Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Even though it didn't involve the Fox News Channel and the case was back in Dec., 1996 when the Fox News Channel was only 2 months old!
Bottom line, FOX does not have to "tell the truth" and can get away with having entertainers on their national "News Channel" who are not worried about the "truth" and not necessarily broadcasting real news ........that was a HUGE CASE.
"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 Murdoch, argued the First Amendment gives broadcasters the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on the public airwaves."
There is growing evidence that Fox is no longer a news channel. The evidence now points to a channel bent on fomenting civil insurrection with divisive commentary and organizing efforts.
Bottom line, FOX does not have to "tell the truth" and can get away with having entertainers on their national "News Channel" ........that was a HUGE CASE.
Did you ever read it?
Dan Rather proved long ago that reporting the truth was optional.
It's simple, if the political opinion news shows question 0bama's policies, then it's not a real news agency. That's about all there is to it.
You should try again to watch the video.
The difference is that Fox actively campaigns against the WH and acts as a marketing team for the GOP (repeating GOP talking points for example).
The opposite of impartial, and nearly always their 'news' is distorted for that POV
Dan Rather proved long ago that reporting the truth was optional.
If the "Dan Rather incident" proved anything at all, it PROVED that CBS felt that broadcasting information which could not be verified WAS NOT OKAY AT ALL. Did you not notice that Dan Rather was FIRED??
So tell me how Dan Rather "proved" that reporting truth was optional with EVERY NEWS OUTLET? Ever heard of the words integrity or ethics?
There is growing evidence that Fox is no longer a news channel. The evidence now points to a channel bent on fomenting civil insurrection with divisive commentary and organizing efforts.
You want us to believe a lesbian with a liberal agenda? She can't even get her own gender figured out. She thinks she's a dude! LOL
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
