Down with America UP with a NEW AMERICA

[Mister P-Mosh]

dmiller,

The difference is that while CNN, etc. may not get things right 100% of the time, and they do focus too much on nonsense nobody should care about, they seem to make an attempt at being a news network. Fox News, on the other hand, focuses on being an entertainment network, and deliberately lies in an attempt to entertain their audience. That is why whenever a Republican does something illegal, Fox "accidentally" calls them Democrats. That is why people like Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly are on their network, rather than people reporting facts.

In fact, Fox won a lawsuit against two former employees over Fox's right to lie on the news. If you've not heard of Jane Akre and Steve Wilson, the Wikipedia article I linked to can get you started. Here's a quote from there:

In 1997, they were fired from the station after refusing to knowingly include false information in their report concerning the Monsanto Company's production of RBGH, a drug designed to make cows produce more milk. They successfully sued under Florida's whistle blower law and were awarded a US $425,000 settlement by jury decision. However, Fox appealed to an appellate court and won, after the court declared that the FCC policy against falsification that Fox violated was just a policy and not a "law, rule, or regulation", and so the whistle blower law did not apply.

The court agreed with WTVT's (Fox) argument "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.[...] Because the FCC's news distortion policy is not a "law, rule, or regulation" under section 448.102, Akre has failed to state a claim under the whistle-blower's statute."[1]

So while any network could use this ruling as blanket amnesty to get away with lying, the fact is that Fox has been caught intentionally lying and got permission from the government to continue doing it. There is no reason anyone would trust what is reported on Fox. The integrity of CNN and the others are certainly up for debate too, but they haven't been as openly dishonest as Fox.

[year2027]

God first

Hi dmiller and Mister P-Mosh

thanks for bring up

read and learn not to trust any news

I love yall

love Roy

[year2027]

God first

Who tells the truth?

09-11-2009

Yes who tells the truth it is not Fox News, but it not NBC News or CNN News either they all lie? God tells me that all men are lie and know not the truth that would mean that all Presidents do not tell the truth past and present.

Our government lies just like the rest of them and Obama is no different than other Presidents he writes the speech to push his way. Why do we have people on paychecks by our government I will understand this because congress should advising our President?

All seems to be a way to get our money and I do see nation health is not needed but like Kentucky has made a state heath insurance and if insurance was sold across state lines there would no need for a Nation Health Insurance. God heals our health by prayer and by the body healing itself the way God set it up.

The white cells fight against the bad cells it has this way over thousands of years but doctor try to help but they just kill the good with the bad. One day they might know how to direct every thing on the bad but this the best they can do now.

I hate that my thoughts are on the President and our health care these days I wonder if my mind is set on these things as what I must write. I guess I see the need and Obama is not seeing it and I do see it as a way to fix it.

Maybe he is listen to the wrong people maybe he should fire everybody that not part the congress and senate and begin listen to them. Because I feel our country will divide up over heath care and nobody wants to listen.

Is Obama a lying, am I a lying, is the government a lying, is congress lying, is the senate lying, and all men are lying. I do my best tell the truth and Obama I hope he does his best but I cannot read his heart.

We lie when News Cast gives us bad a report or we let our feeling get into it making it about what we feel more than what God wants us to write. I am going to end now with love and a holy Kiss Roy.

[markomalley]

dmiller,

The difference is that while CNN, etc. may not get things right 100% of the time, and they do focus too much on nonsense nobody should care about, they seem to make an attempt at being a news network. Fox News, on the other hand, focuses on being an entertainment network, and deliberately lies in an attempt to entertain their audience. That is why whenever a Republican does something illegal, Fox "accidentally" calls them Democrats. That is why people like Glenn Beck and Bill O'Reilly are on their network, rather than people reporting facts.

In fact, Fox won a lawsuit against two former employees over Fox's right to lie on the news. If you've not heard of Jane Akre and Steve Wilson, the Wikipedia article I linked to can get you started. Here's a quote from there:

So while any network could use this ruling as blanket amnesty to get away with lying, the fact is that Fox has been caught intentionally lying and got permission from the government to continue doing it. There is no reason anyone would trust what is reported on Fox. The integrity of CNN and the others are certainly up for debate too, but they haven't been as openly dishonest as Fox.

You use Wikipedia??? as a source and complain about the use of the Telegraph?

