Zimmerman sues NBC

USFREEDOM911 said:
Freedom of the press has never allowed outright falsifying facts, just to promote an agenda.
If you read the article, NBC has already fired two of their employees over this.

I predict an out-of-court settlement, with non-disclosure statements being signed.
Click to expand...



then why did FOX spend the big bucks in court to lie?
 
dear idiots FOX did this the first year they existed.

hey sued and won for the right to lie to their veiwers.

idiot Fox veiwers never know all the facts
 
http://www.relfe.com/media_can_legally_lie.html


well known case.

gee why don't fox viewers know about it?





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.
 
Steelplate said:
He'll lose....freedom of the press.

Unless your side is willing to embrace the fairness doctrine and tell the real truth in broadcasting.
Click to expand...


The press can be liable for what they print....

and there is no unfairness in broadcasting....there are no rules about anything but porn on standard broadcast media.
The are free to say whatever the fuck they want....ie...msnbc, the Obama network
 
evince said:
http://www.relfe.com/media_can_legally_lie.html


well known case.

gee why don't fox viewers know about it?





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.
Click to expand...

http://www.campaignfreedom.org/2009/11/03/fox-lies-videotape-debunking-an-internet-myth/
 
In the initial response to the suit by Akre and Wilson, WTVT explicitly rejects that the edits they proposed and ultimately required for the report on BGH to air were “false, distorted, or slanted,” in multiple places. In fact, they allege that it was the story as prepared by Akre and Wilson that was biased and unbalanced.


For example, in WTVT’s response to the initial Akre and Wilson complaint filed in court, WTVT claims that “…Defendant’s news managers realized the series could not be re-worked in time for the scheduled air date, due to the biased and undocumented nature of the pieces themselves…” and “…Defendant’s news managers had begun to suspect… that Plaintiffs were not interested in a fair, accurate, and balanced report on BGH.”


In the “Affirmative Defenses” section of WTVT’s initial filing, the station alleges that “…[station managers'] insistence upon fair, accurate and balanced news reporting does not violate any law, rule, or regulation” and “…The First Amendment [and] Florida Constitution prohibit judicial review of Defendant’s news judgments and the exercise of editorial discretion…”


And contrary to the claim in Gaddy’s story, it is simply not true that “Fox attorneys did not dispute Akre’s claim that they pressured her to broadcast a false story…” They did, in all of their filings.


Whatever the truth of the dispute between the two reporters and WTVT, it seems clear that the station did not at the trial court level admit that it had attempted to distort the news story or assert the”right to lie”in its broadcasts. Instead, the station claimed its editorial decisions were based on an effort to air a fair and accurate story, and defended its editorial prerogatives under the First Amendment – editorial prerogatives that are indisputable, if the guarantee of a free press means anything.


Further evidence that WTVT did not assert at the trial court level any “right to lie”or distort the news is that neither Akre’s response to WTVT’s initial appeal brief nor the petition she and Wilson filed with the FCC make any reference at all to such a claim. Surely, had a claim for a First Amendment “right to lie” in news broadcasts been made at the trial court level, some mention of it would have found its way into either of these two documents (Akre’s brief to the appellate court runs 57 pages, and the FCC petition runs over 90 pages including appendices).
Click to expand...

another of Desh's left wing lies
 
A review of both the initial brief and the reply brief of WTVT for the appeal also reveals no mention whatsoever of a “right to lie” defense. Not surprisingly, the station’s brief does contain multiple references to the First Amendment supporting the contention that editorial decisions and disputes are beyond the purview of the government.


Akre’s own answer brief to the appellate court also suggests that no such First Amendment “right to lie” argument was made by the FOX affiliate. Addressing the issues raised by WTVT’s brief, Akre’s brief states that “WTVT also suggests its conduct was somehow protected by the First Amendment, although it asserts no First Amendment defense in its brief.”


