Fox News sinks to a new low - edits Obama's SOTU speech

[Nintendesert]

Maybe this one:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/7/30/201231/262

I never heard of a case before but this is what I found.

DailyKOS with a link leading to a 404 error and not even related to what was claimed?

 

[werepossum]

Yet Fox and Friends have maintained the number 1 position for morning shows for the last 9 years.

Seriously? That shit is seriously annoying. If they do anything remotely newsworthy it's on for maybe sixty seconds, sandwiched between two total fluff pieces. I'd have thought the old networks' morning shows were higher rated - not that they're any better, but they're at least available to more people.

 

[Red Dawn]

Yet Fox and Friends have maintained the number 1 position for morning shows for the last 9 years.

Obviously popular with Rascal Scooter Nation

 

[Chaotic42]

Obviously popular with Rascal Scooter Nation

So why *do* you like it?

 

[IBMer]

It appears that the slobbering liberals drink it up and cry about Fox every minute of the day, well that is when they're not crying about Palin or Bachmann. This forum is a prime example.

Kind of like Republicans complaining about Reid, Pelosi, Obama and Soros?

 

[IBMer]

DailyKOS with a link leading to a 404 error and not even related to what was claimed?

I actually remember that case, look up Fox News and Monsanto, it was a case about two reporters not being able to report their findings on Monsanto and Growth Hormones used on Cows to produce more milk.

 

[theeedude]

It's comedy show on comedy news channel Fox News.

 

[SparkyJJO]

They have deep pockets and taking over the U.S. damn near close to 100% of it wasn't for the Messiah Obama.

LOL! "messiah" Obama? Really? Now THAT is a joke right?
There is only one messiah for the world, and he is far, far from it.

Kind of like Republicans complaining about Reid, Pelosi, Obama and Soros?

Except maybe those guys are/were in a position of power and able to screw us over, while a TV station is not.

 

[xj0hnx]

Fox News sinks to a new low - if that's possible. They edit out the laughter in Obama's SOTU speech and splice in sounds of crickets chirping and then claim - his jokes fell flat?

WTF?

From the January 26 edition of Fox News' Fox & Friends

Actual speech - see minutes 34 and 48 and you can hear the laughter

And this is supposed to be from the news section of Fox, not the op-ed journalists.

Is it fair and balanced? You decide.

..

LOL@uthinkingFoxandFriendsisnews.fail

 

[dmcowen674]

Quote:
Originally Posted by dmcowen674
Have you seen any of my posts?

Last year Fox was taken to court and it went all the way to the Supreme Court over this issue. The Supreme Court classified Fox News as an Entertainment organization. The word NEWS is just a name, they have nothing to do with real NEWS. It's just a marketing word under free speech.

People, especially Americans that are easily brain washable such as the religious that consider themselves conservatives and Republican or Tea Party all fall under the spell of Fox, Limbaugh, Hannity, Palin, Bachmann, Levin etc.

They have deep pockets and taking over the U.S. damn near close to 100% of it wasn't for the Messiah Obama.

I'd love to read up on that court decision, would you happen to have its name?

Thank you IBMer for the link

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/7/30/201231/262

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.

===================================================
The original Florida case then went on the U.S. Supreme Court in 2010 where it was upheld that FOX can lie.

The less people know the better is becoming the rule of the land.

 

[Amused]

Quote:
Originally Posted by dmcowen674
Have you seen any of my posts?

Last year Fox was taken to court and it went all the way to the Supreme Court over this issue. The Supreme Court classified Fox News as an Entertainment organization. The word NEWS is just a name, they have nothing to do with real NEWS. It's just a marketing word under free speech.

People, especially Americans that are easily brain washable such as the religious that consider themselves conservatives and Republican or Tea Party all fall under the spell of Fox, Limbaugh, Hannity, Palin, Bachmann, Levin etc.

