Media can legally lie (in the U.S.)

  • 9 Replies
  • 1485 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Grace

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 2864
    • Show only replies by Grace

Media can legally lie (in the U.S.)

  • on: February 12, 2011, 04:40:15 PM
Just in case it was not already mentioned.

Quote
Fox News gets okay to misinform public, court ruling
03/09/10 11:48 Filed in: Media Reform

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. We are pushing for a consumer protection solution that labels news content according to its adherence to ethical journalism standards that have been codified by the Society of Professional Journalists (Ethics: spj.org).
A News Quality Rating System and Content Labeling approach, follows a tradition of consumer protection product labeling, that is very familiar to Americans. The ratings are anti-censorship and can benefit consumers.

Appellate Court Rules Media Can Legally Lie.
By Mike Gaddy. Published Feb. 28, 2003
On February 14, a Florida Appeals court ruled there is absolutely nothing illegal about lying, concealing or distorting information by a major press organization. The court reversed the $425,000 jury verdict in favor of journalist Jane Akre who charged she was pressured by Fox Television management and lawyers to air what she knew and documented to be false information. The ruling basically declares it is technically not against any law, rule, or regulation to deliberately lie or distort the news on a television broadcast.

On August 18, 2000, a six-person jury was unanimous in its conclusion that Akre was indeed fired for threatening to report the station's pressure to broadcast what jurors decided was "a false, distorted, or slanted" story about the widespread use of growth hormone in dairy cows.

The court did not dispute the heart of Akre's claim, that Fox pressured her to broadcast a false story to protect the broadcaster from having to defend the truth in court, as well as suffer the ire of irate advertisers. Fox argued from the first, and failed on three separate occasions, in front of three different judges, to have the case tossed out on the grounds there is no hard, fast, and written rule against deliberate distortion of the news.

The attorneys for Fox, owned by media baron Rupert Murdoch, argued the First Amendment gives broadcasters the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on the public airwaves.

In its six-page written decision, the Court of Appeals held that the Federal Communications Commission position against news distortion is only a "policy," not a promulgated law, rule, or regulation. Fox aired a report after the ruling saying it was "totally vindicated" by the verdict.

http://http://ceasespin.org/ceasespin_blog/ceasespin_blogger_files/fox_news_gets_okay_to_misinform_public.html
« Last Edit: March 03, 2012, 03:26:13 AM by Grace »
Create your day. Create the most astounding year of your life. Be the change you want to see in the world! L.O.V.E.
***********************************************************************************************
"I am tired, I am really tired of manipulation." Michael Jackson, Harlem, New York, NY, July 6, 2002
***********************************************************************************************
******* Let's tear the walls in the brains of this world down.*******

Time to BE.

Online ~Souza~

  • *
  • Administrator
  • Hoaxer
  • *****
  • Mrs. SEHF
  • Posts: 10141
    • Show only replies by ~Souza~
    • Michael Jackson Death Hoax Investigators

Re: Media can legally lie (in the U.S.)

  • on: February 12, 2011, 04:51:32 PM
I guess Harve read those articles as well :lol:

On a serious note: this is of course unbelievable. We know they do, but the fact that they also CAN is disturbing to say the least.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »

Offline Aintnosunshine

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 481
    • Show only replies by Aintnosunshine

Re: Media can legally lie (in the U.S.)

  • on: February 12, 2011, 04:55:23 PM
Yeah, its kind of a shame ... I am highly uncomfortable with the overall ultra-right-wing propaganda of Fox broadcast. Or maybe I am too sensitive (quite familiar with german history)?
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
[size=150]L.O.V.E.  Aintnosunshine[/size]


Offline trustno1

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 654
    • Show only replies by trustno1

Re: Media can legally lie (in the U.S.)

  • on: February 12, 2011, 06:03:48 PM
No wonder they do it so blatantly and without batting an eyelid.  No accountability.  I think that's something most of us have been shouting for for what seems like an eternity.  Accountability and truth.  No wonder MJ sang "You're so damn disrespectable".  The news/media would be a joke if it wasn't so powerful.  The word "news" seems to have a different definition now.
« Last Edit: December 31, 1969, 07:00:00 PM by Guest »
In a world filled with despair, we must still dare to dream.  And in a world filled with distrust, we must still dare to believe.

Offline Grace

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 2864
    • Show only replies by Grace

Re: Media can legally lie (in the U.S.)

  • on: February 13, 2011, 04:44:27 AM
Some background to the story. This is muddy. However fair journalists' fight for truth may make life better in the long run.

Quote
In honor of International Press Freedom Day, My Hero presents the story of Jane Akre and Steve Wilson. These two journalists attempted to tell an important news story which would have exposed a gigantic genetic engineering company. They insisted, moreover, on keeping to the facts of the story, and this cost them their jobs.

