Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
exactly what I said he did... that Aker did not qualify for whistle blower status... thus the award was reversed.
Zimmerman sues NBC
- Thread starter USFREEDOM911
- Start date
exactly what I said he did... that Aker did not qualify for whistle blower status... thus the award was reversed.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Exactly... which means she was not entitled to whistle blower protection. Thus on the ONLY thing the jury found in favor of Akers, the appellate judge overturned because she did not qualify as a whistle blower.
That does not change the FCC policy, nor does it mean news organizations can lie or distort the news. Had the Fox station been found guilty of lying, the FCC could and would have shut them down. Because their policy was still in place.
Also Desh... if Fox was trying to distort the story as Akers claimed... why did they not air it???
Thanks for again proving you are an idiot that cannot understand what she is reading.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
LMAO... tell us Howey... what does that anonymous source have to do with my comment?
I think Zimmerman has a case but I am not so sure he should prevail. NBC's mis-editing was uncovered pretty early on from what I recall so what really are the damages. NBC is going to argue that they were within their rights to present racial profiling as an issue in the story and that they were not alone. The way they edited it did make it seem more extreme, but many still agree that racial profiling was an issue and I think that offers NBC a good defense. Even people on the right have said that racial profiling played a part and have defended it because some of the other burglars were black.
Dropping context happens all the time and I am not so sure we should attempt to police that. pmp does it in almost every post and will often remove the context of even a complete sentence. It proves that he is a lowlife scumbag but using the state to punish him might not be the best thing for free speech.
Dropping context happens all the time and I am not so sure we should attempt to police that. pmp does it in almost every post and will often remove the context of even a complete sentence. It proves that he is a lowlife scumbag but using the state to punish him might not be the best thing for free speech.
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
By deliberately editing it to make it seem worse, they violated a duty to the public and he should win the lawsuit based on the fact that it WAS early on. They helped set the tone to make this about race. They painted him as a racist long before the facts of the case were known. They helped set the public against Zimmerman.
Saying racial profiling is an issue is true, but they painted him as a racist. the two are not the same. They also pretended he was white to stoke up racial tensions.
Also... not 'some other burglars were black'... MOST of the other burglary cases were young black men.
evince
Truthmatters
and why?
because there is NO laws against news lying.
when the other courts thought lies were illegal they found for her.
They only way that FOX could win the case was by showing there are NO LAWS to prevent news from lying.
they won the case by proving its not illegal for them to lie
Cancel 2020.1
Canceled
The media sucks. I was watching ESPN last night, and even they do this to a certain extent.
It's just about sensationalism & ginning up emotion. Reporting is a lost art.
It's just about sensationalism & ginning up emotion. Reporting is a lost art.
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
True... but there IS an FCC policy and a station will get shut down if it does so. That however does not provide whistle blower protection for the reason the judge cited.
Incorrect. The JURY awarded her money as a whistle blower. they found AGAINST her on ALL OTHER CLAIMS. The appellate judge found that the jury was incorrect due to the FCC policy not being a law or regulation.
the above is simply you LYING yet again. They did no such thing. They showed that she was not protected as a whistle blower. that is all they did.
evince
Truthmatters
http://www.foxbghsuit.com/2D01-529.pdf
the judges words.
they were guilty until they proved it was OK for them to lie.
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
Desh we're trying to help you on to the bus.
Stop lying in the road and being a speed bump.
It's a sign of being a psycopath.
evince
Truthmatters
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
evince
Truthmatters
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).
your link did not represent what the court actually said huh
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).
your link did not represent what the court actually said huh
evince
Truthmatters
§ 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.