old but unbelievable fox news story
O-PGManager
-In 1997 Fox reporter reports on the safety of Monsanto's artificial
growth hormone* for cows, the story does not bode well for monsanto
-Fox cooperates with Monsanto to try to muzzle the story
-The reporters don't cooperate with the muzzle job
-The reporters are fired for insubordination
-Reporters sue for wrongful termination under some whistleblower
protection - they were being forced to publish a story they knew was false
-They win their case for 400k, an absolute slam dunk with the jury
-In the appeals court, Fox News argues the whisteblower protection
shouldn't apply - it only protects people who call out law breaking - Fox
attorneys argue the 1st amendment gives them the right to knowingly lie
and report inaccurately - since publishing intentionally false news is
entirely legal, they had grounds to fire anyone who didn't want to go
along with it for insubordination. They win the appeal. Thank you
conservative justices.
I don't want to debate the case - I understand there are honest arguments
to be made for both sides - but I just want to point out that -
Fox News argued in open court that the 1st amendment gives them the right
to knowingly lie and report inaccurately.
And yet millions like iMike still rely on them purportedly to get accurate
information - if that's not a colossal failure of the free market I don't
know what is.
*side note: every other 1st world country had banned this product by 2000
except the US (the FDA says its safe) if that doesn't urge you to spend an
extra 2$ for organic milk i dont know what will)
Opie-GManager
Rec.Gambling.Poker
Assistant Newsgroup Coordinator reporting to Mr. Popinjay
_______________________________________________________________________
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
Irish Mike
> Case from 2003, but I just heard it - here's my summary:
Wow! Opie goes back 12 years and posts that Fox News filed a false story.
I am shocked - shocked I tell you! Well thank God Opie only listens to
the one true, honest and unbiased news source MSNBC. And not just that.
He cross checks stories with Bill Mahr, Huffington Post and Daily Kos to
verify their factual accuracy. Thanks so much for looking out for us Opie!
Irish Mike
O-PGManager
> Wow! Opie goes back 12 years and posts that Fox News filed a false story.
iMike I am shocked, shocked, that you missed the point of the post. Your
reading comprehension is usually so stellar. Fox filing a fake story is
not what you were supposed to focus on, the point is that they argued
right out in open court:
The 1st Amendment gives them the right to knowingly and intentionally lie.
Opie-GManager
Rec.Gambling.Poker
Assistant Newsgroup Coordinator reporting to Mr. Popinjay
------
Clave
news:2k7dh7x...@recgroups.com...
> On Jul 19 2010 1:20 AM, Irish Mike wrote:
>
>> Wow! Opie goes back 12 years and posts that Fox News filed a false
>> story.
>
> iMike I am shocked, shocked, that you missed the point of the post. Your
> reading comprehension is usually so stellar. Fox filing a fake story is
> not what you were supposed to focus on, the point is that they argued
> right out in open court:
>
> The 1st Amendment gives them the right to knowingly and intentionally lie.
And they won.
Jim
Irish Mike
> On Jul 19 2010 1:20 AM, Irish Mike wrote:
>
> > Wow! Opie goes back 12 years and posts that Fox News filed a false story.
>
> iMike I am shocked, shocked, that you missed the point of the post. Your
> reading comprehension is usually so stellar. Fox filing a fake story is
> not what you were supposed to focus on, the point is that they argued
> right out in open court:
>
> The 1st Amendment gives them the right to knowingly and intentionally lie.
>
> Opie-GManager
Let me put it this way Opie. If you told me it was Tuesday, I'd check a
calendar.
Irish Mike
_______________________________________________________________________
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
da pickle
> Case from 2003, but I just heard it - here's my summary:
Your "summary"
"unbelievable"
K9way
my first thought when i read the line about Fox arguing that it was their
right to "lie" about the news was that IMike will go apeshit about this
sure enough he was the first responder in less than 20 minutes ..imagine
that
cant wait to read his rebuttal..lol
-------
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
K9way
> On Jul 19 2010 2:52 AM, O-PGManager wrote:
>
> > On Jul 19 2010 1:20 AM, Irish Mike wrote:
> >
> > > Wow! Opie goes back 12 years and posts that Fox News filed a false
story.
> >
> > iMike I am shocked, shocked, that you missed the point of the post. Your
> > reading comprehension is usually so stellar. Fox filing a fake story is
> > not what you were supposed to focus on, the point is that they argued
> > right out in open court:
> >
> > The 1st Amendment gives them the right to knowingly and intentionally lie.