This story has been reported in many independent online journalism outlets, including The Texas Observer, and the publication of FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting), and Rachel's Environment and Health Weekly.

Akre and Wilson are 2001 recipients of the Goldman Environmental Prize.

FREEDOM HERO:
JANE AKRE & STEVE WILSON

In 1997, reporters Jane Akre and Steve Wilson discovered that many dairy farmers in Florida were using Recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone (rBGH) to increase milk production. Although the company that makes rBGH, Monsanto, insists that the hormone is safe, Akre and Wilson turned up testimony to the contrary: Farmers who began using rBGH reported seeing health problems in their cattle.

A special website that has been set up to report on the use of rBGH in dairy cattle says, "Though legal since approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 1993, the artificial hormone commonly known as rBGH has been linked to cancer and is banned throughout Europe and unapproved in several other countries because of human health concerns."

The public did not want unnatural stuff in their milk, cheese and ice cream, and grocers knew this. However, because milk from different dairy farms sometimes gets mixed together, it was difficult for the grocers to know whether their milk products did or did not contain rBGH. Furthermore, Monsanto lobbied very hard against the labelling of products, which would give consumers more information and more choices.

Akre and Wilson presented their report to their bosses at WTVT, a news station owned by the Fox network. Although the details were well-documented, Monsanto, the maker of rBGH, pressured WTVT not to run the story. The station bosses, in turn, ordered Akre and Wilson to falsify details of the story. Akre and Wilson re-wrote the story 70 times, but never to the satisfaction of the network. They were locked out of their offices, denied access to crucial bits of information, and finally fired. The story ran in many independent journalism outlets, including The Texas Observer and the publication of FAIR (Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting), and Rachel's Environment and Health Weekly.

There is a law called the Whistleblowers Act that protects people from this sort of abuse, and Akre and Wilson invoked this law by suing Fox for misconduct.

After a five-week trial, a Florida jury hearing the case decided that Fox had "acted intentionally and deliberately to falsify or distort the plaintiffs' news reporting on BGH." Jane Akre was awarded damages for the loss of her job, and may also apply for reimbursement of her legal fees.
http://http://myhero.com/go/hero.asp?hero=j_akre

Quote
Extra! Update, June 1998
"We Paid $3 Billion For These Stations. We'll Decide What the News Is."

Steve Wilson and Jane Akre, a husband-and-wife investigative reporting team at WTVT, Fox's Tampa Bay affiliate, thought they had a dynamite story: Despite promises to consumers, supermarkets in Florida were selling milk produced with rBGH, a synthetic growth hormone developed by Monsanto that boosts milk production. The use of rBGH causes udder infections in cows, requiring increased use of antibiotics, but the monitoring of antibiotic residues in milk was inadequate, Akre and Wilson found.

Most ominously, the Fox reporters found that some scientists believe that rBGH-boosted milk contains heightened levels of IGF-1, a hormone associated with increased risk of cancer (Science, 1/23/98). Despite Monsanto's claim that rBGH is "the most studied molecule certainly in the history of domestic animal science," no thorough studies exist on whether milk produced with rBGH is carcinogenic.

These are vital facts for consumers in Florida--and around the country--to know. But the story never aired on WTVT, and Wilson and Akre are now out of a job and suing Fox--because of Fox's efforts to alter their story to make it acceptable to Monsanto.

On February 21, 1997, days before the first installment of the rBGH story was scheduled to air, Monsanto sent a letter to Roger Ailes, the head of Fox News. (Ailes was a campaign advisor to Ronald Reagan and George Bush, and the executive producer of Rush Limbaugh's TV show.) The letter questioned Akre and Wilson's "objectivity and capacity for reporting on this highly complex scientific subject," and charged that the reporters "have prejudged the safety of [rBGH] and the corporate behavior of Monsanto." The letter urged Ailes to involve himself directly in an effort to "get the facts straight" about rBGH, hinting none-too-subtly that the alternative would be a massive lawsuit: "There is a lot at stake in what is going on in Florida, not only for Monsanto, but also for Fox News and its owner."

That same day, Akre and Wilson were told that their story was being postponed, and an endless round of revisions, cuts and conferences with lawyers ensued. (The pressure only intensified after Monsanto sent Ailes a second letter warning of "dire consequences for Fox News.") Fox's attitude was made clear by in-house counsel Carolyn Forrest, who reportedly told Akre and Wilson, "I don't think this story is worth going to court and to trial spending a couple of hundred thousand dollars to fight Monsanto." Her position, the reporters say, was that "it doesn't matter if the facts are true"; what mattered was that no story air that could result in a Monsanto lawsuit that wouldn't be immediately dismissed.

In a memo, Akre and Wilson assured station management that they were willing to work with lawyers to produce a balanced and accurate story that would be legally unassailable, but insisted that they could not take part in airing a program that was false or misleading. In response, the reporters allege in their lawsuit against Fox, they were told by station manager David Boylan: "We paid $3 billion for these television stations. We will decide what the news is. The news is what we tell you it is."

