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

[nonlnear]

To be fair, whitehouse.gov edited out the laughter after the best zinger of the night: "Both parties in Congress should know this: If a bill comes to my desk with earmarks in it, I will veto it."

 

[Amused]

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.

:::Sigh::: I already explained this once in detail. It appears you're about as sharp as Dave.

That was Fox's APPEAL.

You see, in the original case, the Jury DISMISSED all all claims that Fox attempted to distort the story and threw out Wilson's case entirely, but felt that Akers honestly BELIEVED she was whistleblowing, so found on that alone awarding her some 400 grand.

You get that? They found no real cause TO whistleblow, but FELT that Aker's honestly believed there was a cause to do so and should have been protected under the whistleblower laws.

Sooooo...

In their appeal (the case in which you reference), Fox was forced to make the case that she had no whistleblower case in the first place, since her charges that Fox distorted the story, no matter how false they were or how much she believed them to be true, broke no laws anyhow. To do this, Fox had to argue that there is no law preventing them from doing so in the first place, even though the original Jury found that they, in fact, DID NOT.

Again, just as I told Dave: "I do not think that case means what you think it means."

Fox bought the Station in 1997. The couple was hired in 1996 by NEW WORLD COMMUNICATIONS (the name on the orginal suit AND the appeal). You can look up the dates if you like. Fox aquired the station in the middle of all this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WTVT

Fox bought most of the New World stations in 1997, making WTVT a Fox owned-and-operated station.

 

[nyker96]

You mean Fox news raises to new height! Finally develops the ability to edit news to their liking. I wish more network has the audacity to do it! Good for you Fox!

 

[Amused]

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

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

Now why did I know you didn't have the reading comprehension to understand the case???

 

[cKGunslinger]

"Fox & Friends" is not News. Commentary in a different coat. Maybe to convince people/suckers/knee jerkers that it is actually news.

Or regular viewers?

 

[IBMer]

You get that? They found no real cause TO whistleblow, but FELT that Aker's honestly believed there was a cause to do so and should have been protected under the whistleblower laws.

Again you don't understand elements of Statutes.

 

[IBMer]

Here I'll help you out:

An employer may not take any retaliatory personnel action against an employee
because the employee has:
(1) Disclosed, or threatened to disclose, to any appropriate governmental agency, under oath,
in writing, an activity, policy, or practice of the employer that is in violation of a law,
rule, or regulation. However, this subsection does not apply unless the employee has, in
writing, brought the activity, policy, or practice to the attention of a supervisor or the
employer and has afforded the employer a reasonable opportunity to correct the activity,
policy, or practice
(2) Provided information to, or testified before, any appropriate governmental agency,
person, or entity conducting an investigation, hearing, or inquiry into an alleged violation
of a law, rule, or regulation by the employer
(3) Objected to, or refused to participate in, any activity, policy, or practice of the employer
which is in violation of a law, rule, or regulation. (no written notice by employee
required)

It didn't matter if Fox was not guilty of breaking any law, under element 1 of the law, they found that whistle-blower protection did not apply because the law she thought the employer was breaking wasn't against the law. What you don't find is an element that states the employer has to be found guilty of said crime.

When someone whistleblows because they think a company is breaking the law, and then it turns out to be non-substantiated, THEY ARE STILL PROTECTED if it is believed that they truly thought the company was breaking the law. THUS she was rewarded in the first ruling. In the appeal ruling Whistle blower status was deemed not to apply because the transgression she thought her employer was committing WASN'T AGAINST THE LAW.

Understand now?

Let me give you an example.

If you think your employer is dumping toxic waste illegally and then it is found they didn't, but you turned them in for it, YOU ARE PROTECTED because your original assertion was against the law, they were just found innocent of it.

 

[IBMer]

Fox bought the Station in 1997. The couple was hired in 1996 by NEW WORLD COMMUNICATIONS (the name on the orginal suit AND the appeal). You can look up the dates if you like. Fox aquired the station in the middle of all this.

Yes, but they started their story in 1997. Which is why Monsanto contacted the head of Fox News...

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,

Woah, what do you know 2000 is > than 1997 isn't it.

 

[Patranus]

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.

LOL - The only "source" link from that links to a blog that doesn't exist.

