JAPAN ATTACKS AMERICA AT PEARL HARBOR

What is truth to you?


what was the end result of this ruling yurt?

Has already been stated, fact is, the thread title is a bald face lie. Beyond a distortion of facts. Hm, or what you might call a fuzzy truth.



the affiliate was not breaking the law or fcc rules by lying because they said it was not defined enough, right? or WHAT?


That is what you want the case to define, however, it did not. For a law to be broken, a law must be created, in this case, there is not a law that makes anything done "illegal." Thus, it cannot be said that anything done was illegal. We have three branches of government and in this case, we have one branch leaving a legal matter up to another branch, a branch that has the authority to "declare."

The court did not define anything, it made comments. That is all.

[PostmodernProphet]

http://www.foxbghsuit.com/090201amicusbrief.pdf

start at page 16 and read down where they say they determined that the jury did not have the right to deside if Fox breached the law. Then it goes on where the FCC basically says they cant get involved because it would be them interfering in journalism.

In ohter words no one is in a position to determine if they breached the trust which means they can breach the truth with impunity.

truth....the document you are quoting is an amicus brief submitted by a number of news agencies setting forth an argument to the court....therefore, it is wrong to say "they have determined", since this is not a court opinion....it does not come from a judge, it doesn't even come from one of the parties to the case....

from page 16, I also find it interesting that the jury's decision was that the Plaintiff had 'reasonably believed' the information was falsified.....that means that there was no obvious fact of falsification, but it had to be implied through the jury's interpretation of whether a reasonable person is justified in relying upon her conclusions....

finally, the court's decison in the case was not decided upon this issue, but upon the provisions of the whistleblower's act....now, if you had made the initial claim that the federal whistleblower's act would not apply to cases involving misrepresentations of fact by news sources, it would have been accurate....

[Mr. P]

OMG! Ms. Reading Comprehension is venturing into LEGAL case writings! :laugh2::laugh2::laugh2:

[PostmodernProphet]

agai, what does this mean, from the link of the ruling that post modern prophet posted?

to me, it means they can lie.

what does it mean to all of you?


JD....the FCC has a policy that regulates disinformation.....that policy is still in place and will govern how news agencies handle information.....

this case simply states that the federal whistleblower program does not apply, since that policy is not 'law'

now, we have a case in which both parties argued that the other was the one distorting information....the jury did not decide that either had, but they did decide that the reporter was entitled to rely upon her belief that the station had.....the appeals court overturned that assumption and dismissed the case....

the net result is NOT that stations or reporters may lie with impunity, the net result is that this woman was not entitled to use the whistleblower's act....

[PostmodernProphet]

Since you are a lawyer, maybe you could explain the end result of this case's ruling???


??...is that true Abby?....another lawyer interested in theology?....ah, if only I weren't already married.....

[JohnDoe]

Has already been stated, fact is, the thread title is a bald face lie. Beyond a distortion of facts. Hm, or what you might call a fuzzy truth.

i don't care about the thread title? i am asking YOU what the end result of this ruling was? where did it leave us? Can or Can not the media lie without any retribution by the fcc or whistleblowers if suing? a simple answer, will do, to that question.





That is what you want the case to define, however, it did not. For a law to be broken, a law must be created, in this case, there is not a law that makes anything done "illegal." Thus, it cannot be said that anything done was illegal. We have three branches of government and in this case, we have one branch leaving a legal matter up to another branch, a branch that has the authority to "declare."

the SC said that under the whisleblower act, the fcc's policy about lying, did NOT COUNT as a law or rule or regulation... right?

The court did not define anything, it made comments. That is all.

they over turned a lower court's judgement that she deserved compensation for being let go because she reported their falsities to the fcc...under the news distortion policy....


We agree with WTVT that
the FCC’s policy against the intentional falsification of the news – which the FCC has
called its “news distortion policy” – does not qualify as the required “law, rule, or
regulation” under section 448.102.

they ruled that the fcc's policy was not a policy covered, was not a rule....?

the end result of that is what? all news can distort, imo.

and please show me something that makes my conclusion not true? the Sc may not have ruled that they can ''lie'' but ruled the policy against lying from the fcc did not count, THUS allowing them to continue to lie, IF THE NEWS wanted to distort or lie....right or wrong?

i guess i don't understand all of the technicalities that have been brought in to this, and i really don't care about them, i just want to know...

