The Media’s Legal Right to Lie to You
Around the world citizens are finally waking up to the fact that corporate media peddles lies about junk science. If you wondered how these hucksters get away with it, look no further than this ‘free speech’ lawsuit, cited below.
Way back in the Spring of 2003 an article titled “Court Ruled That Media Can Legally Lie” author Liane Casten revealed that:
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 “Investigators” 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) “a false, distorted or slanted story” 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 Akre’s threat to report the station’s actions to the FCC did not deserve protection under Florida’s whistle blower statute, because Florida’s whistle blower law states that an employer must violate an adopted “law, 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 Akre’s 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, “It’s vindication for WTVT, and we’re very pleased… It’s the case we’ve been making for two years. She never had a legal claim.”
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 “Goldman Environmental” 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 Florida’s Second District. The court implied there was no restriction against distorting the truth. Technically, there was no violation of the news distortion because the FCC’s 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 FOX’s 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, “The 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.”
“Fairness and balance?” Monsanto hardly demonstrated “fairness and balance” when it threatened a lawsuit and demanded the elimination of important, verifiable information!
The Amici position was “If 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.” 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. 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? Can corporations have the power to influence the media reporting, even at the expense of the truth? Apparently so.
In addition, the five “friends” referred to FCC policies. The five admit they are “vitally 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.”
Anyone concerned with media must hear the alarm bells. The Bush FCC, under Michael Powell’s 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 “editorial judgment” is to potentially throw out any pretense at editorial accuracy if the “accuracy” harms a large corporation and its bottom line. This is our “Brave New Media”, 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. “There is no justification for the five stations not to support us,” she said. “Attaching legal fees to whistleblowers is unprecedented, absurd. The ‘business’ 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.”
Indeed. This is what our corporate media, led by such as Rupert Murdoch, have come to. How low we have fallen.
Read more at www.projectcensored.org
Trackback from your site.
Joseph Olson
| #
MonSatanO lied to the crooked FDA on the safety of their glyphosate herbicide, providing two supporting rigged studies, while concealing dozens of conflicting studies. The claim was that a common component of clay soils metabolizes glyphosate toxins within months. Few soils have these components and actual evidence shows residual toxins last 30 years, poisoning soil microbes, waterways and aquifers for decades. New MonSatanO owner Bayer has released secret files involving criminal behavior with a wide range of products. These are crimes against humanity charges, being pursued on multiple levels.
Reply
Carbon Bigfoot
| #
Joe– Paracelsus—- ” it is always the dose that makes the poison and everything is a poison.” Been applying Round-Up for thirty years and in this 76 year old Chemical Engineer’s opinion the minute quantities in the environment do not rise to the toxicity you imply. The increased lifespans of humans and food in their bellies justifies there continue use.
Never did I think you were such a chemiphobe given your genius mentality. I guess that falls in line with your views on the Apollo Moon Landing Conspiracy.
Allegations always need to be verified by facts. And by the way nobody follows manufacturer’s directions–including you.
If you want to get your teeth into something substantial how about EHS threats with 5G implementation.
Reply
richard
| #
Taken from a comment in the Independent paper
“In 2015, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC)claimed that glysophate was “probably carcinogenic”.
Could you have not found time to mention in the article that the IARC panel excluded nearly all papers (including ALL of the large scale human epidemiological studies), based their conclusions on just 8 mostly small, low quality papers?
Could you have not have mentioned that the IARC finding is at odds with the rest of the scientific consensus, that has not found a link between glyphosate and cancer? Independent risk assessments by multiple national and international bodies including the UN/WHO, the EFSA, the EPA and the Australian Pesticides and Veterinary Medicines Authority have repeatedly found glyphosate is not carcinogenic. Only last year a paper was published which followed 55,000 licensed pesticide applicators (i.e. people who are have higher than normal exposure to pesticides) for 20 years. They had no higher incidence of cancer than non users (J Natl Cancer Inst. 2018 May; 110(5): 509–516)
Could you not have mentioned the Reuters reports that showed that the IARC panel made significant changes to the report, and that in all cases those changes deleted conclusions that cleared glyphosate, and replaced them with either neutral ones, or ones that condemned it? (https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/who-iarc-glyphosate/)
Could you not have mentioned that the IARC Monograph’s lead author, Guyton, had announced at an anti-chemical NGO meeting the year before that they would find glyphosate carcinogenic (which makes it look like the evidence was cherry-picked to fit the conclusion, rather than the conclusion being based on the evidence)?