Seriously....

First of all, the lawsuit was against New World Communications (d/b/a WTVT). Case # 98-CA-002439 filed in Hillsborough Circuit Court (FL). It was not filed against Fox News.

I'm glad you think that Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes have the time to monitor a story produced by a local affiliate, but reality says that this is highly unlikely.

The case was filed by both Steve Wilson and Jane Akre. All of Wilson's claims were dismissed. All of Akre's claims were also dismissed.

Here is some verbiage from the decision filed by the 2d District Court of Appeal in 2003 (it's a darned shame that whoever wrote the Wikipedia article couldn't take the time to link to the actual decision)

In December 1996, WTVT hired the appellee, Jane Akre, and her husband, Steve Wilson, as a husband-and-wife investigative reporting team. Shortly after Akre and Wilson arrived at WTVT, they began working on a story about the use of synthetic bovine growth hormone ("BGH") in Florida dairy cattle. Their work on this story led to what could be characterized as an eight-month tug-of-war between the reporters and WTVT's management and lawyers over the content of the story.

Each time the station asked Wilson and Akre to provide supporting documentation for statements in the story or to make changes in the content of the story, the reporters accused the station of attempting to distort the story to favor the manufacturer of BGH.

In September 1997, WTVT notified Akre and Wilson that it was exercising its option to terminate their employment contracts without cause.

Akre and Wilson

responded

in writing to WTVT threatening to file a complaint with the Federal Communications Commission ("FCC") alleging that the station had "illegally" edited the still unfinished BGH report in violation of an FCC policy against federally licensed broadcasters deliberately distorting the news. The parties never resolved their differences regarding the content of the story, and consequently, the story never aired.

In April 1998, Akre and Wilson sued WTVT alleging, among other things, claims under the whistle-blower's statute.

Those claims alleged that their terminations had been in retaliation for their resisting WTVT's attempts to distort or suppress the BGH story and for threatening to report the alleged news distortion to the FCC.

Akre also brought claims for declaratory relief and for breach of contract.

After a four-week trial, a jury found against Wilson on all of his claims. The trial court directed a verdict against Akre on her breach of contract claim, Akre abandoned her claim for declaratory relief, and the trial court let her whistle-blower claims go to the jury.

The jury rejected all of Akre's claims except her claim that WTVT retaliated against her in response to her threat to disclose the alleged news distortion to the FCC. The jury awarded Akre $425,000 in damages.

Of course, the user-developed article on Wikipedia didn't bother to include these portions of the court's decision.

Based on the written decision of the court, the claim is laughable anyway.

The station asked Akre and Wilson to substantiate their claims and Akre / Wilson respond by accusing the station of trying to distort the story. They are fired in 1997 and they respond by threatening to report the station to the FCC. Then they sue the station on the basis of a whistleblower law. Let's think about this a second.

Here's the sequence (according to the court's decision):

- They work on a story

- Management asks them for documentary proof

- They don't provide proof but, instead, accuse management of trying to distort their story

- This goes back and forth a few times

- They get canned

- They threaten to report management to the FCC

- They sue the station for a bunch of things, including whistleblower protection

Just as an FYI, had they ACTUALLY reported the station to the FCC before they were fired or threatened to report the station to the FCC before they were fired, they might have a case about whistleblower protection. But they're fired and only then threaten to report the station. Whistleblower protection NEVER works that way. Ever.

First, all claims made by Steve Wilson, Jane's husband were dismissed.

Second, all claims made by Jane Akre were dismissed...except the whistleblower claim. What the whistleblower claim does is accuse the station for firing her because she threatened to go to the FCC. The jury was not asked to review the validity of the claim at all, just that she was was improperly fired because she threatened to file a complaint (though the chronology written into this decision does not indicate that this was, in fact, the order of events).

Now, let's go back to the decision:

While WTVT has raised a number of challenges to the judgment obtained by Akre, we need not address each challenge because we find as a threshold matterthat Akre failed to state a claim under the whistle-blower's statute.

Translation: she didn't have a valid claim under the Florida whistle-blower law.

