IPB




POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Fox News Kills Story & Fires Reporters.

Leslie Landry
post Jul 11 2009, 11:30 AM
Post #1





Group: Respected Member
Posts: 1,107
Joined: 2-May 08
From: Canada
Member No.: 3,264



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Teardrop
post Jul 11 2009, 02:39 PM
Post #2





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 17
Joined: 3-March 09
From: UK
Member No.: 4,184



wow. What an incredible twist at the end.
Very disturbing evidence of one of the main broadcastors and their hidden agenda.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lunk
post Jul 11 2009, 06:37 PM
Post #3



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 4,982
Joined: 1-April 07
Member No.: 875



Falsifying news isn't actually against the law?!

I know, it seems obvious to me,
but most, still, don't have a clue.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
BarryWilliamsmb
post Jul 12 2009, 08:58 PM
Post #4





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 243
Joined: 30-September 07
From: Regina, Sask, Canada
Member No.: 2,278



Propaganda started long before the prop.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mantaray
post Aug 12 2009, 09:18 PM
Post #5





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 9
Joined: 10-August 09
Member No.: 4,535



WOW, much thanks for posting that clip, I've sent it to over 20 people.
amazing conclusion.

If you haven't seen "OUTFOXED" it's a must see as well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AlI97TFims4
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Bruce Sinclair
post Aug 12 2009, 11:51 PM
Post #6


Core Member


Group: Contributor
Posts: 149
Joined: 31-March 08
Member No.: 3,074



Apparently WalMart, the world's largest retailer, does not sell any milk containing this growth hormome any more. They said that this was done in response to their customers wishes. Great!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tnemelckram
post Aug 13 2009, 10:33 AM
Post #7





Group: Contributor
Posts: 767
Joined: 30-January 08
Member No.: 2,690



Hi All!

This is a great story. The reporters lost the battle (their right to $425,000 in damages as whistle blowers) but won the war when as Lunk notes, the court said:

Falsifying news isn't actually against the law?!

I don't think this is a case of a court making a dishonest ruling and falling in lockstep with the rest of the machine we saw at work here. Although I haven't dug into the issue, I bet this is an accurate statement of the law.

It took a lot of deliberate work on the part of FOX to get the court to make this statement. To win the case, FOX had to take this position. Their lawyers researched it. They urged it on the court in numerous written court filings. Their lawyers said it in open court. The reporter's lawyers had the right to spill out their side of the case in an open public forum so the story got out anyway. All that had to happen before there was a decision. And because it sounds like the damage award was made in the trial court and reversed on appeal, FOX said it in two courts and thus repeated themselves and made it very clear and removed all doubt that they wanted the right to falsify the news.

FOX fought hard for their right to falsify the news and got what they wanted - a public pronouncement by a court that FOX had that right. And well, shoot! - FOX was legally correct. Ironically, in the end, the court said that the news is like the milk that started the case - adulterated.

There's probably more here. The first thing to happen would be the standard s h i t gram to FOX from the reporter's lawyers "introducing" themselves and threatening suit if FOX did not give satisfaction on their clients' claim. I'll bet that when FOX received that letter and before the reporter filed their whistleblower suit, FOX filed a separate pre-emptive action seeking an injunction against the reporters. FOX would probably base this on clauses in the reporters' contract saying that the reporters agreed that their work was FOX's property, confidential and/or some kind of trade secret, along with some other broader "default" provisions of the law to the same effect even if the contract was silent on the points. Given the existence of this video, it appears that if this occurred, FOX was not successful. If this is the case, then although the courts ultimately denied the money, they did not facilitate FOX's efforts to strangle the story.

FOX's approach was ham-fisted beyond belief, apparently driven by an insane desire to win the matter at hand. FOX would have been far better off just to pay the damages after receiving the first letter from the reporter's lawyers. They could have done the same when their request for an injunction was denied and still contained the damage. In both of these cases they probably wouldn't have gotten a "non-disclosure" agreement in return, but thy also would not have gotten this damning court pronouncement. Instead they let the whistle blower action get into open court and opened up the above-described Pandora's Box.