Can the NEWS media lie and get away with it, or not? should i believe everything i hear on the news as truth or not?

jd

[PostmodernProphet]

they over turned a lower court's judgement that she deserved compensation for being let go because she reported their falsities to the fcc...under the news distortion policy....


no, the jury in the lower court made no finding that the statements were false, they found that she believed them to be false and that she acted upon that belief.....according to the pleadings, the station believed HER statements were false....the jury made no conclusions there either....it wasn't relevant to the case....


the end result of that is what? all news can distort, imo.

no, because the FCC's policy wasn't overturned.....it still acts against distortions.....


the Sc may not have ruled

this isn't a SC case, JD....and you are also wrong about everything the court decided....


Can the NEWS media lie and get away with it, or not? should i believe everything i hear on the news as truth or not?


no to both, of course.....the answer was the same before this case and after it.....

[truthmatters]

truth....the document you are quoting is an amicus brief submitted by a number of news agencies setting forth an argument to the court....therefore, it is wrong to say "they have determined", since this is not a court opinion....it does not come from a judge, it doesn't even come from one of the parties to the case....

from page 16, I also find it interesting that the jury's decision was that the Plaintiff had 'reasonably believed' the information was falsified.....that means that there was no obvious fact of falsification, but it had to be implied through the jury's interpretation of whether a reasonable person is justified in relying upon her conclusions....

finally, the court's decison in the case was not decided upon this issue, but upon the provisions of the whistleblower's act....now, if you had made the initial claim that the federal whistleblower's act would not apply to cases involving misrepresentations of fact by news sources, it would have been accurate....


In argument one of of the defendants case they argue the government has no place to determine fact finding of what is broad cast.

Fox news argued that no one was in a place to determine what is fact. That works out to Fox news can say whatever they want on their braodcast.

That means they can call all they want and no one has a legal right to stop them.


To pretend it means something is ......well ........to lie.



http://www.foxbghsuit.com/090201amicusbrief.pdf

start at page 16 and read down where they say they determined that the jury did not have the right to deside if Fox breached the law. Then it goes on where the FCC basically says they cant get involved because it would be them interfering in journalism.

In ohter words no one is in a position to determine if they breached the trust which means they can breach the truth with impunity.

[JohnDoe]

no, the jury in the lower court made no finding that the statements were false, they found that she believed them to be false and that she acted upon that belief.....according to the pleadings, the station believed HER statements were false....the jury made no conclusions there either....it wasn't relevant to the case....

Then the lower court/jurors ruled in her favor and awarded her $450,000 for WHAT, Post Modern? for just believing it to be true? but then that was taken away from her, right



no, because the FCC's policy wasn't overturned.....it still acts against distortions.....

But how can it still act against distortions if what came out of the decision was that the FCC's distortion policy is not a "rule" that would apply for anyone working for them who report their falsities to the Fcc under the whistle blower act?

I mean, doesn't this mean that any employee of any news station that reports a falsity to the FCC and is then fired for it, is NOT protected by the whistle blower act?

They reversed the decision and this woman's $450k that she was receiving for the injustice done to her by the firing, was taken away? Wouldn't this action of not compensating an employee that was wrongfully fired because they reported to the fcc what they felt were falsities, actually be a free pass to continue to do wrong in a company's perspective?



this isn't a SC case, JD....and you are also wrong about everything the court decided....

ok, I suppose I will have to accept that Post Modern, but I guess I am wearing my blonde wig and can't get a handle on her receiving compensation for the wrong done to her and then this being reversed...

no to both, of course.....the answer was the same before this case and after it.....

If it was judged that the Whistle Blower act did not cover employees reporting falsities to the FCC... because it was not considered a "rule", or a "regulation" or a "law", then how can the Fcc find out about these falsities, and how can the lying companies get hit wear it hurts, (their pocketbook), in order to stop them from promoting distortions?

And I am not just speaking of this affiliate news station but ALL news media?

So in the end, are you taking the stand that no news media, not CBS, not Fox not CNN not Msnbc etc can or rather will lie or distort what they report because this FCC distortion rule, and the FCC will somehow find out about it (but not through an employee cuz they are not covered by the whistle blower laws), and punish them in a meaningful manner for it?

Or just that we have never really been protected from distortion in the News because the rules are so lax? Which seems like more of the case to me....cuz I see distortions all the time from all of the news stations...

I don't want to continue with wearing this blonde wig, especially in front of everyone.... :(, but if you want to pm me with anything that might make the "light bulb" go off in my head, I would appreciate it!!!

