moldyoldy wrote:
Fox News gets okay to misinform public, court ruling
03/09/10 11:48 Filed in: Media Reform courtesy of Broadcast Blues
courtesy of The CorporationBookmark and Share UPDATED:Many news agencies lie and distort facts, not many have the guts to admit it...in court...positioning the First Amendment as their defense!
The attorneys for Fox, owned by media baron Rupert Murdoch, successfully argued the First Amendment gives broadcasters the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on the public airwaves.
Fox News gets okay to misinform public, court ruli... (
show quote)
Moldy Oldy, you really need to research things. Do you know who Monsanto is? The FDA? Bio-Tech Labs? Billions of Federal funding and this was a whistle blower issue. Please read my other post on GMOs. But in the mean time, I'll share this with you. Oh by the way, I understand Home Depot/Lowe's etc. carry a great selection of herbicides to suck on for your reading enjoyment.
Jane Akre and her husband Steve Wilson are former employees of Fox owned-and-operated station WTVT in Tampa, Florida. In 1997, they were fired from the station after refusing to knowingly include false information in their report concerning the Monsanto Companys production of RBGH, a drug designed to make cows produce more milk. They successfully sued under Floridas whistle blower law and were awarded a US $425,000 settlement by jury decision. However, Fox appealed to an appellate court and won, after the court declared that the FCC policy against falsification that Fox violated was just a policy and not a law, rule, or regulation, and so the whistle blower law did not apply.
The court agreed with WTVTs (Fox) argument that the FCCs 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.[...] Because the FCCs news distortion policy is not a law, rule, or regulation under section 448.102, Akre has failed to state a claim under the whistle-blowers statute.[1]
In 2001, Jane Akre and her husband won the Goldman Environmental Prize as a recognition for their report on RBGH. [2]
In 2004, Fox filed a US$1.7 million counter-suit against Akre and Wilson for trial fees and costs. Akre and Wilson both appear in a major portion of the 2004/5 critical documentary, The Corporation.
In 2007 Jane became the editor-in-chief of the national news desk at InjuryBoard.com.[3]
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
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.
Many nonorganic dairy farmers regularly inject their cows with artificial growth hormones (rBST, rBGH) to boost milk production. (Other artificial hormones are used to enhance breeding, and others to boost the weight of beef cattle.) - See more at:
http://www.stonyfield.com/blog/no-artificial-hormones-and-antibiotics/#sthash.BmNKlxmb.dpufThe "Monsanto Protection Act" is the name opponents of the Farmer Assurance Provision have given to this terrifying piece of policy, and it's a fitting moniker given its shocking content.
President Barack Obama signed a spending bill, HR 933, into law on Tuesday that includes language that has food and consumer advocates and organic farmers up in arms over their contention that the so-called "Monsanto Protection Act" is a giveaway to corporations that was passed under the cover of darkness.
There's a lot being said about it, but here are five terrifying facts about the Farmer Assurance Provision -- Section 735 of the spending bill -- to get you acquainted with the reasons behind the ongoing uproar:
1.) The "Monsanto Protection Act" effectively bars federal courts from being able to halt the sale or planting of controversial genetically modified (aka GMO) or genetically engineered (GE) seeds, no matter what health issues may arise concerning GMOs in the future. The advent of genetically modified seeds -- which has been driven by the massive Monsanto Company -- and their exploding use in farms across America came on fast and has proved a huge boon for Monsanto's profits.
:thumbup: