whatever said:
Kasz216 said:
whatever said:
Kasz216 said:
whatever said:
Kasz216 said:
That's... not actually what happened.
Which is why internet news is even worse then Cable Network news. It goes from one source through 12 blogs and you end up with a story not like the actual one.
Check the Wiki on the Lawsuit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Akre#Whistleblower_lawsuit
The courts ruled against all of their lower charges. In otherwords agreeing they didn't lie.
That's why "inexplicably" Wilson didn't win anything.
Then they appealed the whistleblower clause to get back the 400,000 dollars they lost because she didn't have a standing under that clause.
|
That doesn't change the fact that Fox (WTVT) argued (and the court agreed) that distorting the news is not illegal:
"We agree with WTVT that the FCC's policy against the intentional falsification of the news-which the FCC has called its “news distortion policy”-does not qualify as the required “law, rule, or regulation” under section 448.102."
|
Which you know... doesn't actually mean anything. They did it to prevent a pointless lawsuit without merit. Any newstation would of done the same.
Also, they didn't even argue that it wasn't illegal. They argued that it wasn't against section 448.102 of the whistleblower law.
|
How do you come to the conclusion that it doesn't mean anything? It can certainly be used as precedent in future cases. It sets a chilling precedent that will affect others from becoming whistleblowers.
|
Chilling precedent on what? To qualify to be a whisleblower and still protect your job you have to be blow the whistle on something illegal. What's wrong with that?
Why would you even want to work for someone who was forcing you to lie?
I mean, did you read the actual reasoning for the judgement... or are you still talking of the news from the site that complains Kellog's serial has metal in it.
http://www.2dca.org/opinions/Opinion_Pages/Opinion_Page_2003/February/February 14, 2003/2D01-529.pdf
IS the actual brief.
There needs to be set standards otherwise anyone fired could just accuse their employer of "slanting the truth".
Also, you know this only applies to Florida. Not the rest of the nation.
|
Yes, I did read the actual brief.
Since they are saying that distorting the news is not "illegal", then you cannot be granted whistleblower protection. So now anyone that blows the whistle on a false and/or misleading news report is not protected against being fired. So good luck finding anyone in the future that is willing to stand up to it's employer.
And you wouldn't want to work for someone that makes you lie. But if you have a family, a mortgage, and other financial obligations, it's not always possible to just up and leave a job. You should not be able to be fired for telling the truth, period.
|
It's not possible to leave a job as a newsreporter if someone is forcing you to lie? Seriously?
That's the kind of thing that's going to GREATLY improve your hireability if your vindicated.
And once again... they aren't saying distorting the news isn't illegal.
They are saying that distorting the news is not covered by the whistleblower protection law.
If you are found willfully distorting the news the FCC will fine you heavily and possibly take away your broadcasting rights.
I mean, maybe you aren't familiar with what a Whistleblower protection law is. It's a law, that's done state by state to protect people who report the illegal activities of their employers. Many states have no Whistleblower laws at all.
Plenty of people still do blow the whistle on their bosses.
It has nothing to do with the actual legality of what a company is doing.
