So, the whistleblower law doesn't apply every time an journalist employee disagrees with what his employer deems '"true news". How shocking.

It makes legal sense for the station's attorneys to decide to adopt the strategy of proving in court that they get to decide what to publish on their station (easy) than to prove what's actually true in the story in question (hard).

The coverage you cite of this court case is a true model of journalistic integrity and objectivity too. So...jinx...you'd feel justified publishing your original statement as news with what you finally offered as citations to back it up? And you claim *Fox* makes things up? Pot, kettle, etc.

I feel justified in publishing my opinion of why I don't trust Fox with anything more important than the Simpsons. If you choose not to tune in to me each evening to get your news Maggie, I completely understand your position.

But to suggest that Fox News on WTVT and the Fox News Channel have nothing to do with each other confuses the hell out of me. Not clear at all.
WTVT didn't have a problem with the story until the President of Fox's network news division was threatened by Monstanto.... help me understand this UT.

I don't like the sound of that whole deal at all, definately doesn't reflect well on any and all involved. But I also hold no delusions as to where else this stuff goes on, just means that the 'truth' must be gently teased from as many and as varied sources as one can access.

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.

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?

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.

"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.:eyebrow:

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

Declaring Foley a Democrat?

Bill O'Reilly.

Snarkism isn't a citation.

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.

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.