http://worldtraining.net/Fox5.htm
The
Media Can Legally Lie By Mike Gaddy lewrockwell.com.
See also: http://worldtraining.net/Fox.htm http://worldtraining.net/Fox2.htm
http://worldtraining.net/Fox3.htm
http://worldtraining.net/Fox4.htm
In February 2003, a Florida Court of Appeals
unanimously agreed with an assertion by FOX News that there is no rule against
distorting or falsifying the news in the United States. Back in December of
1996, Jane Akre and her husband, Steve Wilson, were
hired by FOX as a part of the Fox ÒInvestigatorsÓ team at WTVT in Tampa Bay,
Florida. In 1997 the team began work on a story about bovine growth hormone
(BGH), a controversial substance manufactured by Monsanto Corporation. The
couple produced a four-part series revealing that there were many health risks
related to BGH and that Florida supermarket chains did little to avoid selling
milk from cows treated with the hormone, despite assuring customers otherwise.
According to Akre and Wilson,
the station was initially very excited about the series. But within a week, Fox
executives and their attorneys wanted the reporters to use statements from
Monsanto representatives that the reporters knew were false and to make other
revisions to the story that were in direct conflict with the facts. Fox editors
then tried to force Akre and Wilson to continue to
produce the distorted story. When they refused and threatened to report Fox's
actions to the FCC, they were both fired. (Project Censored #12 1997)
Akre and Wilson sued the Fox station and on August 18,
2000, a Florida jury unanimously decided that Akre was wrongfully fired by Fox
Television when she refused to broadcast (in the jury's words) Òa false,
distorted or slanted storyÓ about the widespread use of BGH in dairy cows. They
further maintained that she deserved protection under Florida's whistle blower
law. Akre was awarded a $425,000 settlement.
Inexplicably, however, the court decided that Steve Wilson, her partner in the
case, was ruled not wronged by the same actions taken by FOX.
FOX appealed the case, and on February 14, 2003 the
Florida Second District Court of Appeals unanimously overturned the settlement
awarded to Akre. The Court held that AkreÕs threat to report the stationÕs actions to the FCC
did not deserve protection under FloridaÕs whistle blower statute, because
FloridaÕs whistle blower law states that
an employer must violate an adopted Òlaw, rule, or regulation." In a
stunningly narrow interpretation of FCC rules, the Florida Appeals court
claimed that the FCC policy against falsification of the news does not rise to the level of a "law, rule, or regulation,"
it was simply a "policy." Therefore, it is up to the station whether
or not it wants to report honestly.
During their appeal, FOX asserted that there are no written rules against distorting news in
the media. They argued that, under
the First Amendment, broadcasters have the right to lie or deliberately distort
news reports on public airwaves. Fox attorneys did not dispute AkreÕs claim that they pressured her to broadcast a false story, they simply maintained that it was their right to do
so. After the appeal verdict WTVT general manager Bob Linger commented, ÒItÕs
vindication for WTVT, and weÕre very pleasedÉ ItÕs the case weÕve been making
for two years. She never had a legal claim.Ó
UPDATE BY LIANE CASTEN: If we needed any more proof that we now
live in an upside down world, the saga of Jane Akre,
along with her husband, Steve Wilson, could not be more compelling. Akre and
Wilson won the first legal round. Akre was awarded
$425,000 in a jury trial with well-crafted arguments for their wrongful
termination as whistleblowers. And in the process, they also won the
prestigious ÒGoldman EnvironmentalÓ prize for their outstanding efforts.
However, FOX turned around and appealed the verdict. This time, FOX won; the
original verdict was overturned in the Appellate Court of FloridaÕs Second
District. The court implied there was no restriction against distorting the
truth. Technically, there was no violation of the news distortion because the
FCCÕs policy of news distortion does not have the weight of the law. Thus, said
the court, Akre-Wilson never qualified as
whistleblowers.
What is more appalling are the five major media outlets
that filed briefs of Amici Curiae- or friend of FOX
– to support FOXÕs position: Belo Corporation,
Cox Television, Inc., Gannett Co., Inc., Media General Operations, Inc., and
Post-Newsweek Stations, Inc. These are major media players! Their statement,
ÒThe station argued that it simply wanted to ensure that a news story about a
scientific controversy regarding a commercial product was present with fairness
and balance, and to ensure that it had a sound defense to any potential defamation
claim.Ó
ÒFairness and balance?Ó Monsanto hardly demonstrated Òfairness and balanceÓ when it threatened
a lawsuit and demanded the elimination of important, verifiable information! The Amici
position was ÒIf upheld by this court, the decision would convert personnel
actions arising from disagreements over editorial policy into litigation
battles in which state courts would interpret and apply federal policies that
raise significant and delicate constitutional and statutory issues.Ó After all,
Amici argued, 40 states now have Whistleblower laws,
imagine what would happen if employees in those 40 states followed the same
course of action?
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. LetÕs 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? Can corporations have the power to
influence the media reporting, even at the expense of the truth? Apparently so.
In addition, the five ÒfriendsÓ referred to FCC policies. The five admit
they are Òvitally interested in the outcome of this appeal, which will
determine the extent to which state whistleblower laws may incorporate federal
policies that touch on sensitive questions of editorial judgment.Ó Anyone concerned with media must hear
the alarm bells. The Bush FCC, under Michael PowellÕs leadership, has shown
repeatedly that greater media consolidation is encouraged, that liars like Rush
Limbaugh and Ann Coulter are perfectly acceptable, that to refer to the FCC
interpretation of Òeditorial judgmentÓ is to potentially throw out any pretense
at editorial accuracy if the ÒaccuracyÓ harms a large corporation and its
bottom line. This is our ÒBrave New MediaÓ, the corporate media that protects
its friends and now lies, unchallenged if need be.
The next assault: the Fox station then filed a series
of motions in a Tampa Circuit Court seeking more than $1.7 million in trial
fees and costs from both Akre and Wilson. The motions were filed on March 30 and April 16 by Fox attorney,
William McDaniels—who bills his client at $525
to $550 an hour. The costs are to cover legal fees and trial costs
incurred by FOX in defending itself at the first trial. The issue
may be heard by the original trial judge, Ralph Steinberg—a logical step
in the whole process. However, Judge Steinberg must come out of
retirement if he is to hear this, so the hearing, set for June 1, may go to a
new judge, Judge Maye. Akre and her husband feel the
stress. ÒThere is no justification for the five stations not to support us,Ó
she said. ÒAttaching legal fees to whistleblowers is unprecedented, absurd. The
ÔbusinessÕ of broadcasting trumps it all. These
news organizations must ensure they are worthy of the public trust while they
use OUR airwaves, free of charge. Public trust is alarmingly absent here.Ó
Indeed. This is what our corporate media, led by such as Rupert Murdoch, have
come to. How low we have fallen.