The court reversed the $425,000 jury verdict

in favor of journalist Jane Akre who charged she was pressured by Fox

Television management and lawyers to air what she knew and documented

to be false information. The ruling basically declares it is

technically not against any law, rule, or regulation to deliberately

lie or distort the news on a television broadcast.



On August 18, 2000, a six-person jury was unanimous in its conclusion

that Akre was indeed fired for threatening to report the station's

pressure to broadcast what jurors decided was "a false, distorted, or

slanted" story about the widespread use of growth hormone in dairy

cows. 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 Murdock, 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.



© 2003 SierraTimes.com


www.sierratimes.com/03/02/28/arpubmg022803.htm