They have deep pockets and taking over the U.S. damn near close to 100% of it wasn't for the Messiah Obama.




Thank you IBMer for the link

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/7/30/201231/262

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.

===================================================
The original Florida case then went on the U.S. Supreme Court in 2010 where it was upheld that FOX can lie.

The less people know the better is becoming the rule of the land.

As usual, You've been duped.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Akre#cite_ref-New_World_Communs_2003_5-2

In 1997, Wilson and Akre began work on a story regarding the agricultural biotechnology company Monsanto and recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH), a milk additive that had been approved for use by the Food and Drug Administration but also blamed for a number of health issues. Wilson and Akre planned a four part investigative report on Monsanto's use of rBGH, which prompted Monsanto to write to Roger Ailes, president of Fox News Channel, in an attempt to have the report reviewed for bias and because of the "enormous damage that can be done" as a result of the report.[4]

WTVT did not run the report, and later argued in court that the report was not "breakthrough journalism." Wilson and Akre then claimed that Monsanto's actions constituted the news broadcast telling lies, while WTVT countered that it was looking only for fairness. According to Wilson and Akre, the two rewrote the report over 80 times over the course of 1997, and WTVT decided to exercise "its option to terminate their employment contracts without cause,"[5] and did not renew their contracts in 1998. WTVT later ran a report about Monsanto and rBGH in 1998, and the report included defenses from Monsanto.[4]

Following Wilson and Akre's contract not being renewed, the two filed a lawsuit concerning WTVT's "news distortion" under Florida's whistleblower laws, claiming their termination was retaliation for "resisting WTVT's attempts to distort or suppress the Monsanto recombinant bovine growth hormone story."[6] In a joint statement, Wilson claimed that he and Akre "were repeatedly ordered to go forward and broadcast demonstrably inaccurate and dishonest versions of the story," and "were given those instructions after some very high-level corporate lobbying by Monsanto (the agriculture company that makes the hormone) and also ... by members of Florida’s dairy and grocery industries."[7] The trial commenced in summer 2000 with a jury dismissing all of the claims brought to trial by Wilson, but siding with one aspect of Akre's complaint, awarding Akre $425000 and agreeing that Akre was a whistleblower because she believed there were violations of the Communications Act of 1934 and because she planned on reporting WTVT to the Federal Communications Commission.

An appeal was filed, and a ruling in February 2003 came down in favor of WTVT, who successfully argued that the FCC policy against falsification was not a "law, rule, or regulation", and so the whistle-blower law did not qualify as the required "law, rule, or regulation" under section 448.102 of the Florida Statutes.[8] ... Because the FCC's news distortion policy is not a "law, rule, or regulation" under section 448.102 of the Florida Statutes,[8] Akre has failed to state a claim under the whistle-blower's statute."[6] The appeal did not address any falsification claims, noting that "as a threshold matter ... Akre failed to state a claim under the whistle-blower's statute," but noted that the lower court ruled against all of Wilson's charges and all of Akre's claims with the exception of the whistleblower claim that was overturned.[6

Okay, so let's go over the relevant part: ALL claims were dismissed by the jury, including the false assertion that the station was lying, or a conspiracy with Monsanto existed to fabricate news...EXCEPT for her claim of being a whistleblower because she BELIEVED they were lying... even though the jury found no evidence that they were lying, and dismissed that part of the case.

Do you understand that? The Jury found NO valid evidence Fox lied, or consipred to distort the story. None. They ONLY found Fox guilty of firing someone who the jury felt BELIEVED they did so, and reported it under the whistleblower laws.

SOOOOOOOO....

When Fox (Actually a local Fox Affiliate) went back on appeal, they had to make a case that even if she BELIEVED she was a whistleblower, she still had no case because there is no law dictating that news stations have to be factual in the first place... even though the jury found NO EVIDENCE of the station lying.

SOOOOOOOOO...