The absence of any reference to a First Amendment “right to lie” defense offered by the station in any of the court filings reviewed, or the petition filed by Akre and Wilson with the FCC, or the FCC’s dismissal of the Akre/Wilson petition, or any contemporary media accounts of either the initial trial or the appeals court proceedings, all very strongly indicate that no such argument was advanced by the Fox affiliate.


It is also worth noting that of all the web sites, blog postings, and online commentary on the subject of the FOX “right to lie” argument, not a single one that I’ve seen links to anything that would substantiate the claim. Very few even bother to link to the actual 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] District opinion overturning Akre’s whistleblower verdict, or anything else related to the case itself.


Finally on this point, and perhaps most convincingly, the web site maintained by Akre and Wilson also make no reference to a First Amendment “right to lie” argument advanced by WTVT. The two very obviously believe that the station attempted to force them to produce a false and distorted news article, and have gone to great lengths to promote and advance that belief.


Yet in all the claims and charges leveled directly by Akre and Wilson against the FOX affiliate across multiple venues and platforms, there is not a single mention of any “right to lie” argument allegedly offered by WTVT. They seemingly accuse the station of nearly every other sin imaginable in the world of journalism, but are completely silent on this charge. If there is one place one would expect to find mention and substantiation of the claim that the FOX affiliate had claimed a “right to lie,” it is in the filings and writings of Akre and Wilson. Yet there is nothing.
Click to expand...

hmmm... Desh lies again
 
As the court explains in its ruling:
While WTVT has raised a number of challenges to the judgment obtained by Akre, we need not address each challenge because we find as a threshold matter that Akre failed to state a claim under the whistle-blower’s statute. The portion of the whistle-blower’s statute pertinent to this appeal prohibits retaliation against employees who have “[d]isclosed, or threatened to disclose,” employer conduct that “is in violation of” a law, rule, or regulation. § 448.102(1)(3). The statute defines a “law, rule or regulation” as “includ[ing] any statute or . . . any rule or regulation adopted pursuant to any federal, state, or local statute or ordinance applicable to the employer and pertaining to the business.” § 448.101(4), Fla. Stat. (1997). We agree with WTVT 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.
The FCC has never published its news distortion policy as a regulation with definitive elements and defenses. Instead, the FCC has developed the policy through the adjudicatory process in decisions resolving challenges to broadcasters’ licenses…
​
In other words, the FCC’s policy against news distortion is simply not covered under Florida’s whistleblower statute. The court never addressed the First Amendment defenses raised by the FOX affiliate, and in fact the term “First Amendment” appears nowhere in the six-page decision.


While the FCC’s policy against news distortion is not covered by Florida’s whistleblower statute, it remains in effect and continues to prohibit the airing of “false, distorted, or slanted” news stories. The fact that Akre and Wilson filed their own petition with the FCC urging that WTVT not have its broadcast license renewed is ample proof that the Florida court ruling had no impact on the FCC’s policy against news distortion, and that it stands today.
Click to expand...

ooops
 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_AkreAn appeal was filed, and a ruling in February 2003 came down in favor of WTVT, who successfully argued that the FCC policy against falsification was not a "law, rule, or regulation", and so the whistle-blower law did not qualify as the required "law, rule, or regulation" under section 448.102 of the Florida Statutes.[8] ... Because the FCC's news distortion policy is not a "law, rule, or regulation" under section 448.102 of the Florida Statutes,[8] Akre has failed to state a claim under the whistle-blower's statute."[6] The appeal did not address any falsification claims, noting that "as a threshold matter ... Akre failed to state a claim under the whistle-blower's statute," but noted that the lower court ruled against all of Wilson's charges and all of Akre's claims with the exception of the whistleblower claim that was overturned.[6]