It reminds me of what Cornelius Flavius Silva supposedly said after he stormed Masada -
"What have we won? A piece of rock beside a poison sea!"

This post has been edited by tnemelckram: Aug 13 2009, 10:42 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sanders
post Aug 13 2009, 11:26 AM
Post #8



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 7,990
Joined: 13-September 06
Member No.: 49



I can only assume that falsifying news is not illegal IN FLORIDA. I'm pretty sure it's not legal on the federal level, because I remember the stink about the Office of Strategic Influence planting stories in foreign newspapers on the basis that they would be picked up by US news agencies - to get around statutes regarding disseminating propaganda within the US. I'm no expert on this stuff ...

But hey, if there IS a law against willingly disseminating propaganda and falsehoods as news in the US, a whole lot of people are guilty of breaking it !!! rolleyes.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tnemelckram
post Aug 13 2009, 12:19 PM
Post #9





Group: Contributor
Posts: 767
Joined: 30-January 08
Member No.: 2,690



Hi Sanders! (and all interested)

QUOTE
I'm no expert on this stuff ...


I can't claim to be either. The case involves some things that I have a lot of experience in (injunctions related to employment contracts, the mechanics and procedures common to all litigation, and the distinction between remedies), and some things I have no experience in (whistle blower suits and FCC regulations). Nor do I have all the facts which is shown by my many suppositions (using whatever expertise educated guesses require). Some comes from the "common sense" peculiar to lawyering such as making important distinctions and the fact that you sometimes should fear getting what you ask for. SO as to the rest . . .

QUOTE
I can only assume that falsifying news is not illegal IN FLORIDA. I'm pretty sure it's not legal on the federal level, because I remember the stink about the Office of Strategic Influence planting stories in foreign newspapers on the basis that they would be picked up by US news agencies - to get around statutes regarding disseminating propaganda within the US.


I think that in this context, the statement that it is not illegal to falsify news is the law in all 50 states and on the federal level as well. The critical distinction is that the OSI was a governmental organization and there are probably statutes that make it illegal for the government to disseminate propaganda generally and falsify news in particular to do so. They probably don't apply to private parties such as FOX and Monsanto.

In the context of communications regulation, things might be different. FOX (but not Monsanto) are subject to these regulations and while I do not know for sure, I hope that there is something directed at preventing falsification of news. But I don't know for sure, and then you have the fact that the toady Michael Powell was probably in charge of the FCC at the important times. Whether FOX did something wrong is one thing but whether the government does anything about it is where the rubber hits the road. The video story doesn't mention any FCC administrative action against FOX and I am not aware of any. Based on that one has to conclude: (1) that there was some loophole in the FCC regulations that allowed FOX to escape legally1; or (2) what FOX did was illegal but the FCC didn't do anything about it.

________________________
1. For example - the false news story was never actually broadcast and a "broadcast" of false news is required for a violation and just burying it is not a violation.

This post has been edited by tnemelckram: Aug 13 2009, 12:24 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sanders
post Aug 13 2009, 02:51 PM
Post #10



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 7,990
Joined: 13-September 06
Member No.: 49



Anyway, it's a travesty. The laws at one time were written to protect the people from crooks. These days they are written to protect the crooks from the people, and any laws which were passed before such transformation took place are re-thought along the lines of the latter.

It's plundering pirates, I tell ya, always has been.



(both yellow and green? Coincidence? Need I connect the saltire X to the skull and crossbones??)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tnemelckram
post Aug 13 2009, 03:19 PM
Post #11





Group: Contributor
Posts: 767
Joined: 30-January 08
Member No.: 2,690



Hi Sanders!

QUOTE
The laws at one time were written to protect the people from crooks. These days they are written to protect the crooks from the people, and any laws which were passed before such transformation took place are re-thought along the lines of the latter.


Agreed. The story amply illustrates this.


QUOTE
Anyway, it's a travesty.