After dozens of rewrites, the journalists and the station still couldn't agree on a version of the report that everyone was happy with. Fox didn't seem to want to kill the piece, but that appears to have been more about fear of bad PR than about a commitment to report the news: At one point the station offered to pay Wilson roughly $125,000, if he would just go away and never tell anyone how the story had been handled. He turned down the offer.

After Keystone Kops-like personnel maneuvers in which the couple were variously suspended without pay, suspended with pay and forbidden to work out of the studio, Fox eventually notified them by fax that they were both fired on November 30, 1997. The station never aired any version of the story they had produced.

All this has come to light because of Akre and Wilson's lawsuit against the Fox affiliate, charging breach of contract and violation of Florida's whistleblower protection act. How far the suit will get is unclear: Courts have been rightly reluctant to second-guess news judgments made by media owners. But regardless of its outcome, the filing of the suit has shed light on the cowardice and compromise often exhibited by news outlets in the face of corporate pressure.
http://http://www.fair.org/extra/9806/foxbgh.html

Quote
Jane Akre is a former Florida journalist and current editor-in-chief of InjuryBoard.com. She is best known for the whistleblower lawsuit by herself and her husband, Steve Wilson, against Fox Broadcasting Company station WTVT in Tampa, Florida. Akre and Wilson are featured in the 2003 documentary film The Corporation about the same lawsuit.
http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Akre

More:
http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Corporation
http://http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0379225/

Quote
Bovine somatotropin (abbreviated bST and BST), also known as bovine growth hormone, or BGH, is a protein hormone. BST is naturally occurring in cattle, and plays a role in the growth and development of the organism. Since 1994 it has been possible to synthesize the hormone using recombinant DNA technology to create recombinant bovine somatotropin (rBST), recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH), or artificial growth hormone. Monsanto was the first to develop the technology and marketed it as "Posilac" - a brand now owned by Elanco Animal Health, a division of Eli Lilly and Company.

The United States is the only developed nation to permit humans to drink milk from cows given artificial growth hormone.[1] Posilac was banned from use in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Japan and all European Union countries (currently numbering 27), by 2000 or earlier.

In the United States, public opinion has caused a number of products and retailers to become rBST-free.
http://http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bovine_somatotropin


There's hope, however, since Oct 2010 - but only if the public does not stay silent.
Quote
...the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the state of Ohio's ban on labels that identify milk as rBST- or rBGH-free
Quote
Court rules rBGH-free milk *is* better than the kind produced with artificial hormones.
Now what? 59
Grist admin avatar badge avatar for Tom Laskawy
by Tom Laskawy
6 Oct 2010 9:27 AM

Earlier this week, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the state of Ohio's ban on labels that identify milk as rBST- or rBGH-free, meaning produced without the use of artificial bovine growth hormone. Consumer and organic food groups were jubilant at the Ohio news, which may have far-reaching repercussions not only for all milk, but for genetically engineered foods.

First, some background: rBGH stands for recombinant bovine growth hormone; rBST for recombinant bovine somatotropin. Both are a genetically engineered variation on naturally occurring hormone that farmers inject into cows to increase milk production by as much as 10 percent. It has also been proven to increase the incidence of mastitis in cows, which as any breastfeeding mother knows is a painful condition requiring treatment by antibiotics -- and indeed, rBGH use has also upped the use of antibiotics in dairy cattle.

The United States is the only developed nation to allow people to drink milk from cows given artificial growth hormone. All 27 countries of the European Union, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, and Canada have banned its use in milk destined for human consumption.[Update: Brazil does allow it.] In 2007, Monsanto, which created and manufactured Posilac, the most popular form of rBST, began encouraging its dairy-farmer customers to protest their rBGH-free competitors' labeling. Campaigns to restrict rBGH-free labeling were launched in 14 states, as this Ethicurean satire chronicled, but only Ohio passed the effort. In October 2008, Monsanto saw the writing on the dairy wall and dumped Posilac on Eli Lilly.

Thanks to consumer pressure, approximately 60 percent of milk in the U.S. is rBST-free at this point, labeled or not, according to the Center for Food Safety. However, that leaves an enormous amount of milk still being produced with these hormones, and by extension cheese and most brands of ice cream, except for Ben & Jerry's.

Pus budget

The joyful reception to the appeals court's decision is about more than the right of consumers to know what's in their food -- something that may come in handy in the fight over labeling for genetically modified foods such as the new salmon. Much of the appeals court's rationale hinged on its assertion that there is a "compositional difference" between milk produced using the hormones and milk produced without. While the district court denied this fact, the appeals court stated very clearly that such a denial "is belied by the record."

