☭proletarian☭;1974815 said:
i was born stupid?.....was this not a jury trial?.....did not the jury agree with Fox....
There were two trials, the first one found in favor of one of the reporters, the second trial overturned that decision.
The second hearing ruled with fox, saying that Fox has a right to lie all it wants.
Provide the evidence then.
On August 18, 2000, journalist Jane Akre won $425,000 in a court ruling where she claimed she was wrongfully terminated for threatening to blow the whistle to the FCC.
She found out cows in Florida were being injected with RBGH, a drug designed to make cows produce milk – and, according to FDA-redacted studies, unintentionally designed to make human beings produce cancer.
Fox lawyers, under pressure by the Monsanto Corporation (who produced RBGH), rewrote her report over 80 times to make it compatible with the companyÂ’s requests. She and her husband, journalist Steve Wilson, refused to air the edited segment. And both were promptly terminated.
In February 2003, ( the second trial) Fox appealed the decision and an appellate court and had it overturned. In a six-page written decision released February 14, the court essentially ruled the journalist never stated a valid whistle- blower claim because, they ruled, it is technically not against any law, rule, or regulation to deliberately lie or distort the news on a television broadcast.
The lawsuit was never about the content of any program or whether information was distorted or not, it was about whether or not the reporters were fairly terminated. But you idiots can't seem to understand that.
