Time For Change: FLORIDA COURT RULING SAYS MEDIA CAN LEGALLY LIE
|
Submitted by: Truemensa  Subscribe to this Author Paste this code into your site to promote this story! |
http://www.netfeed.com/~jhill/RupertMurdoch.htm
Type of Content: Video 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 include knowingly false information in their report concerning the Monsanto Corporation's production of RBGH, a drug designed to make cows produce more milk than what is natural. Side effects of the drug include a 25% greater chance of mastitis (infection of the udders). They successfully sued under Florida's 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. In 2001, Jane Akre and her husband won the Goldman Environmental Prize as a recognition for their report on RBGH. [1] The court agreed with WTVT's (Fox) argument "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.[...] 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."[1] In 2004, Fox filed a US$1.7 million counter-suit against Akre and Wilson for trial fees and costs. In 2007 Jane became the editor-in-chief of the national news desk at InjuryBoard.com[2]. Read »
Created 29 weeks 2 days ago
|
- Flag as offensive
- Login or register to post comments
- 62 reads
Not to take Fox's side, but the court is right--for the wrong reasons. Free speech includes lies. The FCC's rules, regulations, or policies, whatever they are, are restrictions of free speech.
It is up to each individual, not the FCC or any other government agency, to determine what is true or false. We can choose to believe what we are told, or we can check facts and educate ourselves. It is our choice.
Think about this for a minute. If the FCC mandates that news reports must be true, the implication is that "they couldn't broadcast it if it wasn't true." A truth requirement is an implicit stamp of FCC approval on every broadcast not specifically questioned by the FCC. Once we look to the FCC to punish liars, we abdicate our responsibility to inform and judge for ourselves.
How can an entity that is full of liars (government) be trusted to expose and punish liars?
Instead of using the whistleblower statute, perhaps they should have sued under their contract with Fox. If Fox, as their employer, directed them to take action that would damage their professional reputations (lying), they were right to refuse. Could they not seek damages on these grounds?
> Think about this for a minute. If the FCC mandates that news reports must be true, the implication is that "they couldn't broadcast it if it wasn't true."
the implication is that they "wouldn't" broadcast it if it wasn't true because they would be liable if someone wanted to challenge the broadcast. this is what the case here is, they broadcast something that wasn't true as news, they were challenged on it and nothing happened. so the result is that a great number of people saw a report on the news which they have absolutely no reason to believe was false. there's something wrong about that.
> A truth requirement is an implicit stamp of FCC approval on every broadcast not specifically questioned by the FCC.
not a stamp of approval, but rather a safeguard. i think something like it would build trust between the viewer and the newscaster when the viewer is well aware that what he's watching on the news is true to the point where it cannot be challenged by a third party. furthermore, i would not be surprised if there was a great number of people that assume that that is already the way it is. i certainly thought that there were regulations and legal requirements that news content had to meet. which is why this story surprised me.
> Once we look to the FCC to punish liars, we abdicate our responsibility to inform and judge for ourselves.
i think you're using too broad a brush here. we're confining this to newscasts, not everybody and everything. this is not a free speech issue.
you're not suggesting that every viewer do research on what effects chocolate has on heart disease when the newsman says it's bad for you? the news broadcasts are not fiction, they're called "news" for a reason. it's a healthy habit to do research yourself on things that matter to you, but you can't expect common people to double check the news cast.
> How can an entity that is full of liars (government) be trusted to expose and punish liars?
this whole topic is a little complicated for me so i don't really have a firm idea of how i think things should be implemented but i do think that newscasters should be liable for the integrity of their content. what regulatory body would be best suited for this task? i don't know. maybe just a law would do it. in any case, i think that most people are already under the impression that news content cannot, by some sort of regulation, include lies.
i read about this some time ago, the thing that bothered me about this is:
[....] the FCC's news distortion policy is not a "law, rule, or regulation" under section 448.102 [....]
it's not a law for news to be the truth. that's mind blowing.
Lets review..
Monsanto brought us - Dioxin, PCBs, Agent Orange, rBGH, GMO seeds, aspertame, control of the food supply (corporate goal), FDA politics, suing small farmers, suing cooperatives, superfund toxin sites, and buying influence in Washington.
Read this article - "Monsanto’s Harvest of Fear"
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/05/monsanto200805