As Jill Richardson helpfully summarized it, compared to untreated milk, rBST milk has:

    * Increased levels of the cancer-causing hormone IGF-1 [more about that in this report from the watchdog group Consumer Union]
    * Lower nutritional quality when produced at certain points in the cow's lactation cycle; and
    * Increased somatic cell counts (i.e. more pus in the milk)

The court's decision notes that those higher somatic cell counts "make the milk turn sour more quickly and is another indicator of poor milk quality."

While the "compositional difference" debate may seem to be semantic wrangling (although that "pus" mention sure is eye-catching!), the appeals court's determination suddenly and unexpectedly undercuts the FDA's entire rationale for allowing the sale of unlabeled rBST milk for human consumption. As with many technological processes, the FDA relies on the fact that the end product, whether it be milk or genetically engineered fish, is indistinguishable in all detectable ways from its conventionally produced counterpart.

For many, like Center for Food Safety attorney George Kimbrell, who coauthored the amicus brief on which the appeals court drew for its ruling, the court's conclusion was a surprise. He told me that going into the appeal, he had thought it "highly unlikely" that the appeals court would address the issue directly, since neither party to the lawsuit brought it up during the underlying case. For him, it's this aspect that makes the ruling truly groundbreaking.

He also observed that the FDA has not addressed the issue in a long time. "Perhaps it is time for FDA to go back and make a new determination about the differences in milk," said Kimbrell.

True -- or false and misleading?

What will the FDA do now? According to FDA spokesperson Siobhan DeLancey, Probably nothing. [An editing error previously mischaracterized my analysis of the FDA's probable inactivity as coming from its spokesperson.]

In an email exchange, FDA spokesperson Siobhan DeLancey sent me an excerpt of the current FDA rBST labeling guidelines, which date back to 1994. In it, the FDA allows producers to label milk voluntarily, but clearly doesn't like it when they do:

    FDA is concerned that the term "rbST free" may imply a compositional difference between milk from treated and untreated cows rather than a difference in the way the milk is produced. Without proper context, such statements could be misleading. Such unqualified statements may imply that milk from untreated cows is safer or of higher quality than milk from treated cows. Such an implication would be false and misleading.

She did assure me, however, that, "If the FDA becomes aware of scientific evidence that there is a compositional difference between the two types of milk, it will reevaluate at that time."

Hmm. Wait a minute. Isn't that what just happened?

I pointed out to her that the appeals court had just established exactly what the FDA claims has not been established, that rBST-free milk "is safer or of higher quality than milk from treated cows" and referred to reams of data indicating just that. So is the agency going to reevaluate?

The FDA had no comment.

Well, glad we cleared that up. In fairness, the agency has not yet had a chance to review the Ohio ruling. Of course, a consumer group could petition the FDA and demand a reevaluation of rBST milk, so that it -- and not its artificial hormone-absent counterpart -- would have to be the one labeled. Indeed, there would be no small irony in Monsanto's campaign to expand the production of rBST-produced milk leading to mandatory labeling for it, much less establishing legal precedent to support labeling of genetically modified foods -- the cornerstone of Monsanto's business -- which some advocates say this ruling provides.

And what of the concern that Monsanto will simply push the state of Ohio to appeal the appeal all the way to the Supremes? Well, the Center for Food Safety's Kimbrell thinks the chances of a successful further appeal are dim. "The bar is set very high" at this point in the process, he said, and success requires finding "big errors of law... either statutory or constitutional in nature" which this decision simply does not have.

Even so, until and unless someone demands the FDA act in response to this ruling, the appeals court yet may find its most surprising and groundbreaking finding quietly ignored.

Tom is a writer and a media & technology consultant who thinks that wrecking the planet is a bad idea. He twitters and blogs here and at Beyond Green about food policy, alternative energy, climate science and politics as well as the multiple and various effects of living on a warming planet.
http://http://www.grist.org/article/food-2010-10-06-court-rules-on-rbgh-free-milk/
« Last Edit: March 03, 2012, 03:25:05 AM by Grace »
Create your day. Create the most astounding year of your life. Be the change you want to see in the world! L.O.V.E.
***********************************************************************************************
"I am tired, I am really tired of manipulation." Michael Jackson, Harlem, New York, NY, July 6, 2002
***********************************************************************************************
******* Let's tear the walls in the brains of this world down.*******

Time to BE.

Offline Grace

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 2864
    • Show only replies by Grace

Re: Media can legally lie (in the U.S.)

  • on: February 13, 2011, 06:06:35 AM
This is giving still more details of the case and the assault against freedom of speech and trustful journalism:
Quote
CMW REPORT, Spring 2003
Title: “Court Ruled That Media Can Legally Lie”
Author: Liane Casten

ORGANIC CONSUMER ASSOCIATION, March 7, 2004
Title: “Florida Appeals Court Orders Akre-Wilson Must Pay Trial Costs for $24.3 Billion Fox Television; Couple Warns Journalists of Danger to Free Speech, Whistle Blower Protection”
Author: Al Krebs

Faculty Evaluator: Liz Burch, Ph.D.
Student Researcher: Sara Brunner

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.

