For those that know about this, yes, it is OLD news, but for many it still is news, so I decided to breathe some life into the old story to benefit those who do not know... FOX fired a newscaster for refusing to do a story she knew was a lie. She sued FOX and won, however FOX appealed the verdict based on the notion that as a news organization they are not obligated by law to tell the truth - they are fully within their rights to lie to the public and falsify stories... AND THEY WON. FOX lost every shred of credibility with many people (anyone with any sense of integrity and responsibility, in my opinion) when they openly and unapologetically admitted to lying and falsifying stories and forcing their employees to do so. Her name is Jane Akre. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Akre
I liked Fox until I heard about this. And I don't know why I hadn't heard about this before. That's just shitty. No more Fox and Friends for me in the morning.
The point being that many people still do not know about this. Consider it a Public Service Announcement.
lmao man i didnt hear about this but definetaly am not suprised everyone knew it already just took some lady named Jane to prove to us that we cant believe anything on tv. who honestly watches free to air anyway i only watch tv if i feel the need to and thats a very rare occassion rather not tangle myself in a spider web of conformity and brainwashing thank you very nicely
Well, CBS fired Dan Rather for putting out a story that was a lie. Big deal. We all know, or should know, that most news is little more than lies and half-truths, so what the hell ...this ain't no news, or shouldn't be. Baron Max
The fact that newscaster sued FOX bothers me. They successfully sued under Florida's whistle blower law and were awarded a US$425,000 settlement by jury decision. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Akre Would it be because of this: let say she knew, waited for the right moment, and tried to take benefit from it Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Why would you make that assumption that SHE was being an ooprtunist when FOX has quite the reputation for a lack of integrity and truth in reporting? Let's see... FOX told her to do a story that they knew for a fact was a fabrication, in favor of this corporation ($$). She refused, knowing it was a lie. They told her, "Do it or you're fired." She said, "No. I will not lie, I am a reporter of the news." They fired her. From that you get that she waited for this opportunity for FOX to ask her to do a false story so she could get fired and sue? Are you insane, or are you just in love with Rupert Murdoch? Even if she was doing this (which is a patently absurd statement to make) so what? What does that matter in the least? The fact remains that they openly and unapologetically admitted to lying and falsifying stories and forcing their employees to do so. FOX essentially said, "We are not a news organization, we are a propaganda organization", and that's OK with you?
one_raven, Why are you naive enough to believe every STUB you read in Wiki? The local FOX news station fired Akre because she refused to include any information which conflicted her hatchet job of a story. Monsanto could have sued FOX news if they had aired Akre's one-sided story with no evidence to back up her accusations of Monsanto. Here is a little more info from a source that certainly has no admiration of Monsanto. Neither do I, but fair is fair. http://www.gene.ch/gentech/2000/Aug/msg00077.html