Also, I will reread the link you provided on the case again, to see if I understand it better the second time around. Sorry for being a ditz on this...

jd

[Dilloduck]

That was not a "ruling" it was dicta. They did not hold that anyone can lie, they said the FCC has not yet defined that area and it is the FCC's area to define that. Justiciability.

No ruling. This thread is a farce.

Well hang onto to your hat. We will probably be blessed with another one soon like--FOX WANTS ALL CUTE PUPPIES AND KITTIES TORTURED TO DEATH.

[truthmatters]

Well hang onto to your hat. We will probably be blessed with another one soon like--FOX WANTS ALL CUTE PUPPIES AND KITTIES TORTURED TO DEATH.


If they have not defined it yet then there is no entity to police the news to make sure it does not simply pass propaganda in place of facts.

This means that news can lie all they want with impunity until the FCC defines how they will do it. heres an example of what can happen: A president selects an FCC guy who will not define it and bingo they can get Fox to say whatever they want to help the said president. That would be really bad for the country huh?

[Dilloduck]

If they have not defined it yet then there is no entity to police the news to make sure it does not simply pass propaganda in place of facts.

This means that news can lie all they want with impunity until the FCC defines how they will do it. heres an example of what can happen: A president selects an FCC guy who will not define it and bingo they can get Fox to say whatever they want to help the said president. That would be really bad for the country huh?

You just really hate Fox, don't you? Fess up --truth matters.

[PostmodernProphet]

So in the end, are you taking the stand that no news media, not CBS, not Fox not CNN not Msnbc etc can or rather will lie or distort what they report because this FCC distortion rule, and the FCC will somehow find out about it (but not through an employee cuz they are not covered by the whistle blower laws), and punish them in a meaningful manner for it?

well, if you want to be accurate, I am merely taking the stand that no liberal should be permitted to misrepresent the results of a court decision simply for the purpose of scoring points.....

no, I disagree with your characterization of the results of this case, for the reasons I have already stated....

[PostmodernProphet]

tart at page 16 and read down where they say they determined that the jury did not have the right to deside if Fox breached the law. Then it goes on where the FCC basically says they cant get involved because it would be them interfering in journalism.

I did so before I responded to you the last time.....my answer stands unchanged.....

[truthmatters]

You just really hate Fox, don't you? Fess up --truth matters.


Im not a fan of anyone who distorts truth for monetary gain.

[Abbey Marie]

Since you are a lawyer, maybe you could explain the end result of this case's ruling???

pretty please.

jd

If I do, it will cost you $300. per hour, payable up front to this organization, on my behalf:

https://contribute.gohunter08.com/contribute.asp

Oh, and it will probably take me quite a long time... :coffee:

[hjmick]

Im not a fan of anyone who distorts truth for monetary gain.

So you don't vote? :D

[gabosaurus]

Fox has been lying since it first went on the air. But then, that is the responsibility of state-run TV, to make the government look good.

[Abbey Marie]

Fox has been lying since it first went on the air. But then, that is the responsibility of state-run TV, to make the government look good.

Kooky, but cute!

[hjmick]

Fox has been lying since it first went on the air. But then, that is the responsibility of state-run TV, to make the government look good.

Fear not, when next a Democratic nominee is elected to the White House, CNN, ABC, CBS, NBC, and MSNBC will all regain their rightful place in pantheon of state run television.

[truthmatters]

Then why did they help him get elected and beat the drums for war leading up to Iraq?

[hjmick]

Then why did they help him get elected and beat the drums for war leading up to Iraq?

I don't think the the majors, with the exception of Fox, played a role in getting him elected, I don't believe they went out of their way to harm him, but I don't believe they helped him either. I don't remember any bias one way or the other prior to the elections, though I am sure some people would argue that the bias fell to the left while others will say it slanted to the right. Perhaps because I view all news with skepticism and deep cynicism I am able to filter out the bias either way.

As for the lead up to the war, patriotism gets ratings, especially when the American people are pissed.

[truthmatters]

In the 04 election cycle they news stations refused to go after the falsehoods the swift vets spewed. They refused to go after the mistakes made in the Iraq war. They refused to talk about the republicans who were under investigation for various things.

In the lead up to the war they refused to present the evidence that things were not lining up like the Admin said they were. They glossed it all over and treat Bush like this regular Joe guy when in fact he is from a wealthy priviledged background. They refused to look at the evidence of his Natinal guard service and Dan Rather was fired for one little piece of evidence which is still not proven false. They fired people who were anti war from their stations.