Jane Akre and be reached at: <!-- e -->http://www.oprah.com/own<!-- m -->.
http://http://corporate.discovery.com/discovery-news/own-the-oprah-winfrey-network-unveils-original-pro/


So Fox News as mother company to WTVT - developing later into News Corp - gives in to a letter issued by Monsanto reminding of the "damage that could result from the reportage of Jane Akre and Steve Wilson", fires them and issues defending material in favor of Monsanto's point of view instead.

Quote
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.
And now we find John Malone, Prince Alwaleed and Oprah Winfrey in the circle of business partners with Fox. Are they aware?
« Last Edit: March 03, 2012, 03:20:53 AM by Grace »
Create your day. Create the most astounding year of your life. Be the change you want to see in the world! L.O.V.E.
***********************************************************************************************
"I am tired, I am really tired of manipulation." Michael Jackson, Harlem, New York, NY, July 6, 2002
***********************************************************************************************
******* Let's tear the walls in the brains of this world down.*******

Time to BE.

Offline LoveShyMichael

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 471
  • You don't have to explain something you never said
    • Show only replies by LoveShyMichael

Re: Media can legally lie (in the U.S.)

  • on: March 01, 2012, 07:45:18 PM
The great government hoax of public safety
         

Mike Adams
NaturalNews
March 1, 2012

As the tyranny of destructive government envelops our once-free society, have you noticed how oppression, censorship and government aggression against the people is always defended as somehow protecting public safety?

Consider these astonishing contradictions:

• The government claims that every single air traveler must be intimately searched and confirmed harmless in order to protect the safety of a few hundred passengers on the plane, but that very same government conducts no safety testing whatsoever on each batch of toxic fluoride chemicals dumped into municipal water supplies that threaten the health of tens of millions!

• The government aggressively attacks raw milk farmers and food cooperatives who sell fresh milk to a few hundred people, claiming raw milk is extremely dangerous to the public, yet that same government does absolutely nothing to protect the public from MSG (obesity), aspartame (seizures and blindness), high fructose corn syrup (diabetes), sodium nitrite (cancer) and artificial food colors (behavioral disorders) that impact virtually the entire population! (At least a million times as many people eat MSG than drink raw dairy…)

• The government claims that it has the right to force all children to be forcibly vaccinated because it “protects society,” yet this is by definition an open admission that vaccines don’t work because otherwise all the vaccinated children would be 100% protected against unvaccinated children in the first place (and having unvaccinated children running around wouldn’t matter).

• The FDA is now proposing that long-time nutritional supplement ingredients like vitamin C, ginger root and Echinacea must undergo a lengthy new safety review and approval process, yet the USDA openly approves the widespread experimental planting of genetically modified crops (GMOs) with absolutely no safety testing whatsoever — all under the absurd presumption that GMOs are essentially “identical” to non-GMO crops. Except they aren’t identical, otherwise they couldn’t be patented, could they? What part of the word “modified” does the USDA not grasp?

• In many cities, the government says all children must wear helmets when riding their bicycles while adults are required to wear helmets when they ride motorcycles. But all those same people are openly allowed to go break their legs and crack their skulls wide open on a ski slope without even signing a waiver! Why is bicycling down the sidewalk so dangerous while barreling down a 3,000-foot mountain on a snowboard is acceptably safe? (Hint: because it’s not about safety, it’s about tourism money.)

• The federal government says that private citizens should only prepare for a maximum of a 3-day event such as a hurricane or storm. But the federal government itself has spent tens of billions of dollars building massive underground cave networks where decades of supplies are stockpiled: Food, water, guns, ammunition, medical supplies, communications equipment, non-hybrid seeds and much more. The message? YOU don’t need to be safe, but WE do!

• City police departments claim they can roll their video cameras 24/7, filming you and your actions that happen in public spaces because it’s all part of “public safety.” But what happens when YOU try to film the police in those same public spaces? You get threatened, intimidated and arrested! (http://tv.naturalnews.com/v.asp?v=783B7C44AA93208D325B26FBB54FE025)

So who is keeping the People safe from crooked cops, then?

• The government says its War on Drugs protects the public from all the danger and criminality of the underground drug market. But it’s the government that forced the drug market to go underground by criminalizing it! By choosing to decriminalize all recreational drug use, the government could end the criminality, suck all the profits out of street dealing, end the drug gang violence, collapse the Mexican drug cartels and halt the DEA’s drug war violence which frequently results in rogue agents breaking down the wrong guy’s door in the middle of the night and then shooting the family dog.

If the government really cared about public safety, they would protect the citizens from the DEA!