Could you not have mentioned that the IARC panel’s chief (indeed only) scientific advisor Christopher Portier was paid $160,000 to act as a litigation consultant for two law firms that were preparing to sue Monsanto on behalf of glyphosate cancer victims? (This wasn’t declared at the time – it only came out in a court deposition later: https://usrtk.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Deposition-of-CHRISTOPHER-JUDE.pdf)
Could you not have mentioned that Portier also worked for anti-pesticide NGO the Environmental Defense Fund (https://www.edf.org/people/senior-contributing-scientists)? The IARC did not declare Portier’s affiliations with EDF, even though they knew about this clear conflict of interest at least six months earlier.
Could you not have mentioned that the IARC “probably carcinogenic” group also includes such things as sunshine, mobile phones, alcoholic beverages, wood dust, coffee, outdoor pollution, working as a hairdresser, wood smoke, night shifts, hot yerva mate tea and red meat? I’ve yet to see Nokia or Apple being sued by phone users, or heard calls for Starbucks to be banned”
“Glyphosate ‘not likely’ to be carcinogenic
The US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has finally issued a report that the controversial herbicide glyphosate is not likely to cause cancer in humans, after accidentally posting it online – and then quickly removing it in April 2016. Existing animal carcinogenicity and genotoxicity studies were ‘remarkably consistent’ and did not demonstrate a clear association between glyphosate exposure and cancer. Further, the agency noted that epidemiological studies showed no link between the herbicide and cancer. However, the EPA concluded that the association between glyphosate exposure and the risk of non-Hodgkin lymphoma cannot be determined based on the available data. In May 2016, the United Nations and the World Health Organisation also jointly concluded that glyphosate is ’unlikely to pose a carcinogenic risk to humans from exposure through the diet’.
Chemistry World, November 2016, page 11”
Reply
Carbon Bigfoot
| #
Insinuating that Rush Limbaugh is a liar is over the top. Every time a Dem-o-rat opens his/her mouth they lie. They have elevated Lying to an art form.
Obviously you never to Rush—I catch him every day. He dispels the Climate Shamans with aplomb.
Colbert, Kimmel & Fallon have noses longer than Pinocchio and grow longer every night.
Reply
Al Shelton
| #
Yes Carbon B I agree 100%
Reply
John Doran
| #
Dr. Andrew Wakefield has been completely vindicated in his warnings re the MMR vaccine, in court. He has offered to debate anyone. No takers.
The Brit medical establishment closed ranks against him, got him disbarred & drove him from this country.
He is now suing them.
In short, the Brit medical establishment were more interested in protecting big Pharma than the lives of our children.
Gateshead Council just lost a court case against 5G expert Mark Steele.
They had installed weapons grade 5G street lighting & opened a funeral parlour to profit from the cancer deaths they were causing.
Mark Steele blew the whistle & they lied to try to get him jailed. They failed.
It would appear that the elite 1%s depopulation policy is alive & well.
JD.
Reply
John Doran
| #
For Andrew Wakefield use the search box at naturalnews.com
For Mark Steele:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9s8L5CyJGM
26.30 mins
Gateshead Council vs MARK STEELE…GREAT RESULT!!
case no: E 01 NE 627
JD.
Reply
rod
| #
Hear hear and hear it here.
“… liars like Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter…”
What is this, another over-the-top trollic utterance to shake up some controversy, like you did a couple months ago? What a distasteful waste of keyboard finger-tapping. Please stick to science and leave the political correctness to Alyssa Milano and her Hollywood thinkalikes.
Reply
LLOYD
| #
This article mentions the Bush FCC as if we are still in the Bush Administration. HUH???? By the way, SCOTUS has ruled Politicians can also lie to us, and the Police have the purpose to enforce laws, NOT Protect and Serve.
Reply