Skip to main content

I found this via Scoobie Davis, the first blog I ever read. According to this article, FOX news was being sued under whistle blower status because they fired two reporters for refusing to alter their story regarding hormones in dairy cows.


The challenge stems from what the reporters describe as a year-long experience working at the station where they resisted their managers who, they allege, repeatedly ordered them to distort a series of news reports about the secret use of an artificial hormone injected in dairy cattle throughout Florida and nationally.


 The reporters charge in a release distributed Monday that station executives demanded the reports be falsified and slanted to avoid a threatened lawsuit by the hormone maker Monsanto, as well as potential loss of advertising from the dairy industry and others who objected to the reports.

One of the reporters won a $425,000 award only to lose it on appeal. You'll love the reason, given below the fold.

According to FOX, it is not against the law or any regulations to distort the news.

That verdict was overturned in 2003 when an appellate court accepted Fox's defense that since it is not technically against any law, rule or regulation for a broadcaster to distort the news, the journalists were never entitled to employee protections as whistleblowers in the first place.

Wow! It doesn't get any more ballsy than that. Here's one that should be screamed out into the blogasphere and sent to every FOX fan you know.

Did you ever think they would admit that the play on their slogan, "We distort, you decide", was true? In a court of law no less?

Originally posted to Mike S on Thu Jan 27, 2005 at 11:40 AM PST.


Take that

8%2 votes
4%1 votes
0%0 votes
88%22 votes

| 25 votes | Vote | Results

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Someone make sure (4.00)
    that Al Franken gets a hold of this.
  •  Free Dumb of the press; (4.00)
    wonder how many RPM Ed Murrow's body did over that?

    "Never mind the trick, what the hell's the point?" Joseph Heller, Catch-22

    by wozzle on Thu Jan 27, 2005 at 12:03:08 PM PST

    •  I can't figure out why (none)
      any of the press gives them any leeway. They should be exposed by them because they are destroying their industry.

      When people in my buisness act against our best interests, I make sure every one knows. It's the only way to keep the integrity intact.

  •  I forwarded (none)
    Link to story and short synopsis to both Al Franken and Randi Rhodes.... hope something comes of it.  

    I'm all out of shock... but this is just insane.

    "Revolutionary change does not come as one cataclysmic moment...but as an endless succession of surprises, moving zigzag toward a more decent society."

    by saint on Thu Jan 27, 2005 at 12:21:37 PM PST

  •  Buzzsaw (none)
    This was one of the chapters of the book "Into the Buzzsaw" which was out a few years ago, about reporters' experiences investigating stories which the MSM/govt wanted "disappeared".  Some chapters are better than others, but it's a good read.
  •  We distort, you decide. (none)
    Now 100% legal.  They probably have a patent on it too.
  •  Surreallistic Loofah (none)

     Well, technically they're right, you know.  But the POINT is that Fox would so unabashedly trumpet such a defense demonstrates the surreal, bizzaro world they live (and, shudder!, breed) in, and, even more chilling, the degree to which Fox and its attorneys feel confident that such a straight-faced defense would have no P.R. repercussions . . . and, you know, it looks like they're right!


    "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be." T.J.

    by BenGoshi on Thu Jan 27, 2005 at 12:27:23 PM PST

    •  Exactly (none)
      The fact that they would use that as a defence and not be called on it by their competition is extraordinary.

       Maybe Keith Oberman needs to be told as well.

      •  I think (none)
        they talked about that suit in the movie "The Corporation" that came out last summer. It's a great movie, a documentary about how corporations, if they were people, would fit the profile of psychopaths. (No regard for others, no remorse over harm they've caused...). If it's playing or on DVD I highly recommend it.
  •  For the next "This Week in Fascism" (none)
         Mike S. brought us some old news about FOX: No law against distorting the news. There was a 2003 appellate court ruling that two reporters were not entitled to whistleblower protection for informing the public that FauX news producers had ordered them to distort their stories because "it is not technically against any law, rule or regulation for a broadcaster to distort the news. Now we can understand their mentality and how they can get away with their programming.

         I hope to post the next edition Monday morning after I check the feed back from those I am sending this preview too.
         Just Reply to this if you have a change to suggest

    "It's about the accountability, stupid." Thomas Davis 2005

    by Tomtech on Sun Jan 30, 2005 at 11:16:21 PM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site