 

[Amused]

Here I'll help you out:



It didn't matter if Fox was not guilty of breaking any law, under element 1 of the law, they found that whistle-blower protection did not apply because the law she thought the employer was breaking wasn't against the law. What you don't find is an element that states the employer has to be found guilty of said crime.

When someone whistleblows because they think a company is breaking the law, and then it turns out to be non-substantiated, THEY ARE STILL PROTECTED if it is believed that they truly thought the company was breaking the law. THUS she was rewarded in the first ruling. In the appeal ruling Whistle blower status was deemed not to apply because the transgression she thought her employer was committing WASN'T AGAINST THE LAW.

Understand now?

Let me give you an example.

If you think your employer is dumping toxic waste illegally and then it is found they didn't, but you turned them in for it, YOU ARE PROTECTED because your original assertion was against the law, they were just found innocent of it.

Um, that's what I just said. In fact, you expanded on the very point I was trying to make.

In the first trial, ALL the claims of distortion were thrown out, but the jury believed her that she believed the claims, thus awarded her some 400 grand under the whistleblower laws

So in Fox's appeal to that verdict (they rightly felt they shouldn't pay the lying bitch anything), they had to prove that even if she BELIEVED them to be distorting the news, that act was not against the law, thus she was NOT protected by the whistleblower laws.

Get it now? Fox was not making a case that they are, or should be able to distort the news. Only that it is not against the law and a MISTAKEN whistleblower who was fired cannot collect damages under the whistleblower laws.

 

[Amused]

Yes, but they started their story in 1997. Which is why Monsanto contacted the head of Fox News...



Woah, what do you know 2000 is > than 1997 isn't it.

You do realize that the trial, as in most trials, started years after the actual fact???

Um, why are you even debating this if you don't even fucking know when the thing happened??? They were hired in 96 (NOT by Fox, as you stated), started the story in early 97 (before Fox bought the station), and were let go in 98 after nearly a year of doing nothing by the new owners, Fox.

I NEVER said Fox didn't defend the case. I said they inherited it, and the reporters. YOU claimed Fox hired them.

 

[IBMer]

So in Fox's appeal to that verdict (they rightly felt they shouldn't pay the lying bitch anything), they had to prove that even if she BELIEVED them to be distorting the news, that act was not against the law, thus she was NOT protected by the whistleblower laws.

You still aren't understanding.

It wasn't because she believed they were distorting the news, it was because Distorting the news isn't against the law, are you really this fucking retarded?

There is no element in the law that requires it to be anymore than an allegation.

You have no idea what appeals are actually for.

If it was simple matter of whistleblower not applying because they weren't proven to do any wrong, the original judge would have just thrown out that part of the judgment.

 

[IBMer]

Um, why are you even debating this if you don't even fucking know when the thing happened??? They were hired in 96 (NOT by Fox, as you stated), started the story in early 97 (before Fox bought the station), and were let go in 98 after nearly a year of doing nothing by the new owners, Fox.

You've edited the post where you stated that it was the station not Fox, so obviously I can't quote where you stated it wasn't Fox. On a few places I looked it stated they were hired by Fox, so obviously that information was incorrect, but understand the issue existed while they were with Fox, NOT in the middle. There was no issue with this report till Monsanto sent a letter to the owner of Fox.

 

[Amused]

You still aren't understanding.

It wasn't because she believed they were distorting the news, it was because Distorting the news isn't against the law, are you really this fucking retarded?

There is no element in the law that requires it to be anymore than an allegation.

You have no idea what appeals are actually for.

If it was simple matter of whistleblower not applying because they weren't proven to do any wrong, the original judge would have just thrown out that part of the judgment.

Dude, you are saying exactly what I'm saying.

In the first trial, the jury found Fox did not distort the news, but that the jury believed Akers believed they did, thus was protected by the whistleblower laws.

In the appeal, Fox asserted that she was NOT protected by the whistleblower laws because distorting the news is not illegal. They HAD to use this tactic for the simple reason of the finding in the first trial. It was the ONLY way they could get out of paying the lying bitch 400+ grand.

That is what I've been saying all along. Yet you keep disagreeing with me, and saying teh same thing I'm saying. Why?