Now let's skip down a little bit in the decision (you can read the whole thing by the link, which Wikipedia didn't provide but I did):

The FCC has never published its news distortion policy as a regulation with definitive elements and defenses. Instead, the FCC has developed the policy through the adjudicatory process in decisions resolving challenges to broadcasters' licenses. The policy's roots can be traced to 1949 when the FCC first expressed its concern regarding deceptive news in very general terms stating that "[a] licensee would be abusing his position as a public trustee of these important means of mass communications were he to withhold from exp​ression over his facilities relevant news of facts concerning a controversy or to slant or distort the news."

There are two points to get at here:

1) The Florida Appeals Court did not rule that it was OK for a news outlet to lie

2) They indicated that truth-telling was not a rule, regulation, or law. It was a factor that was developed as part of the requirement for license renewals.

Back to the decision:

It is undisputed that the FCC's news distortion policy has never been "adopted" as defined by section 120.54, Florida Statutes (1997).

Translation: Akre's attorney did not attempt to argue this point.

The bottom line: Wilson's case was dismissed out-of-hand at the county court level. Akre's case was dismissed at that level as well, except for whether the whistle-blower complaint stood.

By the way, what were the counts? According to a website maintained by Wilson and Akre, here are the counts:

Count 1) Breach of Contract: NEW WORLD, nonetheless suspended PLAINTIFFS' employment in violation of the employment Agreements, threatened to terminate the Employment Agreements immediately unless the PLAINTIFFS agreed to engage in activities, as described above, which they believed to be unethical and in violation of the Federal Communications Act, and the rules and regulations promulgated by the Federal Communications Commission.

Count 2) Declaratory Judgment:

PLAINTIFFS demand:

a. A declaratory judgment construing the rights of the parties under the Employment Agreements.

b. A declaration that requiring PLAINTIFFS to participate in the preparation and broadcast of the BGH news report containing false or misleading information is not a reasonable assignment of duties within the meaning of ¶1(B) of the Agreements;

c. A declaration that the direction to the PLAINTIFFS that they participate in the preparation and broadcast of the BGH news report containing false or misleading information is not reasonable or valid and cannot predicate a charge of misconduct or insubordination within the meaning of ¶2(B)(i) or (ii) of the Employment Agreements;

d. A declaration that, because the DEFENDANT breached the Employment Agreements, the provisions in ¶¶4, 5, 7(B) and © are void or voidable by the PLAINTIFFS;

e. A declaration that notes, records, copies of tape recorded interviews and materials obtained from the public domain do not fall within the scope of ¶4(A) or 5 of the Employment Agreements;

f. Such other relief as the Court deems just and equitable.

Count 3: Whistle-blower Act Violation

68. At the time described herein, the actions of DEFENDANT and its agents, constituted violations of section 448.102, Fla. Stat., including, but not limited to:

a. Taking retaliatory personnel action against PLAINTIFFS for disclosing violations of laws, rules, and regulations, including violations of the Federal Communications Act; and

b. Taking retaliatory personnel action against PLAINTIFFS for their refusal to participate in the activities, policies and practices of DEFENDANT which were in violation of law, rules, and regulations, including violations of the Federal Communications Act

Counts 1, 2, and 3 were all dismissed in Wilson's case by the trial court.

Counts 1 and 2 were dismissed in Akre's case by the trial court. Count 3 was dismissed upon appeal.

In other words, the substance of the matter, that they were ordered to knowingly put out a false report, was dismissed at the trial court level.

Bottom line: Wikipedia is not a reliable source...

Now, do you have any real evidence to back up your claim, or is it just that you don't like Fox's editorial position and, therefore, don't want to see it used?

[markomalley]

Obama did not lie, in all versions of the bill in any committee, credits and Federal health care funds to illegal immigrants is forbidden.

http://www.time.com/...1921455,00.html

Wilson is wrong, not Obama, on this issue.

Time Mag:

The President's seemingly simple statement that "the reforms I am proposing would not apply to those who are here illegally" is not hard to check. In the Senate Finance Committee's working framework for a health plan, which Obama's speech seemed most to mimic, there is the line, "No illegal immigrants will benefit from the health care tax credits." Similarly, the major health-care-reform bill to pass out of committee in the House, H.R. 3200, contains Section 246, which is called "NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS." Some Republicans have claimed that these protections are too weak, since they do not require stringent eligibility checks that would prevent illegal immigrants from gaming the system.

Time's reporting is also not hard to check.