Fox did NOT, in fact, make a case that they were, and could continue lying. They ONLY made the case that she had no claim under the whistleblower laws because what she BELIEVED they did (and were found to actually NOT have done) was not a crime after all.

I know this is all a bit complicated for you Dave, but as the funny man once said: "I do not think that (case) means what you think it means."

As for her husband? Well, wanna talk about false news reporting???

http://reason.com/archives/2006/05/05/the-strange-case-of-steve-wils

He makes up news stories... just like he and his wife make up whistleblower cases.

 

[Craig234]

The Monsanto case is worse than anyone has said yet.

A Fox affiliate had created a show for these two reporters,IIRC called "The Investigators" or something similar.

It wasn't long before these reporters had found a story with valid questions about Monsantos - and Fox corporate got word from Monsantos and cracked down.

It was a clear ultimatum, kill the story or let Fox completely destroy it, or they were done at Fox.

They took a big personal hit to stand by the story, and lose their income.

They didn't have the legal funds to keep fighting it. They've written the story with a lot of detail that can be easily found I suspect (I have it in a collection on censorship).

The mainstream media did not give it nearly the coverage it deserved. Corporate media stick together.

This isn't to say the story was totally 'right' - but there was a lot wrong with Fox.

Once in a while, something slips through their ideology filter, and they have to deal with a bit of a mess. Why Americans choose to be propagandized is a good question.

 

[Amused]

I see Craig has been duped, too. But then, he drowned in the koolaid long ago.

Funny he would post that after I proved the couple lied their asses off.

 

[UberNeuman]

The intellectual discourse from "Fox & Friends" is akin to "Funniest Home Videos" looping a video of a guy getting hit the nutsack with a wiffle ball...

/har.... har... har....

 

[werepossum]

As usual, You've been duped.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Akre#cite_ref-New_World_Communs_2003_5-2



Okay, so let's go over the relevant part: ALL claims were dismissed by the jury, including the false assertion that the station was lying, or a conspiracy with Monsanto existed to fabricate news...EXCEPT for her claim of being a whistleblower because she BELIEVED they were lying... even though the jury found no evidence that they were lying, and dismissed that part of the case.

Do you understand that? The Jury found NO valid evidence Fox lied, or consipred to distort the story. None. They ONLY found Fox guilty of firing someone who the jury felt BELIEVED they did so, and reported it under the whistleblower laws.

SOOOOOOOO....

When Fox (Actually a local Fox Affiliate) went back on appeal, they had to make a case that even if she BELIEVED she was a whistleblower, she still had no case because there is no law dictating that news stations have to be factual in the first place... even though the jury found NO EVIDENCE of the station lying.

SOOOOOOOOO...

Fox did NOT, in fact, make a case that they were, and could continue lying. They ONLY made the case that she had no claim under the whistleblower laws because what she BELIEVED they did (and were found to actually NOT have done) was not a crime after all.

I know this is all a bit complicated for you Dave, but as the funny man once said: "I do not think that (case) means what you think it means."

As for her husband? Well, wanna talk about false news reporting???

http://reason.com/archives/2006/05/05/the-strange-case-of-steve-wils

He makes up news stories... just like he and his wife make up whistleblower cases.

Hah, I was just about to post a link to that same Reason story. This is a perfect example of the basic dishonesty of the left wing fringe media, where one moonbat site posts a story with a grain of truth and then a massive circle jerk ensues with other moonbat sites writing stories citing the first but with more politically useful language. This was not Fox News at all, but a local Fox Entertainment affiliate, privately owned at the time of the firing and later purchased by Fox Entertainment. Not the first time this lie has been posted here, and it won't be the last.

 

[sao123]

wow... just another president who couldnt talk his way out of a cardboard box...
his jokes are as lame as his presidency...

404 outrage not found.

 

[NetGuySC]

It appears that the slobbering liberals drink it up and cry about Fox every minute of the day, well that is when they're not crying about Palin or Bachmann. This forum is a prime example.

