Appellate Court Rules Media Can Legally Lie

the sierra times ^ | 3/3/03 | Mike Gaddy

[freepatriot32]

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 Murdock, 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.

[freepatriot32]

the scary thing is this is fox news channel doing this

[jpl]

If lying, concealing, and distorting information by the press were a punishable crime, there wouldn't be enough prisons in the world to hold all the journalists you'd have to throw in there.

Rupert Murdoch may be a sleazebag, but at least he's our sleazebag.

[frnewsjunkie]

The scary thing is Fox is the only one being charged.

The other media have gotten by with it for too many years.

[thoughtomator]

Fox is no angel, it's a company looking out for its own financial interests. It's largely conservative because it correctly saw conservatives as a huge untapped market for television news. So they slant information to cater to that market. What media organization doesn't cater to its market?

Free speech means freedom to lie. Otherwise we might as well put bars on the borders and not let anyone out. It's not as if you need to swear an oath to tell the truth when you buy a TV studio.

[Ciexyz]

I'm confused. There has to be a slant to this story. This hormone issue has two sides to it. I'd like to know more details before I form an opinion.

[Notwithstanding]

the sary thing is that this chick was awarded $25k by a jury whom the OTHER media have fooled (by the media's lust for "enviromental" junk science) into thinking that bovine growth hormone is bad for us (this is the same media who encourage women to take handfulls of articficial hormone pills every year to avoid pregnancy)

the chick is a enviro nazi whom Fox stopped dead in her tracks

[Notwithstanding]

the chick's story was going to be slanted to distort how evil hormone treated products (beef and milk are)

Fox would not allow it

[discostu]

That seems to be a misreading of the judgement to me. We know from successful slander suits that indeed it is illegal for the media to lie. What this suit seems to be proving, in my reading anyway, is that talking heads are paid to say what's put in front of them and if they won't say it they can be fired. The talking head should let the network lawyers worry about whether what's being said is legal, it's just their job to say it and it's perfectly OK to terminate them for refusing to do their job.

[TexRef]

Note that this is a FOX station — not the Fox news channel.

---

Reporter's court award struck down on appeal
THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

LAKELAND - A state appeals court overturned a $425,000 jury award to a former Tampa television news reporter who claimed she was fired for refusing to include misleading information in a story.

In a unanimous decision Friday, the 2nd District Court of Appeal said Jane Akre failed to show the Tampa station, Fox affiliate WTVT, had violated any state laws.

"It's vindication for WTVT, and we're very pleased," station general manager Bob Linger said. "It's the case we've been making for two years. She never had a legal claim."

Akre still can appeal the decision. She could not be reached for comment because she does not have a listed phone number.

Akre and then-husband Steve Wilson claimed WTVT executives and a Fox network attorney encouraged inclusion of false statements in a story about bovine growth hormone, or BGH, a substance manufactured by the Monsanto Corp.

The couple produced a four-part series that said Florida supermarket chains did little to avoid selling milk from cows treated with the hormone, despite assuring customers otherwise.

Akre and Wilson claimed they were wrongfully fired for refusing to use misleading information in the story and because they had threatened to report the station to the Federal Communications Commission.

The station said they were fired because of insubordination.

In August 2000, a jury awarded Akre $425,000, saying the station retaliated against her for threatening to blow the whistle on a false or distorted news report.

The appeals court said Akre's threat to report the station's actions to the FCC didn't deserve protection under the state whistle-blower's statute.

[dpwiener]

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.

Sorry, but I don't want a six-person jury to be second-guessing news outlets as to whether their stories are "false, distorted, or slanted". The truth or falsity of a story should not be subject to a jury trial, and journalists should not have to prove anything just to avoid huge damage awards.

When it comes to matters of slander and libel, there is a very high legal standard which the victim must meet in order to prove intentional, false and malicious action by the supposed slanderer/libeler and to prove that the victim was damaged. We must always be extremely cautious about any laws which threaten to infringe on our First Amendment rights.

In a free society, people have a right to say unpleasant and hurtful things, to vigorously disagree with each other, and even to lie.

[thoughtomator]

I feel the same way, but we have to face the fact that the world doesn't conform to our ideal. Somewhere out there, there are media for whom a reputation for unbiased, honest, and thorough reporting is a key asset. Supporting those where you can is the best you can do if you are not willing to yourself create an outlet for those ideals.

[singsong]

"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."

If the policy is not enforcable it would be wise to abandon it. Otherwise it gives the false impression that there is some assurance of truth in media.

[discostu]

BINGO, thanks TexRef. That clearly shows it was a wrongful termination suit which had little to do with the veracity of what was being reported and more to do with what a TV reporter's job really is. According to this court their job is to read copy even if they don't agree with it.

[Sloth]

I didn't think you had to break any laws to have a civil judgment brought against you.

[radioman]

I'm confused. There has to be a slant to this story. This hormone issue has two sides to it. I'd like to know more details before I form an opinion

Good luck! I tried to get informed on this issue, but the BS is so deep on both sides that confusion is the only possible outcome.

[richardtavor]

It would be nice if reporters reported both sides of an issue--She was trying a slant and Fox didn't let her get away with it. I would say with them (or any other news org) it would depend on who was doing it--e.g. Geraldo either slants or makes up stories for sensationalism and gets away with it (remember his "I am a Palestinianst" speech?

[Cicero]

The judge didn't say that Fox lied. He said that news organizations are entitled to say whatever they want, including what their opponents say are lies.

It sounds bad, but what's the alternative? Sending people to jail because somebody else says they lied?

One of the chief problems in our country is lying journalists. But if you put the government in charge of punishing them, is that likely to improve the problem? Just think if clinton and Reno had been in a position to do that.

No, I think the only thing you can do with media liars is shame them, expose them, attack them in their ratings, and maybe persuade them that lying for a living isn't very honorable.

[thoughtomator]

Again, in the ideal world I agree, but this world isn't ideal. The 'journalist' was hired to say what their employers want them to say. It is different from the fraud at Andersen because there is nothing illegal about the action that the employer required. Integrity is a legal non-entity.