Falsifying news, is not against the law 2003

An appeal was filed, and a ruling in February 2003 came down in favor of WTVT, who successfully argued that the FCC policy against falsification was not a "law, rule, or regulation", 
----------
The most prominent legal case involving Monsanto and Fox is the 1997-1998 dispute concerning the suppression of an investigative report on recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH). Journalists Jane Akre and Steve Wilson, reporting for Fox's Tampa Bay affiliate WTVT, were fired after their story on rBGH, which raised health concerns linked to Monsanto's product, was repeatedly altered and ultimately not aired due to corporate pressure from Monsanto and Fox management The reporters sued the station for breach of contract and violation of Florida’s whistleblower protection act, alleging they were forced to air false or misleading information to appease Monsanto Although they won a $425,000 damages award in a landmark whistleblower case, Fox appealed and successfully overturned the verdict in 2003 on a technicality, with the appeals court ruling that deliberately distorting news on television is not illegal under current law

- **Case Background**: The conflict began in 1997 when Akre and Wilson prepared a report on rBGH, a synthetic hormone used in dairy cows that increases milk production but raises concerns about antibiotic use and potential cancer risks due to elevated levels of insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1) Despite finding credible scientific evidence, the story was blocked from airing.
- **Corporate Pressure**: Monsanto sent multiple letters to Fox executives, including Roger Ailes, warning of "dire consequences" and potential lawsuits if the story aired, while Fox’s in-house counsel reportedly advised against airing the story due to legal risks, stating "it doesn’t matter if the facts are true"
- **Internal Conflict and Firing**: The reporters were subjected to repeated rewrites, suspensions, and threats, including a $125,000 offer to leave quietly. They were ultimately fired on November 30, 1997, without the story being broadcast
- **Legal Outcome**: The case became a symbol of media censorship and corporate influence. Although the jury awarded damages, the decision was reversed on appeal, with the court upholding Fox’s right to control editorial content, even if misleading
- **Post-Case Developments**: A replacement reporter aired a sanitized version of the story in May 1998, omitting the original criticisms of Monsanto The case remains a well-documented example of corporate interference in journalism, with key documents available online

Note: The case referenced in the query is distinct from other legal matters involving individuals named Fox and Monsanto, such as the 2020 federal lawsuit by James Fox and Ruthann Fox against Monsanto over alleged health effects from glyphosate exposure, which is unrelated to the Fox TV network

links
The Israel Projects 2009 Global Language dictionary (how to lie to and deceive the masses) https://www.bitchute.com/video/CUWs18ZHWLOg
Hitler vs the Rothschilds (family of terrorists) - The Barnes Review 2021 https://www.bitchute.com/video/J0utNHbpEacP
Rothschilds War manual - The original Protocols 1773 https://www.bitchute.com/video/YOXKcugCOMcq/
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/monsanto-forced-fox-tv-to_b_186428
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Akre