> >
> > Opie-GManager
>
>
> Let me put it this way Opie. If you told me it was Tuesday, I'd check a
> calendar.
>
> Irish Mike
i believe this .. his head is so far up his ass that he wouldnt KNOW what
day it was like the rest of us
teed that one up way too high Imoron
do you have a telephone number or a social security number or an address
or a ....
Alim's answer: None of those track my every move
-------
Tom White
> Fox News argued in open court that the 1st amendment gives them the right
> to knowingly lie and report inaccurately.
Perhaps Fox News's attorney was making the point that the 1st
amendment applies to speech and not to the speaker's state of
mind, so the court need not determine what Fox thought before
deciding the case.
This "state of mind" business so preoccupies the Left that
policy discussions between Left and Right quickly degenerate
into the Left delving into individuals' mental states.
The Left will sometimes turn the quest for a person's
state of mind into Theater of the Absurd. Robert Byrd's
funeral offered Bill Clinton the opportunity to explain
Byrd's past Klan affiliation as necessary to win elections
in West Virginia. "Byrd did bad things to win early elections
but quit doing them and apologized later when the electoral
climate changed" sounds pejorative to me; better to leave
out the guesswork and go with "Byrd did bad things but later
quit doing them and apologized".
O-PGManager
> O-PGManager <ad6...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
> > Fox News argued in open court that the 1st amendment gives them the right
> > to knowingly lie and report inaccurately.
>
> Perhaps Fox News's attorney was making the point that the 1st
> amendment applies to speech and not to the speaker's state of
> mind, so the court need not determine what Fox thought before
> deciding the case.
The argument the Fox News attorney made was pretty clear. Willful lying
is protected by the 1st amendment - so whisteblower protections don't
apply. No need to speculate.
> Robert Byrd's
> funeral offered Bill Clinton the opportunity to explain
> Byrd's past Klan affiliation as necessary to win elections
> in West Virginia. "Byrd did bad things to win early elections
> but quit doing them and apologized later when the electoral
> climate changed" sounds pejorative to me;
That sounds pejorative to me as well. Probably why I generally find "3rd
way" Democrats like Bill Clinton and Barack Obama so irritating.
Opie-GManager
Rec.Gambling.Poker
Assistant Newsgroup Coordinator reporting to Mr. Popinjay
____________________________________________________________________
da pickle
"O-PGManager"
> The argument the Fox News attorney made was pretty clear. Willful lying
> is protected by the 1st amendment - so whisteblower protections don't
> apply. No need to speculate.
I agree that in these sorts of discussions, speculation is really bad. Do
you have a link to the transcript of the arguements made in the case that
you are talking about? That would put an end to this speculation.
mo_charles
no need to speculate, it's "pretty clear".
mo_charles
-----
BillB
"O-PGManager" <ad6...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
I think you are reading far too much into what amounts to a technical legal
argument (and an apparently correct one) by FOX's counsel. No illegal act =
no whistleblower shield, 1st Amendment = no illegal act, therefore...you
owe us $1.7 million in legal costs.
O-PGManager
> " No illegal act =
> no whistleblower shield, 1st Amendment = no illegal act, therefore...you
> owe us $1.7 million in legal costs.
Preface all of that with "intentionally lying" =
and I think you summed it up. They admitted in open court they
intentionally lied.
Opie-GManager
Rec.Gambling.Poker
Assistant Newsgroup Coordinator reporting to Mr. Popinjay
______________________________________________________________________
da pickle
>> " No illegal act =
>> no whistleblower shield, 1st Amendment = no illegal act,
>> therefore...you
>> owe us $1.7 million in legal costs.
>
> Preface all of that with "intentionally lying" =
>
> and I think you summed it up. They admitted in open court they
> intentionally lied.
Both of you seem to be reading from the same transcript ... do you have a
cite?
ramashiva
> Both of you seem to be reading from the same transcript ... do you have a cite?
Ever hear of Google? It took me about two minutes to find this.
William Coleman (ramashiva)
da pickle
> Both of you seem to be reading from the same transcript ... do you have a
> cite?
Ever hear of Google? It took me about two minutes to find this.
========================
Thank you very much, ramashiva ... however, there is nothing in the opinion
that supports the claim that:
"Fox News argued in open court that the 1st amendment gives them
the right to knowingly lie and report inaccurately."
Also, there is this:
"Fox filing a fake story is not what you were supposed to focus on,
the point is that they argued right out in open court:
The 1st Amendment gives them the right to knowingly and intentionally lie."