• You’re supposed to be scared of using nasal irrigation devices which the CDC now warns may cause you to die from “brain-eating amoeba!” (http://denver.cbslocal.com/2012/02/28/cdc-issues-warning-about-nasal-…) But at the same time, when the Fukushima nuclear facility went into a total meltdown and unleashed radioactive fallout across North America, Americans were all told there was nothing to worry about (while the EPA quietly raised the “allowable limits” of radiation exposure by literally 50,000 times or more for some isotopes).

• The CDC and WHO declared a “stage 6 pandemic” over the H5N1 flu scare, setting off a worldwide fear campaign focused on public safety. Yet when evidence continues to surface about all the tens of thousands of children who are stricken with autism each year — mere hours after receiving multiple vaccine shots — the government abandons any thought of safety and quietly pays off the parents of the autistic children through a secret vaccine injury compensation court whose cash payouts require total silence on the part of parents. (http://www.naturalnews.com/033635_vaccine_injury_compensation_governm…)

Other government experiments conducted under the banner of public safety

No matter what the government is trying to pull — banning public protests, stealing an election, starting a war, disarming the nation or pushing a crazy new medical agenda — it’s always framed in the context of “public safety.” Because the government never does anything wrong or abusive to people, does it?

Then what about these true facts of history?

• 1932 – The U.S. Public Health Service in Tuskegee, Ala. diagnoses 400 poor, black sharecroppers with syphilis but never tells them of their illness nor treats them; instead researchers use the men as human guinea pigs to follow the symptoms and progression of the disease. They all eventually die from syphilis and their families are never told that they could have been treated (Goliszek, University of Virginia Health System Health Sciences Library). (http://www.naturalnews.com/019189.html)

• 1945 – The U.S. State Department, Army intelligence and the CIA begin Operation Paperclip, offering Nazi scientists immunity and secret identities in exchange for work on top-secret government projects on aerodynamics and chemical warfare medicine in the United States (“Project Paperclip”).

• 1946 – The U.S. government knowingly funded and deliberately engaged in criminal medical experiments against Guatemalan prisoners, and the scientists engaged in these crimes were then promoted to high levels of influence in the medical community. At least 5,500 people were drafted into the experiments, including children, women and the mentally ill. The number deliberately infected with sexually-transmitted diseases (STDs) exceeded 1,300. Many died.

• 1947 – Col. E.E. Kirkpatrick of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) issues a top-secret document (707075) dated Jan. 8. In it, he writes that “certain radioactive substances are being prepared for intravenous administration to human subjects as a part of the work of the contract” (Goliszek).

A secret AEC document dated April 17 reads, “It is desired that no document be released which refers to experiments with humans that might have an adverse reaction on public opinion or result in legal suits,” revealing that the U.S. government was aware of the health risks its nuclear tests posed to military personnel conducting the tests or nearby civilians (Goliszek).

• 1978 – The CDC begins experimental hepatitis B vaccine trials in New York. Its ads for research subjects specifically ask for promiscuous homosexual men. Professor Wolf Szmuness of the Columbia University School of Public Health had made the vaccine’s infective serum from the pooled blood serum of hepatitis-infected homosexuals and then developed it in chimpanzees, the only animal susceptible to hepatitis B, leading to the theory that HIV originated in chimpanzees before being transferred over to humans via this vaccine. A few months after 1,083 homosexual men receive the vaccine, New York physicians begin noticing cases of Kaposi’s sarcoma, Mycoplasma penetrans and a new strain of herpes virus among New York’s homosexual community — diseases not usually seen among young, American men, but that would later be known as common opportunistic diseases associated with AIDS (Goliszek). (http://www.naturalnews.com/019187.html)

• 1996 – Professor Adil E. Shamoo of the University of Maryland and the organization Citizens for Responsible Care and Research sends a written testimony on the unethical use of veterans in medical research to the U.S. Senate’s Committee on Governmental Affairs, stating: “This type of research is on-going nationwide in medical centers and VA hospitals supported by tens of millions of dollars of taxpayer money. These experiments are high risk and are abusive, causing not only physical and psychic harm to the most vulnerable groups but also degrading our society’s system of basic human values. Probably tens of thousands of patients are being subjected to such experiments” (“Testimony of Adil E. Shamoo, Ph.D.”).

• 1997 – In an experiment sponsored by the U.S. government, researchers withhold medical treatment from HIV-positive African-American pregnant women, giving them a placebo rather than AIDS medication.

Want to learn more true facts about history? Stuff that will boggle your mind? Read “The Rise of the Fourth Reich” by Jim Marrs. He’s the author of The Trillion Dollar Conspiracy which I gave a Book of the Year award in 2011:

http://www.naturalnews.com/033509_Jim_Marrs_Trillion_Dollar_Conspirac

Far from protecting public safety, Big Government is the greatest threat to your safety

Question: Which institution is responsible for the most human suffering, genocide and murder across human history? Is it some terrorist group? Some band of evil rebels?

