Newsgroup: it.politica.internazionale
Titolo: The Media Can Legally Lie

(#11) The Media Can Legally Lie
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.
Da un post di Sergio.
A conferma di quanto balza agli occhi.
Saluti
--------------------------------
Inviato via 
http://arianna.libero.it/usenet/

 A conferma di quanto balza agli occhi.
sei crudele nel voler sottolineare l'ennesima figura di merda del
cialtrone goebbelsiano di corso magenta, tonibaruch, per il quale
foxnews e' obiettiva e non mente mai.

 foxnews e' obiettiva e non mente mai.
Puoi quotare dove avrei detto questa idiozia?
Non vorrei che ti stessi guadagnando un altro bollo di cialtrone culotastierato.
Tb
-- 
[Tb] :
Il dovere di un comunista sarebbe quello di formare un cordone sanitario
attorno alla feccia nazi
[.sergio.]
No [...] se posta articoli che condivido      |     
http://snipurl.com/11s9a
--------------------------------------------------
Il mio blog: 
www.tonibaruch.blogspot.com

 Puoi quotare dove avrei detto questa idiozia?
vuoi già rimangiarti la tua sbobba, goebbelsuccio?
-- 
Qultura politica di Tonibaruch su It.Politica.Internazionale :
"Oltre al cumswapping e al cumdodging, fai anche il creampie, 
porno-razzi-catto-somarello?" 
http://groups.google.it/group/it.politica.internazionale/msg/1db9ef6abb0f7604?dmode=source&hl=it
Tonibaruch: "Chomsky... uno svitato filonazista"
http://groups.google.it/group/it.politica.internazionale/msg/4fcafdb551331642?dmode=source&hl=3Dit
 
questo articolo e` stato inviato via web dal servizio gratuito 
http://www.newsland.it/news
 segnala gli abusi ad 
ab...@newsland.it

 vuoi
Il quote, somarello.


 Il quote
ti stai già vergognando dopo l'ennesima figura di cialtrone alla goebbels
che hai fatto chiedendo se foxnews mentiva?
Io ho detto che non e' obiettiva. 
Ma G. Torrieri ha dimostrato di nuovo che sei il solito cialtrone. 
Tiè, rosica dopo questa ennesima figura di letame davanti a tutto il ng. 
Lo dice la stessa Fox news tramite i suoi avvocati: 
Fox News ha "coraggiosamente" difeso, con successo, il suo diritto di 
mentire e di distorcere le notizie, davanti a un tribunale. 
http://www.projectcensored.org/publications/2005/11.html
 
(#11) The Media Can Legally Lie 
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. 


 ti stai
Insomma, pare di capire che il quote non ce l'hai
[STUMP]
E' un altro bollo di cialtrone culotastierato.


 Insomma,
goebbelsuccio allora foxnews mente o no? rotfl!


 (#11) The Media Can Legally Lie
La notizia dov'e'?
Palmiro Pangloss

 La notizia dov'e'?
Due, IMHO:
a)  Il caso, in realta', non era su "the media can legally lie", ma su
"the media can legally fire a journalist because she refused an order
by the management to lie".     Una differenza abissale, visto che
riguarda la liberta' di parola del giornalista, e non (come hanno detto
i giudici) solo dell'organo di stampa.      Mi pare "emblematico" su
quanto libera e democratica, in realta', sia l'informazione privata.
b)  Fox News dice apertamente che la sua politica aziendale consiste
nel mentire e distorcere notizie.  Non e' una cospirazione o un
documento segreto, ma una linea di difesa in un processo pubblico che
chiunque puo' consultare e leggere.
Se il "mercato dell'informazione" funzionasse a dovere, per Fox a fare
una cosa del genere sarebbe un suicidio.  Ma lo fa.
Lo puo' fare perche' sa che, tanto, non subira conseguenze di mercato.
 Il pubblico e' assuefatto, la concorrenza non e' molto migliore, le
compagnie di informazione sono comunque un quasi-monopolio (
http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2870
  ).
GT

 by the management to lie".     Una differenza abissale,
Beh, si che e' una differenza abissale. Messa nell'altro modo la
questione non ha senso, o meglio e' scontata.
Palmiro Pangloss

Lo puo' fare perche' sa che, tanto, non subira conseguenze di mercato.
Certo, certo....
*pat pat*
-Stefano


Caro De Cesari stai facendo l'elogio della menzogna organizzata.
Caro racconta balle stipendiato a te che ti guadagni da vivere deve andar
bene cosi'.
Si da il caso che non tutti siano dei vermi da pattume del tuo stampo e a
loro non va bene che ci siano in giro organi di disinformazione sistematica.
L'URSS caro genio e' crollata per questo, aspettiamo i tuoi datori di lavoro
al varco.
FOX o DONKEY news che sia racconta balle, ed e' pure in buona compagnia.


ed e' pure in buona compagnia.
La tua :)
-Stefano


Provato e documentato.


 Vedo che la parte dell'asino ti aggrada.
...disse il bue all'asino...
-Stefano

 by the management to lie".     Una differenza abissale,
:Beh, si che e' una differenza abissale. Messa nell'altro modo la
:questione non ha senso, o meglio e' scontata.
Non e' affatto scontato che un canale TV abbia il coraggio di usare una
linea di difesa del genere in un processo.
E' rivelatorio.
GT

una linea di difesa del genere in un processo.
Infatti non l'hanno *MAI* usata .... fino a prova contraria.
-Stefano


PS:  Oltretutto, non mi pare neanche cosi' scontato.   Se medici,
avvocati e commercialisti non possono mentire, perche' non i
giornalisti?
Intendo mentire deliberatamente, eh.
GT


Pat Pat


Se medici, avvocati e commercialisti non possono mentire,
Non possono mentire?  Ma chi l'ha detto?  Dove sta scritto?
Che *LEGGI* violerebbero?
-Stefano

Sappiamo ...
Ma che ca**o vuoi sapere tu, poveraccio di un Amalric Bond :)
-Stefano

carabiniere presente...
*ROTFL*
Come no! :)
-Stefano