That is not mentioned either. Maybe we have the wrong case.
(Your case is not against "Fox News" either, maybe that is the mistake.)
Also, just for good measure, it appears that the "fake" story was never
aired at all.
Whatever the merits of the original post, it does not appear that the jury
in the case you cite, ramashiva, believed any of the evidence presented
against the station.
The opinion does not seem to pretty clearly support any of the comments made
herein.
It is possible that we are not reading the correct case. Maybe the other
guys have the citation that they are reading.
ramashiva
> Both of you seem to be reading from the same transcript ... do you have a cite?
Here is a rather lengthy analysis which justifies your scepticism that
Fox ever argued that they had a right to lie in their news broadcasts
--
http://www.campaignfreedom.org/blog/detail/fox-lies-videotape-debunking-an-internet-myth
William Coleman (ramashiva)
ramashiva
> Maybe we have the wrong case.
> (Your case is not against "Fox News" either, maybe that is the mistake.)
It's the right case. WTVT is a Fox affiliate.
Read the link I provided in my second post.
William Coleman (ramashiva)
O-PGManager
> Here is a rather lengthy analysis which justifies your scepticism that
> Fox ever argued that they had a right to lie in their news broadcasts
> --
>
>
http://www.campaignfreedom.org/blog/detail/fox-lies-videotape-debunking-an-internet-myth
>
Pretty convincing analysis that the "Argued the right to lie" claim is
overblown.
Opie-GManager
Rec.Gambling.Poker
Assistant Newsgroup Coordinator reporting to Mr. Popinjay
_____________________________________________________________________
: the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com
da pickle
> Maybe we have the wrong case.
> (Your case is not against "Fox News" either, maybe that is the mistake.)
It's the right case. WTVT is a Fox affiliate.
Read the link I provided in my second post.
=========================
Thanks, Bill, the whole thread did make a lot of sense.
ramashiva
> On Jul 19 2010 6:53 PM, ramashiva wrote:
> > Here is a rather lengthy analysis which justifies your scepticism that
> > Fox ever argued that they had a right to lie in their news broadcasts
> > --
> http://www.campaignfreedom.org/blog/detail/fox-lies-videotape-debunki...
> Pretty convincing analysis that the "Argued the right to lie" claim is
> overblown.
Yup. Don't feel bad. I had exactly the same opinion of the case as
you. I figured Pickle was just being his usual contrarian self and
refusing to admit the obvious. I like Google challenges and found the
appeals court opinion without much trouble. When I saw the decision
was on the narrow technical grounds of whether the FCC policy against
false news broadcasts qualified as a rule under the Florida
whistleblowers law, I Googled some more and found the article I
linked.
It is "pretty clear" that --
The Fox affiliate never argued that they have a right to lie in their
news broadcasts, and that the Fox affiliate never admitted in court
that they made a false news broadcast.
This is a classic internet myth which has been repeated so often that
everyone just assumes it is true.
William Coleman (ramashiva)
O-PGManager
> The Fox affiliate never argued that they have a right to lie in their
> news broadcasts, and that the Fox affiliate never admitted in court
> that they made a false news broadcast.
But the ruling would have left them in the clear even if they had - and a
jury did find them guilty of wrongful termination of a whisteblower. (Or
liable, not sure if guilty is the right term)
This is probably the source of the confusion - and people like myselves
obvious (what I consider warranted) knee jerk bias against anything Fox
News.
Opie-GManager
Rec.Gambling.Poker
Assistant Newsgroup Coordinator reporting to Mr. Popinjay
-----
Clave
> On Jul 19 2010 6:53 PM, ramashiva wrote:
>
>> Here is a rather lengthy analysis which justifies your scepticism that
>> Fox ever argued that they had a right to lie in their news broadcasts
>> --
>>
>>
> http://www.campaignfreedom.org/blog/detail/fox-lies-videotape-debunking-an-internet-myth
>>
>
> Pretty convincing analysis that the "Argued the right to lie" claim is
> overblown.
Overblown perhaps, but not untrue.
Remember, Fox didn't argue that they didn't attempt to distort the story.
They argued that Akre had no standing as a "whistleblower".
IOW, they argued that contrary to popular perception of the time, no
applicable FCC "rule" against lying or distorting the news existed, so by
implication, the right to lie did (and does).
One wonders why such a circuitous (and expensive) legal argument was pursued
when an honest "we didn't pressure them to lie" would have closed the case
immediately.
