FOX News Won Lawsuit to Misinform the Public

Discussion in 'Other Discussions' started by Merc, Oct 26, 2009.

  1. Merc

    Merc Certified Shitlord V.I.P. Lifetime

    Full article here:

    Fox News Wins Lawsuit To Misinform Public ? Seriously | Philly2Philly.com

    I seriously hope this will shut up the conservatives and right wingers who are convinced the only reason they don't like Fox News is because "they report the truth" (that or because they're dirty, filthy hippie communists).

    Seriously though, I remember hearing about this story as well and I love how it got by all major news sources without any one caring. The company making the milk was owned by a company owned by Rupert Murdoch. This meant that Fox didn't want to air the truth, plain and simple. So they shut the story down.

    What are your thoughts aside from, "now I have proof as to why I don't like Fox"?
     

  2. NINnerd

    NINnerd Survived a M&G with Trent

    So Jane Akre won her case? How is that giving Fox news the upper hand? Just cause it's such a small amount and no other news source covered it? I'm not sure I'm understanding it...
     
  3. AnitaKnapp

    AnitaKnapp It's not me, it's you. V.I.P. Lifetime

    There's not much information there to prove that it's true. Frankly, I'm a little confused after reading that article, and the equally compelling argument in the comment located there. So...which one is true? That article from that website isn't proof in itself.

    I'm neither defending nor disparaging Fox News...as I do not watch it. Just confused as to how this article proves anything either way.
     
  4. Merc

    Merc Certified Shitlord V.I.P. Lifetime

    Come on gals, read the article.

    In February 2003, Fox appealed the decision and an appellate court and had it overturned. Fox lawyers argued it was their first amendment right to report false information. In a six-page written decision, the Court of Appeals decided the FCC’s position against news distortion is only a “policy,” not a “law, rule, or regulation.”


    Now see what I'm getting at?
     
  5. AnitaKnapp

    AnitaKnapp It's not me, it's you. V.I.P. Lifetime

    What makes it true though? Where are the sources in the article listing where they are getting their information? Just because it's on a web page on the internet doesn't mean that I'm going to believe it.

    I'm not familiar with Philly2Philly. In fact, I've never heard of it before. How do I know that they are reputable and reporting the truth? See what I'm getting at here? I would be more inclined to believe the author if there were links citing where they are getting their information.

    If I'm going to do that, I may as well believe the person who wrote into the comments section.

    I did a little googling myself on this situation. Granted, Mondays are my busiest day and I don't really have a whole lot of time to read source after source, but...I'm having problems finding credible sources on this case. It basically looks like a he said/she said without any proof. One website said that Fox wanted the reporters to include quotes from a company named Monosato or something similar to that spelling.

    Now, the reporter argues that she knew the information that Monosato was giving to be false. Even if it was...how is it distorting or lying in the news to include various quotes from different companies/people who are involved in the story? How is it Fox's fault if the company lied in their quotes? I'm sure lots of people lie in their statements to news sources. So if a reporter believes that one of these quotes from a person involved in the situation is untrue...is it then their responsibility to strike that from the record, and only report what they themselves believe to be true? I see that more as an editorial than the news.

    I'm not saying it's not true, I'm just saying that I can't find a notable source for this when I try to research the claims in this article, of this site that I've never heard of before. What I have been able to find so far is just a he said/she said thing. Maybe when I have more time to research, or when I'm extremely bored, I'll see what else I can find.
     
  6. icegoat63

    icegoat63 Son of Liberty V.I.P. Lifetime

    I think I'm confused...

    in the Title you say Fox News one, but in your quoted Article you say Akre Won?

    I read the article and It says the same thing so I know its not your error. So I'm guessing FNC settled this with the 425k settlement? Honestly this is no surprise to me, I mean as long as its not Libel or Hate Speech I was under the impression they could say anything they wanted to. And had already practiced that for years.... I mean hell everyone sees a clear devising line in the news channels, but if they are reporting on the same news, how can that be possible right?

    I do think it all boils down to money in the end. Fox is a business just like ABC or BBC are business'. Their first duty is to their stockholders, and then their second duty is to their customers. Its no surprise to me that they try to kill two birds with one stone by feeding the customers what they wanna hear and thus securing the ratings which pleases the stockholders.

    Personally its nothing new to me.
     
  7. Merc

    Merc Certified Shitlord V.I.P. Lifetime

    Here's a thought though: when you think "notable", I bet you're thinking of a very upscale news source and that's part of the problem. Not to mention, no other station would carry this story because it would mean fighting with Fox News and having to answer for their likely similar discretions. Big news lies, there's no doubt all major news stations lie.

    With Fox, this was a case where a company was producing milk with hormones in it, hormones that were theorized to cause cancer. A reporter did a story and after the Fox higher-ups heard about it, they said that she either had to nix the story or add in their "selected" comments. This is why she sued because Fox fired her for not airing their version of the story and resisting to post anything but her own version.

    I'm not calling this story 100% true, I'm not saying I believe this site among the several dozen others that are carrying this piece are 100% right either, but I do think 100% that it is very easy to sweep a news story under the rug if your the one holding the broom.
     
  8. NINnerd

    NINnerd Survived a M&G with Trent

    icegoat - But I think Fox had the decision overturned.

    Sorry to the OP, I didn't have time to read the article earlier. Just what you quoted.

    I guess it's one of those things where they didn't break a law, but it's sad that people follow what they report as the absolute truth. I don't follow anything that way (except maybe NPR). It's less about legalities and more about how Fox news promotes itself and how that affects their viewers.
     
  9. AnitaKnapp

    AnitaKnapp It's not me, it's you. V.I.P. Lifetime

    Yeah, I get what you're saying...but it's still he said/she said. Where's the proof that is the reason that Fox fired her? Also, I still don't see how it's lying to have her cover and quote all sources involved, even if she believes that they are wrong or misinforming the public.

    I'm just skeptical and don't easily believe this since everyone is so gung ho and "ZOMG DOWN WITH FOX NEWS, THEY ARE TERRIBLE!" I have no idea why they are singled out so often, when most likely every big news station does this.

    I was interested in this thread since there is so many people constantly saying that Fox News lies....so I was interested to finally see proof...but all I see here are unproven allegations. JMO
     
  10. Merc

    Merc Certified Shitlord V.I.P. Lifetime

    You're missing what I said. She had the story written, the higher-ups wanted her to insert quotes that would paint the company providing the cancer-causing hormones in a positive light when the whole point of the article was that the milk could be dangerous. Fox had a conflict of interest and tried to correct it.

    I know what you mean and I agree that Fox is singled out often but you have to see why no major news source would carry the story. Hell, I've said it already and you just repeated it, they most likely do the same thing. All news stations have corporate masters with agendas and interests to protect. It's why so many people are reading news online now and why newspaper readership is dwindling. People are getting wise to the game.

    Unproven allegations? So a US court ruling is an allegation?

    Okay.
     

Share This Page