The 2003 documentary, The Corporation, featured Wilson and Akre discussing their battle with WTVT, with Wilson claiming that the jury "determined that the story they pressured us to broadcast, the story we resisted telling, was in fact false, distorted, or slanted."[4][9] Project Censored called their story one of the "Most Censored Stories" of 2003,[4] claiming that the "Court Ruled That the Media Can Legally Lie."[10] Robert F. Kennedy Jr. later quoted Wilson in his book, Crimes Against Nature, with Wilson asking "[W]hat reporter is going to challenge a network ... if the station can retaliate by suing the reporter to oblivion the way the courts are letting them do to us?"[11] Wilson and Kennedy both failed to note that Wilson and Akre originally brought the suit.[4] Following the story, Akre and Wilson won the Goldman Environmental Prize for the report,[1] as well as an Ethics in Journalism Award from the Society of Professional Journalists.[12] The two continue to challenge WTVT's license, the last such challenge coming in 2005.[4]
 
If, as claimed by some detractors of FOX News, the court had ruled that there was a “right to lie” held by broadcasters, Akre and Wilson certainly would have been aware of it, and would certainly not have filed a petition urging WTVT’s license renewal be denied based on an FCC policy they would have known to be invalid as a result of their own lawsuit.


Tellingly, in rejecting the petition by Akre and Wilson, the FCC also makes no reference whatsoever to the imagined “right to lie” allegedly argued for by FOX and accepted by the 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] District appeals court. The FCC’s silence on this issue is yet more evidence that no such decision was made by the Florida court.


It is clear from the evidence presented here that FOX did not argue, as claimed by several of its critics, that it had a First Amendment to lie in its news reports. It’s also plain that the Florida courts did not rule that FOX and other broadcasters had such a right.


It would be nice to hope that this analysis will finally put to rest the myth of a First Amendment “right to lie” case involving FOX News. Nice, but probably unrealistic. At the very least, it should give ammunition to those intent on countering this particular wild internet rumor.


With thanks to KingOneEye of the web site DailyKos, who suggested I write this up.
Click to expand...


Desh... posting rumors and pretending they are facts. Poor Desh, caught lying again.
 
evince said:
http://www.relfe.com/media_can_legally_lie.html


well known case.

gee why don't fox viewers know about it?





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.
Click to expand...


Don't you agree with the court ?, that there is no rule against distorting or falsifying the news in the United States.

If Fox would have aired that false program, it could have and probably would have been sued by Monsanto.....

MSNBC spins and distorts the news every day of the year....as a matter fact, ALL the networks do to one degree or another....personal libel is a different matter.
 
evince said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_AkreAn appeal was filed, and a ruling in February 2003 came down in favor of WTVT, who successfully argued that the FCC policy against falsification was not a "law, rule, or regulation", and so the whistle-blower law did not qualify as the required "law, rule, or regulation" under section 448.102 of the Florida Statutes.[8] ... Because the FCC's news distortion policy is not a "law, rule, or regulation" under section 448.102 of the Florida Statutes,[8] Akre has failed to state a claim under the whistle-blower's statute."[6] The appeal did not address any falsification claims, noting that "as a threshold matter ... Akre failed to state a claim under the whistle-blower's statute," but noted that the lower court ruled against all of Wilson's charges and all of Akre's claims with the exception of the whistleblower claim that was overturned.[6]

The 2003 documentary, The Corporation, featured Wilson and Akre discussing their battle with WTVT, with Wilson claiming that the jury "determined that the story they pressured us to broadcast, the story we resisted telling, was in fact false, distorted, or slanted."[4][9] Project Censored called their story one of the "Most Censored Stories" of 2003,[4] claiming that the "Court Ruled That the Media Can Legally Lie."[10] Robert F. Kennedy Jr. later quoted Wilson in his book, Crimes Against Nature, with Wilson asking "[W]hat reporter is going to challenge a network ... if the station can retaliate by suing the reporter to oblivion the way the courts are letting them do to us?"[11] Wilson and Kennedy both failed to note that Wilson and Akre originally brought the suit.[4] Following the story, Akre and Wilson won the Goldman Environmental Prize for the report,[1] as well as an Ethics in Journalism Award from the Society of Professional Journalists.[12] The two continue to challenge WTVT's license, the last such challenge coming in 2005.[4]
Click to expand...


already debunked your internet myth Desh.

Notice that the wiki link also provides no evidence of the claims you made. Just the Akers version of what happened.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top