Jim
O-PGManager
> > Pretty convincing analysis that the "Argued the right to lie" claim is
> > overblown.
>
> Overblown perhaps, but not untrue.
>
> Remember, Fox didn't argue that they didn't attempt to distort the story.
I'm pretty sure they did argue that (honestly, why wouldn't they?)- it was
just a very, very weak argument so the "not technically a whisteblower"
argument was a much stronger defense.
Opie-GManager
Rec.Gambling.Poker
Assistant Newsgroup Coordinator reporting to Mr. Popinjay
----
Clave
> On Jul 19 2010 10:58 PM, Clave wrote:
>
>> > Pretty convincing analysis that the "Argued the right to lie" claim is
>> > overblown.
>>
>> Overblown perhaps, but not untrue.
>>
>> Remember, Fox didn't argue that they didn't attempt to distort the story.
>
> I'm pretty sure they did argue that (honestly, why wouldn't they?)
Because they couldn't?
> - it was just a very, very weak argument
Weak as in laughable...
> so the "not technically a whisteblower"
> argument was a much stronger defense.
Pretty much the point, which is why "argued the right to lie" has the legs
it does.
Jim
da pickle
> Pretty much the point, which is why "argued the right to lie" has the legs
> it does.
So, the conclusion is that it is pretty clear that an inaccurate assumption
is obviously OK as long as it is misapplied to Fox News. You guy ... that
is rich.
Why not just substitute "Jay Leno" as the tag line and let it get some
"legs."
(Rhetorical ... no real answers necessary ... however, feel free to find any
"point" you wish.)
Tom White
In contrast, here's a story about biased reporting that will be deemed
to have no legs at all:
Documents show media plotting to kill stories about Rev. Jeremiah Wright
According to records obtained by The Daily Caller, at several points
during the 2008 presidential campaign a group of liberal journalists
took radical steps to protect their favored candidate. Employees of
news organizations including Time, Politico, the Huffington Post,
the Baltimore Sun, the Guardian, Salon and the New Republic participated
in outpourings of anger over how Obama had been treated in the media,
and in some cases plotted to fix the damage.
http://dailycaller.com/2010/07/20/documents-show-media-plotting-to-kill-stories-
about-rev-jeremiah-wright/
or
Jerry Sturdivant
"Tom White" <tomi...@bulldogcountry.com> wrote in message
news:i24adq$j3l$1...@nntp.msstate.edu...
And this behaviour differs from FOX how?
Jerry 'n Vegas
Tom White
> And this behaviour differs from FOX how?
The story is about individual employees from different news
organizations discussing how to shield candidate Obama from
bad press during the Democratic primary.
New York Times reporters working with Fox News employees to
promote McCain's candidacy has yet to be documented.
Clave
> "Clave"
>
> > Pretty much the point, which is why "argued the right to lie" has the legs
> > it does.
>
> So, the conclusion is that it is pretty clear that an inaccurate assumption
> is obviously OK as long as it is misapplied to Fox News. You guy ... that
> is rich.
<...>
I didn't *assume* anything. My conclusion follows directly from the
facts of the case.
Sorry you can't follow the argument, but that's not my problem.
Jim
John_Brian_K
>
> mo_charles
lol
===================
I CAN make this shit up!
===================
Part Time Assistant Coordinator
JBK
____________________________________________________________________
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
John_Brian_K
> you have a link to the transcript of the arguements made in the case that
> you are talking about? That would put an end to this speculation.
I found this:
http://www.prwatch.org/prwissues/1998Q2/foxbgh.html
===================
I CAN make this shit up!
===================
Part Time Assistant Coordinator
JBK
---
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
John_Brian_K
> is protected by the 1st amendment - so whisteblower protections don't
> apply. No need to speculate.
And this somehow only works for Fox news?
===================
I CAN make this shit up!
===================
Part Time Assistant Coordinator
JBK
--------
ramashiva
> http://www.prwatch.org/prwissues/1998Q2/foxbgh.html
"We paid $3 billion for these television stations. We will decide what
the news is. The news is what we tell you it is."
LOL. Murdoch's minions speak.
Good catch, JBK. Not directly relevant to the court cases discussed
in this thread, but good background material on the events leading up
to the court cases.
William Coleman (ramashiva)
Travel A
facts of the case.
I wrote:
Right, you have zero reading comprehension ability. How many times must
you and Turd be told.
Turd and Clavey's greatest fantasy is dreaming about how they were
picked to sit on the O.J. jury.