TITLE II--HEALTH INSURANCE EXCHANGE AND RELATED PROVISIONS

<h4>Subtitle A--Health Insurance Exchange

Subtitle B--Public Health Insurance Option

Subtitle C--Individual Affordability Credits

</h4>

SEC. 246. NO FEDERAL PAYMENT FOR UNDOCUMENTED ALIENS.

Nothing in this subtitle shall allow Federal payments for affordability credits on behalf of individuals who are not lawfully present in the United States.

"This subtitle" = Subtitle C. Individual Affordability Credits. (by the way, the underlining above is mine)

On the other hand, check out Section 152

SEC. 152. PROHIBITING DISCRIMINATION IN HEALTH CARE.

(a) In General-
Except as otherwise explicitly permitted by this Act
and by subsequent regulations consistent with this Act,
all health care and related services (including insurance coverage and public health activities) covered by this Act shall be provided without regard to personal characteristics extraneous to the provision of high quality health care or related services.

(b) Implementation- To implement the requirement set forth in subsection (a), the Secretary of Health and Human Services shall, not later than 18 months after the date of the enactment of this Act, promulgate such regulations as are necessary or appropriate to insure that all health care and related services (including insurance coverage and public health activities) covered by this Act are provided (whether directly or through contractual, licensing, or other arrangements) without regard to personal characteristics extraneous to the provision of high quality health care or related services.

Note subparagraph (a), above. They may not discriminate against ANYBODY for any reason in providing health insurance or health care.

(BTW, for the record, as long as my tax dollars aren't subsidizing it, I personally have no problem with anybody getting health insurance or receiving health care, regardless of their legal status. And, if my tax dollars are involved, I wouldn't have a problem with it either if the person or office receiving the tax dollars were obliged to report a suspected crime (being here illegally) just like they'd have to report any other suspected crime)

So it sounds like Time is joining Mr. Obama in the "YOU LIE" column.

[kimberly]

I think it was Will Rogers who said something like, if you listen to news sources you are misinformed. If you don't you are uninformed.

I always liked that.

[mstar1]

Again its interesting how people can read "personal characteristics" and inject meaning through their own filters:

The White House further clarified their position for the hard of hearing on Fri

The White House strengthened its stand against health care coverage for illegal immigrants Friday...

Whole story from Associated Press

[markomalley]

Again its interesting how people can read "personal characteristics" and inject meaning through their own filters:

The White House further clarified their position for the hard of hearing on Fri

Whole story from Associated Press

I agree. But, consider that it is currently illegal to discriminate against them in healthcare.

Before you suggest a "personal filter" keep in mind what I said before, I don't personally care. If they pay, I don't have a problem with them being insured. Healthcare is not the place to control immigration.

But until the text of the law is changed, it says what it says. Regardless of the White House statements.

Remember: the White House said no earmarks. Then he signed HR 1...which is nothing but earmarks. The White House said "no lobbyists." But they seem to have no problems signing waivers. And so on.

[Mister P-Mosh]

I agree. But, consider that it is currently illegal to discriminate against them in healthcare.

Before you suggest a "personal filter" keep in mind what I said before, I don't personally care. If they pay, I don't have a problem with them being insured. Healthcare is not the place to control immigration.

But until the text of the law is changed, it says what it says. Regardless of the White House statements.

Remember: the White House said no earmarks. Then he signed HR 1...which is nothing but earmarks. The White House said "no lobbyists." But they seem to have no problems signing waivers. And so on.

Personally, I oppose both the Republicans and Democrats on this. I think that if someone shows up at a hospital and is in desperate need of medical attention, they shouldn't have to show their papers or anything. Save their life, then figure out what to do. We all know that there is too much up-front paperwork involved in going to the emergency room. It would be nice if the life-saving portions happened first, and the paperwork (which should be minimized anyway) waits until the end.

[markomalley]

Personally, I oppose both the Republicans and Democrats on this. I think that if someone shows up at a hospital and is in desperate need of medical attention, they shouldn't have to show their papers or anything. Save their life, then figure out what to do. We all know that there is too much up-front paperwork involved in going to the emergency room. It would be nice if the life-saving portions happened first, and the paperwork (which should be minimized anyway) waits until the end.

I agree

[year2027]

God first

hi everybody

This is a color thing?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkUAPU7-ixU

<object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkUAPU7-ixU&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkUAPU7-ixU&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

love Roy