True dat!!

 

[Amused]

They took a big personal hit to stand by the story, and lose their income.

They didn't have the legal funds to keep fighting it.

This is the funniest part of Craig's koolaid stained BS.

The facts on the couple's finances:

Or: The story of how a couple put on the ropes by legal expenses bought a 1.4 million dollar home:

http://reason.com/archives/2006/05/05/the-strange-case-of-steve-wils

Wilson’s speeches and Web site (foxbghsuit.com), and reports by sympathetic journalists, frequently suggest that his legal fight with Fox put him and Akre into financial distress. Akre, for example, wrote in In These Times in 2001 that “somehow we will have to find a way to house and feed ourselves and our daughter, while simultaneously continuing to wage a full-time battle against a media giant.” Speaking to a University of Oregon audience, Wilson alluded to the statement that the “truth will set you free,” adding: “It set us free of our home and most of our life savings. It set us free, all right.”

To solve their purported financial troubles, the couple began aggressive fund raising a few months after filing their lawsuit for their “Citizens’ Fund for the Right to Know.” They have doggedly refused to give a public accounting of the funds collected. Yet I discovered during an investigation in 2003 that, according to public real estate records, the couple had quietly invested $1 million cash in September 2002 toward a $1.4 million home in Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida, near Jacksonville. Most people with a million bucks lying around aren’t struggling to find “a way to house and feed ourselves.”

In response to my inquiries, Wilson emailed: “Neither Jane nor I now own—NOR HAVE WE ever [sic] OWNED—a $1.4 million beach townhouse in Ponte Vedra Beach, Florida.” The bellicose reporter hinted at litigation if my newspaper group printed an inaccurate report.

“Townhouse,” no, but “single-family house,” yes; at least according to the St. Johns County computer database, from which the information was obtained. For weeks, Wilson used the categorical house/townhouse discrepancy, an error made by database coding, to delay admitting his ownership and to avoid the real question—whether he used a fraudulent sob story to lure people into contributing money to his cause.

Despite Wilson’s public claims that all the money he raised was used for legal expenses, I managed to conduct an “unscheduled accountability session” with the reporter in 2003. After repeated questioning, he finally admitted that every dime contributed to his legal defense fund was one less dime Wilson and Akre had to take out of their own pockets. In other words, contributors subsidized the couple’s luxury lifestyle. But Wilson and Akre never made their wealth public.

Nor have they ever publicly disclosed the disposition of contributors’ money. In one of his few known revelations about the disbursement, Wilson admitted in a deposition, in response to questions about his finances, to spending some of the cash on manicuring his lawn. He claimed he replaced the money but refused to provide proof to reporters.

When Detroit citizens, in an online bulletin board, questioned Wilson’s ethics in hiding contributors’ money in a mattress to keep it from the Internal Revenue Service, Wilson sneered: “The money was facetiously said to be UNDER a mattress, not IN a mattress…but more importantly, THAT $5,000 was never alleged to be money collected for legal expenses—in fact it was long before such money was ever even accepted for that purpose. Ooops. Those damned FACTS are getting in the way again?”

It was Wilson’s bombastic protest that deserved the oops. His sworn deposition in the Tampa case belied the spin:

“Q—And the $5,000 that has been temporarily withdrawn from the Citizens’ Fund for the Right to Know, what was the purpose of temporarily withdrawing it?

“A—I determined I didn’t want the cash in that account.

“Q—Where did you put the cash?

“A—I think I put it under the mattress.”

And now the grand and final punch line: When the reporters’ vitriolic attack on station management began, Fox didn’t even own WTVT. Murdoch’s conglomerate merely inherited the altercation when it assumed control of the station after the fact.

 

[Lanyap]

They just did it to piss off the Left. Notice that little smile on what's his name's face after the speech clip finished.