Not really. Somehow, a judicial declaration that the news is all crap came out of the sausage machine. The court confirmed the larger and more important point that both you and I just about everyone else here believes. What more could we ask for?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Sanders
post Aug 13 2009, 03:57 PM
Post #12



Group Icon

Group: Administrator
Posts: 7,990
Joined: 13-September 06
Member No.: 49



QUOTE (tnemelckram @ Aug 17 2009, 01:19 PM) *
...Somehow, a judicial declaration that the news is all crap came out of the sausage machine. The court confirmed the larger and more important point that both you and I just about everyone else here believes. What more could we ask for?


I see your point, and you are right on the money. Whether it will make any difference however, I won't hold my breath. BUt it's one more piece of the puzzle - which can be used to present a case, at least to the ordinary American, that the system they believe in is rotten. In that respect, I suppose maybe we gained something. (?)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
tnemelckram
post Aug 13 2009, 04:09 PM
Post #13





Group: Contributor
Posts: 767
Joined: 30-January 08
Member No.: 2,690



Hi Sanders!

QUOTE
Whether it will make any difference however, I won't hold my breath. BUt it's one more piece of the puzzle - which can be used to present a case, at least to the ordinary American, that the system they believe in is rotten. In that respect, I suppose maybe we gained something. (?)


Yep, it's certainly not a complete answer. Just try to get some schmuck to be interested in, listen patiently to and understand what we just discussed! I understand why you are skeptical!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Atomicbomb
post Jan 30 2010, 06:10 AM
Post #14





Group: Newbie
Posts: 64
Joined: 28-January 10
Member No.: 4,870



Several other media outlets joined as friends of FOX in this case by the way. I did a report about this if you are interested you can see it here: Big Media And The Lies They Tell
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
pookzta
post Jan 30 2010, 10:27 PM
Post #15





Group: Student Forum Pilot
Posts: 88
Joined: 30-November 09
Member No.: 4,743



holy shit i have been waiting for a good video to tell my friends and family about Monsanto for so long! this is the one! i am posting this EVERYWHERE! thanks so much for posting this!!!!!

the truth is coming out and i love it! excellent post, thank you so much for sharing this with us!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
pan
post May 6 2010, 07:53 AM
Post #16





Group: Guest
Posts: 86
Joined: 29-April 10
From: Australia
Member No.: 5,028



For many the vast majority of the public that are not aware, Rupert Murdoch belongs to the, Rothchilds. You may well ask, so what?
Do your own research in the search Google engines and other history books and you will read that the, Rothchilds have been behind every major war, including supporting the Nazis during World War,II. as well as the allies.
Take for instance the, I.G. Farben which the Rothchilds owned was used by the Nazis to murdered the Jews. The I.G. Farben factory not only was Germany largest steel factory but it also used Jews as slave labour in the concentration camps. Including making the Zyklon B gas which the Nazi used to Killed so many Jews. The most disturbing thing to me is that none of the Zionist Rothchilds have being brought to justice, not one why?Remember that the Nazis murdered 6 million Jews during World War II. Did Rothschild financed IBM, supply machines to the Nazis which they used to exterminate the Jews with?


Rabbi Goldstein has to say about the Zionist and its incompatibility with Judaism.
http://www.inminds.co.uk/rabbi-goldstein-j...nd-zionism.html

This post has been edited by pan: May 6 2010, 07:56 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
nitatutt
post May 14 2010, 01:46 PM
Post #17





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 255
Joined: 5-December 07
Member No.: 2,550



I found this site on faux - leans left, FYI

News Hounds: We Watch Fox So You Don't Have To

http://www.newshounds.us/

And

Sourcewatch (some interesting faux history)

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Fox_News

Long but good film on faux's techniques, history, etc

OUTFOXED : Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism

(at 35 leads into a 911 issue - about the son of a port authority worker that died on 911...)

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=67...719834301238577

This post has been edited by nitatutt: May 14 2010, 03:08 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 18th April 2014 - 12:14 PM