Note Scalia's defense: "childish". Sure works to cover up the implication that any decision made before the Florida election-theft is simply "old news" meant to be "let go".
And so it begins.... I mean we knew people were going to make Obama-Osama jokes to try to cement the connection in stupid people's minds. I'm sure they're going to riff on the fact his middle name is Hussein, too.
Akre and Wilson versus WTVT, I would suspect. I haven't found a court citation in a quick look. I've got a number of summaries, though.
The pair were hired to be journalists, by Fox. They were doing a story on the safety of Monsanto's bovine growth hormone. They were told to falsify the story - eliminate all reference to things that were bad, add in things they (and Fox) knew to be false explaining how BGH was good.
They refused. Fox told them "lie in the news, or you're fired." They refused. Fox fired them.
They sued under the whistleblower law - termination for refusing to do something illegal is itself illegal. They won. Fox appealed, arguing that the FCC rule against knowingly, deliberately falisfying things labelled "news" wasn't a "law, rule, or regulation", and so not only did they not have to follow it, they couldn't be sued for firing people who *did* want to follow it. The court agreed.
I was wrong about the supreme court, incidentally - it hasn't gone that high.
Start with Jane Akre's wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Akre) and follow the links from there.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2008-05-26 10:28 pm (UTC)Really, how do they stay on the air? That's an honest question.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-05-26 10:32 pm (UTC)#2: They're popular, and so make a lot of money.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-05-26 10:34 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-05-26 10:50 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-05-26 11:00 pm (UTC)*jaw drop*
*boggle*
(no subject)
Date: 2008-05-26 11:33 pm (UTC)It gets better:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=168439&title=headlines-mind-of-scalia
Note Scalia's defense: "childish". Sure works to cover up the implication that any decision made before the Florida election-theft is simply "old news" meant to be "let go".
(no subject)
Date: 2008-05-26 11:46 pm (UTC)President McCain, anyone?
HAHAHAHA WE ARE GENIUSES
Date: 2008-05-27 01:35 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-05-27 02:29 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-05-27 02:45 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-05-27 04:47 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-05-27 06:16 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-05-27 11:31 am (UTC)The pair were hired to be journalists, by Fox. They were doing a story on the safety of Monsanto's bovine growth hormone. They were told to falsify the story - eliminate all reference to things that were bad, add in things they (and Fox) knew to be false explaining how BGH was good.
They refused. Fox told them "lie in the news, or you're fired." They refused. Fox fired them.
They sued under the whistleblower law - termination for refusing to do something illegal is itself illegal. They won. Fox appealed, arguing that the FCC rule against knowingly, deliberately falisfying things labelled "news" wasn't a "law, rule, or regulation", and so not only did they not have to follow it, they couldn't be sued for firing people who *did* want to follow it. The court agreed.
I was wrong about the supreme court, incidentally - it hasn't gone that high.
Start with Jane Akre's wikipedia article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Akre) and follow the links from there.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-05-27 09:59 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-05-30 10:35 am (UTC)