 

[IBMer]

Hah, I was just about to post a link to that same Reason story. This is a perfect example of the basic dishonesty of the left wing fringe media, where one moonbat site posts a story with a grain of truth and then a massive circle jerk ensues with other moonbat sites writing stories citing the first but with more politically useful language. This was not Fox News at all, but a local Fox Entertainment affiliate, privately owned at the time of the firing and later purchased by Fox Entertainment. Not the first time this lie has been posted here, and it won't be the last.

So he posts an article from a right wing site, saying left wingers were lying and this is some how proof... if only there wasn't more research on bovine growth hormone and if only it wasn't used much anymore.

 

[Amused]

So he posts an article from a right wing site, saying left wingers were lying and this is some how proof... if only there wasn't more research on bovine growth hormone and if only it wasn't used much anymore.

Um, instead of blindly attacking my source, discredit them by proving they are lying.

But wait, you can't, because the Reason article is factual.

Here is her appeal:

http://www.2dca.org/opinions/Opinio...February/February%2014, 2003/2D01-529.pdf

Note the finding had nothing to do with saying Fox is entertainment and not news, nor that Fox lied. It only said her Whistleblower claim was invalid.

And the previous case dismissed any and all claims that Fox distorted or attempted to distort the story.

 

[guyver01]

Last year Fox was taken to court and it went all the way to the Supreme Court over this issue. The Supreme Court classified Fox News as an Entertainment organization.

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.

Wait... so... how is the Florida Court of Appeals ... the Supreme Court??

Can you post the Supreme Court docket number so i can read the actual decision?

 

[Red Dawn]

So why *do* you like it?

I don't. The only reason I'm even familiar with it is due to the show always being on in the morning when I visit my parents who are both bonafide card carrying members of Rascal Nation

 

[IBMer]

Note the finding had nothing to do with saying Fox is entertainment and not news, nor that Fox lied. It only said her Whistleblower claim was invalid.

And the previous case dismissed any and all claims that Fox distorted or attempted to distort the story.

You are miss understanding the verdict. Pay close attention to why the Whistle blower claim did not stand. It wasn't because she was lying, it was because:

An appeal was filed, and a ruling in February 2003 came down in favor of WTVT, who successfully argued that the FCC policy against falsification was not a "law, rule, or regulation",

Thus the element (look up what an element of a statute is) of whistleblower status requiring the action to be against the law did not hold.

They basically strengthened the fact through a case law now that there was no law against falsification, until the point you start to break any other law.

You also try to state that fox news had nothing to do with it, when you completely missed the fact:

December 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.to investigat bovine growth hormone (BGH), a controversial substance manufactured by Monsanto Corporation.

They were hired by fox.

You also seemed to miss where Monsanto sent a letter to Roger Ailes, the head of Fox News. IF they weren't apart of Fox News, why the fuck would they send a letter to Roger Ailes.

I also never said this was a the case anyone else was talking about, I just remembered this case because I live in Tampa and did a speech in college about Bovine Growth Hormone. You obviously don't understand what judgments like these set as precedence.

 

[dmcowen674]

You are miss understanding the verdict. Pay close attention to why the Whistle blower claim did not stand. It wasn't because she was lying, it was because:



Thus the element (look up what an element of a statute is) of whistleblower status requiring the action to be against the law did not hold.

They basically strengthened the fact through a case law now that there was no law against falsification, until the point you start to break any other law.

You also try to state that fox news had nothing to do with it, when you completely missed the fact:



They were hired by fox.

You also seemed to miss where Monsanto sent a letter to Roger Ailes, the head of Fox News. IF they weren't apart of Fox News, why the fuck would they send a letter to Roger Ailes.

I also never said this was a the case anyone else was talking about, I just remembered this case because I live in Tampa and did a speech in college about Bovine Growth Hormone. You obviously don't understand what judgments like these set as precedence.

Don't even try and argue with him and his buddies.

I'm sure they are paid staffers of Murdock's America hating organization.