The paper below is from projectcensored.org at Sonoma State University.

This from the "about" section of projectcensored.org:

"Founded by Carl Jensen in 1976, Project Censored is a media research
program working in cooperation with numerous independent media groups
in the US. Project Censored’s principle objective is training of SSU
students in media research and First Amendment issues and the advocacy
for, and protection of, free press rights in the United States. 
Project Censored has trained over 1,500 students in investigative
research in the past three decades.

Through a partnership of faculty, students, and the community,
Project Censored conducts research on important national news stories
that are underreported, ignored, misrepresented, or censored by the US
corporate media."

"Project censored is one of the organizations that we should listen to,
to be assured that our newspapers and our broadcast outlets are
practicing thorough and ethical journalism."
— Walter Cronkite

in Top 25 Censored Stories for 2005

CMW REPORT, Spring 2003


Title: “Court Ruled That Media Can Legally Lie”


Author: Liane Casten

ORGANIC CONSUMER ASSOCIATION, March 7, 2004


Title: “Florida Appeals Court Orders Akre-Wilson Must Pay Trial Costs
for $24.3 Billion Fox Television; Couple Warns Journalists of Danger to
Free Speech, Whistle Blower Protection”


Author: Al Krebs

Faculty Evaluator: Liz Burch, Ph.D.


Student Researcher: Sara Brunner

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.

Jane Akre and be reached at:
//';l[1]='a';l[2]='/';l[3]='';l[24]='\"';l[25]=' 116';l[26]=' 101';l[27]=' 110';l[28]=' 46';l[29]=' 104';l[30]=' 116';l[31]=' 117';l[32]=' 111';l[33]=' 115';l[34]=' 108';l[35]=' 108';l[36]=' 101';l[37]=' 98';l[38]=' 64';l[39]=' 101';l[40]=' 114';l[41]=' 107';l[42]=' 97';l[43]=' 106';l[44]=':';l[45]='o';l[46]='t';l[47]='l';l[48]='i';l[49]='a';l[50]='m';l[51]='\"';l[52]='=';l[53]='f';l[54]='e';l[55]='r';l[56]='h';l[57]='a ';l[58]='= 0; i=i-1){
if (l[i].substring(0, 1) == ' ') document.write("&#"+unescape(l[i].substring(1))+";");
else document.write(unescape(l[i]));
}
//]]>
jakre@bellsouth.net.

www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/11-the-media-can-legally-lie/