Bush orders copies of Constitution removed

[Undertoad]

So, not the Fox News Channel.

glad we cleared that up

[Undertoad]

There is a corporate structure called "Fox" which is an outgrowth, IIRC, of 20th Century Fox the movie studio. There is a network of television affiliates, previously independent, which are part of the Fox network in that they have decided to broadcast the television shows of 20th C. Fox.

In Philadelphia, channel 29 is the Fox affiliiate. You might remember when it was not a Fox affiliate. It started its homegrown TV broadcast "The Ten O'Clock News" before it was a Fox station. It has mostly the same employees as when it was not a Fox affiliate. As an affiliate it is part of the Fox family.

Fox News and the Fox News Channel are also outgrowths of 20th C. Fox. As part of the same corporate umbrella they have some of the same DNA. But only some. It has taken a long time for the affiliates to connect with Fox News and the Channel. These days I know they do share some programming.. reluctantly.

If the sins of the affiliate are to be considered the sins of the corporate umbrella, then we should not visit Disneyworld if we don't like Lisa Thomas-Laury, or not trust Nightline if we don't like the entertainment of cartoon mice.

[jinx]

Ok. But that isn't what happened here. It was the directive from Fox, not the affiliate station to pull/change the story.
The Akers sued the affiliate becuase that's who they worked for, but wasn't it the corporate umberlla who sinned?

[Undertoad]

The Project Censored story also confuses Fox, Fox Television, Fox News and the local affiliate, as if all entities are one and the same. They are wrong to do so.

[xoxoxoBruce]

"sins of the affiliate"? The sinner was the corporate parent, the same parent that sets the tone for all the Fox divisions.
I can understand stopping a story they had scheduled to avoid offending a sponsor....I don't approve but I understand.
But that said, ordering the affiliate to falsify the story, deliberately lie to the public, is unforgivable. Especially on an item that affects the health of their viewers.
I'm sure it was a corporate decision to go to court.

It's hard to believe that the same corporate scum don't influence all the divisions.

[Undertoad]

The corporate parent was not Fox or Fox TV. It was New World Communications, of Tampa, FL.

[jinx]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

The corporate parent was not Fox or Fox TV. It was New World Communications, of Tampa, FL.

Where are you getting this? From what I've read, the Monsanto letter was sent to Roger Ailes.

Roger Eugene Ailes (born May 15, 1940) is a former Republican political consultant and the current president of Fox News Channel and chairman of the Fox Television Stations Group. He oversees My Network TV and Fox News Channel, which he created and manages. Ailes is most well known for his creation of the Willie Horton ads which attacked Democratic presidential candidate Michael Dukakis during the 1988 campaign and his managing of the Fox News Network.

[MaggieL]

Originally Posted by jinx

Where are you getting this? From what I've read, the Monsanto letter was sent to Roger Ailes.

A detailed review of the case and your heroes Wilson and Akre is available here.

Originally Posted by The Strange Case of Steve Wilson

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.

[jinx]

My heroes... of course. Actually, it was my dislike of Monsanto and their ideas of better living thru GE and Roundup that got me interested in the Fox case in the first place, way back when it was current news. Writing off Fox as a news source was a secondary reaction to the information, and really, I couldn't give fuck all about the journalists.
Do you have something to add to the discussion? Because I'm not going to click your link just becuase you went to the trouble of putting a quick snarky buzz in front of it.

[Undertoad]

It's all in the decision (warning, PDF)

New World Communications of Tampa, Inc., d/b/a WTVT-TV, a subsidiary of Fox Television, challenges a judgment entered against it for violating Florida's private sector whistle-blower's statute, section 448.102, Florida Statutes (Supp. 1998). We reverse.

In December 1996, WTVT hired the appellee, Jane Akre, and her husband, Steve Wilson, as a husband-and-wife investigative reporting team. Shortly after Akre and Wilson arrived at WTVT, they began working on a story about the use of synthetic bovine growth hormone (“BGH”) in Florida dairy cattle. Their work on this story led to what could be characterized as an eight-month tug-of-war between the reporters and WTVT’s management and lawyers over the content of the story. Each time the station asked Wilson and Akre to provide supporting documentation for statements in the story or to make changes in the content of the story, the reporters accused the station of attempting to distort the story to favor the manufacturer of BGH.

In September 1997, WTVT notified Akre and Wilson that it was exercising its option to terminate their employment contracts without cause. Akre and Wilson responded in writing to WTVT threatening to file a complaint with the Federal Communications Commission (“FCC”) alleging that the station had “illegally” edited the still unfinished BGH report in violation of an FCC policy against federally licensed broadcasters deliberately distorting the news. The parties never resolved their differences regarding the content of the story, and consequently, the story never aired.

In April 1998, Akre and Wilson sued WTVT alleging, among other things, claims under the whistle-blower's statute. Those claims alleged that their terminations had been in retaliation for their resisting WTVT’s attempts to distort or suppress the BGH story and for threatening to report the alleged news distortion to the FCC. Akre also brought claims for declaratory relief and for breach of contract. After a four-week trial, a jury found against Wilson on all of his claims. The trial court directed a verdict against Akre on her breach of contract claim, Akre abandoned her claim for declaratory relief, and the trial court let her whistle-blower claims go to the jury. The jury rejected all of Akre’s claims except her claim that WTVT retaliated against her in response to her threat to disclose the alleged news distortion to the FCC. The jury awarded Akre $425,000 in damages.

[lumberjim]

opinion?