Nope, it’s government. Government is the single most dangerous entity across human history, responsible for the mass murder of hundreds of millions of people (and growing daily).

Think about it: Government is what puts fluoride poison in your water. Government allows mad scientists to plant GM crops containing death poisons. Government secretly injects schoolchildren without parental consent. Government spies on your phone calls, confiscated your wages, contaminates your food and poisons your water. And then, from time to time, government just murders millions of people.

“Democide” is the term that describes death by government (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democide), and democide turns out to be far more dangerous than war itself! “In the 20th century, democide surpassed war as the leading cause of non-natural death,” says Wikipedia.

So if you really want to protect public safety, there’s only one logical way to do it:

Sharply shrink the size of government! The real risk to your health and safety, it turns out, is not raw milk or dietary supplements but your own government and its unbridled madness.

The smaller the government, it turns out, the safer we all are.

• The federal government says that private citizens should only prepare for a maximum of a 3-day event such as a hurricane or storm. But the federal government itself has spent tens of billions of dollars building massive underground cave networks where decades of supplies are stockpiled: Food, water, guns, ammunition, medical supplies, communications equipment, non-hybrid seeds and much more. The message? YOU don’t need to be safe, but WE do!

• City police departments claim they can roll their video cameras 24/7, filming you and your actions that happen in public spaces because it’s all part of “public safety.” But what happens when YOU try to film the police in those same public spaces? You get threatened, intimidated and arrested! (http://tv.naturalnews.com/v.asp?v=783B7C44AA93208D325B26FBB54FE025)

So who is keeping the People safe from crooked cops, then?

• The government says its War on Drugs protects the public from all the danger and criminality of the underground drug market. But it’s the government that forced the drug market to go underground by criminalizing it! By choosing to decriminalize all recreational drug use, the government could end the criminality, suck all the profits out of street dealing, end the drug gang violence, collapse the Mexican drug cartels and halt the DEA’s drug war violence which frequently results in rogue agents breaking down the wrong guy’s door in the middle of the night and then shooting the family dog.

If the government really cared about public safety, they would protect the citizens from the DEA!

• You’re supposed to be scared of using nasal irrigation devices which the CDC now warns may cause you to die from “brain-eating amoeba!” (http://denver.cbslocal.com/2012/02/28/cdc-issues-warning-about-nasal-…) But at the same time, when the Fukushima nuclear facility went into a total meltdown and unleashed radioactive fallout across North America, Americans were all told there was nothing to worry about (while the EPA quietly raised the “allowable limits” of radiation exposure by literally 50,000 times or more for some isotopes).

• The CDC and WHO declared a “stage 6 pandemic” over the H5N1 flu scare, setting off a worldwide fear campaign focused on public safety. Yet when evidence continues to surface about all the tens of thousands of children who are stricken with autism each year — mere hours after receiving multiple vaccine shots — the government abandons any thought of safety and quietly pays off the parents of the autistic children through a secret vaccine injury compensation court whose cash payouts require total silence on the part of parents. (http://www.naturalnews.com/033635_vaccine_injury_compensation_governm…)

Other government experiments conducted under the banner of public safety

No matter what the government is trying to pull — banning public protests, stealing an election, starting a war, disarming the nation or pushing a crazy new medical agenda — it’s always framed in the context of “public safety.” Because the government never does anything wrong or abusive to people, does it?

Then what about these true facts of history?

• 1932 – The U.S. Public Health Service in Tuskegee, Ala. diagnoses 400 poor, black sharecroppers with syphilis but never tells them of their illness nor treats them; instead researchers use the men as human guinea pigs to follow the symptoms and progression of the disease. They all eventually die from syphilis and their families are never told that they could have been treated (Goliszek, University of Virginia Health System Health Sciences Library). (http://www.naturalnews.com/019189.html)

• 1945 – The U.S. State Department, Army intelligence and the CIA begin Operation Paperclip, offering Nazi scientists immunity and secret identities in exchange for work on top-secret government projects on aerodynamics and chemical warfare medicine in the United States (“Project Paperclip”).

• 1946 – The U.S. government knowingly funded and deliberately engaged in criminal medical experiments against Guatemalan prisoners, and the scientists engaged in these crimes were then promoted to high levels of influence in the medical community. At least 5,500 people were drafted into the experiments, including children, women and the mentally ill. The number deliberately infected with sexually-transmitted diseases (STDs) exceeded 1,300. Many died.

• 1947 – Col. E.E. Kirkpatrick of the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) issues a top-secret document (707075) dated Jan. 8. In it, he writes that “certain radioactive substances are being prepared for intravenous administration to human subjects as a part of the work of the contract” (Goliszek).

A secret AEC document dated April 17 reads, “It is desired that no document be released which refers to experiments with humans that might have an adverse reaction on public opinion or result in legal suits,” revealing that the U.S. government was aware of the health risks its nuclear tests posed to military personnel conducting the tests or nearby civilians (Goliszek).