 

[Amused]

You've edited the post where you stated that it was the station not Fox, so obviously I can't quote where you stated it wasn't Fox. On a few places I looked it stated they were hired by Fox, so obviously that information was incorrect, but understand the issue existed while they were with Fox, NOT in the middle. There was no issue with this report till Monsanto sent a letter to the owner of Fox.

You still do not understand the timeline.

The issue began before Fox took over. New World Com was in the process of rejecting the story over and over again for inaccuracies and one sided bias when Fox took control of the station. During this period, the couple did NOTHING but make minor changes and resubmit the story over and over again for a year. Yes, after Fox bought the station, Monsanto sent them a letter requesting that Fox not air the biased piece without at least letting them have their say too... which the reporters were NOT including in their one sided report.

It was Fox who did not renew their contracts. But they inherited the issue.

 

[IBMer]

In the appeal, Fox asserted that she was NOT protected by the whistleblower laws because distorting the news is not illegal. They HAD to use this tactic for the simple reason of the finding in the first trial. It was the ONLY way they could get out of paying the lying bitch 400+ grand.

That is what I've been saying all along. Yet you keep disagreeing with me, and saying teh same thing I'm saying. Why?

Because you were denying that the case set the precedence that it isn't illegal to distort the truth.

 

[Red Dawn]

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.

..

It's Faux News, what did you expect?

 

[Amused]

Because you were denying that the case set the precedence that it isn't illegal to distort the truth.

1. It never was illegal.

2. The case was never intended to set that precedence as the left would have everyone believe. It was solely intended to deny the lying bitch her payday.

3. Neither Fox or New World Com were found to have been distorting the story. In fact, the jury found the opposite to be true.

If lying/distortion/subjective viewpoints were illegal, there would be no freedom of speech whatsoever.

That's the punchline to this whole case. Is that the left doesn't see what an assualt this was on thier own, and everyone's liberties.

And the case is even more disturbing than that. These two hack "ambush interview" artists had their way, the government would regulate what all media can, and cannot say based on the subjective bias of whomever is in power. Quite scary indeed. And the left hails these hacks as heros.

 

[Red Dawn]

1. It never was illegal.

2. The case was never intended to set that precedence as the left would have everyone believe. It was solely intended to deny the lying bitch her payday.

3. Neither Fox or New World Com were found to have been distorting the story. In fact, the jury found the opposite to be true.

If lying/distortion/subjective viewpoints were illegal, there would be no freedom of speech whatsoever.

That's the punchline to this whole case. Is that the left doesn't see what an assualt this was on thier own, and everyone's liberties.

And the case is even more disturbing than that. These two hack "ambush interview" artists had their way, the government would regulate what all media can, and cannot say based on the subjective bias of whomever is in power. Quite scary indeed. And the left hails these hacks as heros.

All this time and effort making a case for Faux news and in the end they are still going to be seen as a bullshit org. Why bother Amused, unless you are some kind of fan

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Yet, no matter how much you piss & moan about FoxNews they still rule the cable news market.

 

[Red Dawn]

Yet, no matter how much you piss & moan about FoxNews they still rule the cable news market.

Just like Porn Sites rule the Internet.

 

[Amused]

All this time and effort making a case for Faux news and in the end they are still going to be seen as a bullshit org. Why bother Amused, unless you are some kind of fan

Funny, you didn't deride the others for all their time and effort spreading outright fabrications.

Gee... I wonder why?

 

[KK]

Just like Porn Sites rule the Internet.

Nothing wrong with porn.

 

[Red Dawn]

Funny, you didn't deride the others for all their time and effort spreading outright fabrications.

Gee... I wonder why?

Because I never realized you were such a tool. Sure you've always been a self aggrandizing bragart but I never in my wildest dreams thought you'd be one to defend a farce like faux news

 

[Pulsar]

All this time and effort making a case for Faux news and in the end they are still going to be seen as a bullshit org. Why bother Amused, unless you are some kind of fan

Oh, I don't know. Perhaps he has the desire to be able to speak truthfully and factually about things?

Tell you what.... we'll start making up random bullshit about you that's totally untrue. Then we'll attack anyone who tries to refute it the same way you do. How's that sound?