This is a video about a court case we studied in my philosophy class. I didn't realize it was the same story right away. it is about the two reporters who were hired at FOX to be investigative reporters. They did their job uncovering the fact that bovine growth hormone was in much of the milk in the United Sates, and the effects that weren't being stated. FOX was threatened by Monsanto and suggested that FOX not run the story but that the reporters keep quite for which they didn't agree. There were no disputes on the claim the reporter made, just the concern of running the story.
The interesting thing that also comes with this, and is very concerning when it comes to getting the truth on environmental as well as every other issue, is the court case that ruled...
The court did not dispute the heart of
Akre’s claim, that Fox pressured her to broadcast a false story to
protect the broadcaster from having to defend the truth in court, as
well as suffer the ire of irate advertisers. Fox argued from the first,
and failed on three separate occasions, in front of three different
judges, to have the case tossed out on the grounds there is no hard,
fast, and written rule against deliberate distortion of the news.
The attorneys for Fox, owned by
media baron Rupert Murdoch, argued the First Amendment gives
broadcasters the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on
the public airwaves.
In its six-page written decision, the Court of Appeals held that the
Federal Communications Commission position against news distortion is
only a “policy,” not a promulgated law, rule, or regulation. Fox aired a report after the ruling saying it was “totally vindicated” by the verdict.
Another link to another story about this same case
http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/11-the-media-can-legally-lie/
Where I actually found the video was in this story, Why are Genetically Modified Foods not Labeled?