• 1978 – The CDC begins experimental hepatitis B vaccine trials in New York. Its ads for research subjects specifically ask for promiscuous homosexual men. Professor Wolf Szmuness of the Columbia University School of Public Health had made the vaccine’s infective serum from the pooled blood serum of hepatitis-infected homosexuals and then developed it in chimpanzees, the only animal susceptible to hepatitis B, leading to the theory that HIV originated in chimpanzees before being transferred over to humans via this vaccine. A few months after 1,083 homosexual men receive the vaccine, New York physicians begin noticing cases of Kaposi’s sarcoma, Mycoplasma penetrans and a new strain of herpes virus among New York’s homosexual community — diseases not usually seen among young, American men, but that would later be known as common opportunistic diseases associated with AIDS (Goliszek). (http://www.naturalnews.com/019187.html)

• 1996 – Professor Adil E. Shamoo of the University of Maryland and the organization Citizens for Responsible Care and Research sends a written testimony on the unethical use of veterans in medical research to the U.S. Senate’s Committee on Governmental Affairs, stating: “This type of research is on-going nationwide in medical centers and VA hospitals supported by tens of millions of dollars of taxpayer money. These experiments are high risk and are abusive, causing not only physical and psychic harm to the most vulnerable groups but also degrading our society’s system of basic human values. Probably tens of thousands of patients are being subjected to such experiments” (“Testimony of Adil E. Shamoo, Ph.D.”).

• 1997 – In an experiment sponsored by the U.S. government, researchers withhold medical treatment from HIV-positive African-American pregnant women, giving them a placebo rather than AIDS medication.

Want to learn more true facts about history? Stuff that will boggle your mind? Read “The Rise of the Fourth Reich” by Jim Marrs. He’s the author of The Trillion Dollar Conspiracy which I gave a Book of the Year award in 2011:

http://www.naturalnews.com/033509_Jim_Marrs_Trillion_Dollar_Conspirac

Far from protecting public safety, Big Government is the greatest threat to your safety

Question: Which institution is responsible for the most human suffering, genocide and murder across human history? Is it some terrorist group? Some band of evil rebels?

Nope, it’s government. Government is the single most dangerous entity across human history, responsible for the mass murder of hundreds of millions of people (and growing daily).

Think about it: Government is what puts fluoride poison in your water. Government allows mad scientists to plant GM crops containing death poisons. Government secretly injects schoolchildren without parental consent. Government spies on your phone calls, confiscated your wages, contaminates your food and poisons your water. And then, from time to time, government just murders millions of people.

“Democide” is the term that describes death by government (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democide), and democide turns out to be far more dangerous than war itself! “In the 20th century, democide surpassed war as the leading cause of non-natural death,” says Wikipedia.

So if you really want to protect public safety, there’s only one logical way to do it:

Sharply shrink the size of government! The real risk to your health and safety, it turns out, is not raw milk or dietary supplements but your own government and its unbridled madness.

The smaller the government, it turns out, the safer we all are.


Offline applehead250609

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 2615
    • Show only replies by applehead250609

Re: Media can legally lie (in the U.S.)

  • on: March 02, 2012, 03:19:45 AM
But of course that The Media and The Government can lie  >:( .Actually THEY can do alot more than that my friend,and THE MANIPULATION is very "real" .They turned our OWN MINDS against us and against one another ,unfortunately  :( .
THE MIND in the "mighty" ruler in this world right now and we are the ones who are "feeding" THE BEAST/THE DEVIL......with their help of course  >:( .Until we will be able to understand that THE MIND is "the problem" and until we are still feeding THE MIND and not THE SPIRIT,we will be doomed FOREVER  :( .

Offline Tink

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 1175
    • Show only replies by Tink

Re: Media can legally lie (in the U.S.)

  • on: March 02, 2012, 05:02:08 AM
@all - Doesn't that rule also mean that Michael used the Media to create his great escape in plain sight, while the world watched, even using their own mouths?  :D
Black & Proud! I'm like the Oracle/Batgirl, who helps Batman in the comic books. I believe in "Comic Book justice."


Offline Grace

  • *
  • Hoaxer
  • Posts: 2864
    • Show only replies by Grace

Re: Media can legally lie (in the U.S.)

  • on: March 03, 2012, 03:27:13 AM
@all - Doesn't that rule also mean that Michael used the Media to create his great escape in plain sight, while the world watched, even using their own mouths?  :D

Yep.
Not feasible in another bazaar.
Create your day. Create the most astounding year of your life. Be the change you want to see in the world! L.O.V.E.
***********************************************************************************************
"I am tired, I am really tired of manipulation." Michael Jackson, Harlem, New York, NY, July 6, 2002
***********************************************************************************************
******* Let's tear the walls in the brains of this world down.*******

Time to BE.