Talk:Jane Akre

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.

This article has been automatically assessed as Stub-Class by WikiProject Biography because it uses a stub template. If you agree with the assessment, please remove {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page. If you disagree with the assessment, please change it by editing the class parameter of the {{WPBiography}} template, removing {{WPBiography}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page, and removing the stub template from the article.

---

I believe there were two separate wrongful termination suits, which Wilson lost and Akre won; Akre's win was overturned on appeal.

There is far more to this story than is reported in this article, this is not NPOV.

See, for example:

http://www.gene.ch/gentech/2000/Aug/msg00077.html (This link appears to be an opinion piece on the character of Jane Akre and Mr. Wilson. It's certainly not NPOV, and it doesn't add anything to the story)

http://www.milkismilk.com/news-akre-wilson-questions-1-21-05.htm (struck because it's a dead link; Also, other links on that website are more character assassination pieces, not NPOV).

http://www.johnsugg.com/2005/08/letter_to_the_f.html Briholt 03:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Contents 1 Dubious 2 Original complaint 3 Fox's argument 4 Decision of Florida 2nd court

[edit] Dubious

Provide documentation for the following assertion:

"FOX did not dispute that it tried to force Akre to broadcast a false story, but argued that, under the First Amendment, broadcasters have the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports. This would be the sixth time that FOX had used this argument in court."

I want to see excerpts from the transcripts of the trial. -- 195.225.107.17 04:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I would also like to see transcripts from the trial, because I can't find it Briholt 21:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

• I added a somewhat supporting quote from the courts opinion:

"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] Charleenmerced 07:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)Charleenmerced

• But this quote is regarding a technical argument. Ms. Akre is saying that WTVT broke the law when it broke the FCC 'intentional distortion' policy. And given that's breaking the law, she argues that she has whistle blower status which protects her from being fired. The court, however, is actually saying "no, breaking the FCC policy is not the same as breaking the law of Florida, and as such Ms. Akre has no protection under the Whistle Blower law." Therefore, the court overturned the lower courts decision. Briholt

Now, this is a completely separate issue from whether WTVT actually pressured Ms. Akre to intentionally distort news. Without knowing the specifics of what transpired in the editorial room we will not have a reasonable chance of knowing whether intentional distortion took place. Additionally, given reference to the FCC adjudicating on a case by case basis, without a clear indication of what constitutes evidence as intentional distortion (see my quotes below) it's not clear how our public airwaves are protected from dishonest news sources. Briholt 22:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The sixth time? could you direct me the other ones, or maybe make a small note in the Fox news article (assuming I haven't missed it there.)?

[edit] Original complaint

http://www.courttv.com/archive/legaldocs/misc/foxsuit.html Briholt 03:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fox's argument

• "FOX did not dispute that it tried to force Akre to broadcast a false story, but argued that, under the First Amendment, broadcasters have the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports. This would be the sixth time that FOX had used this argument in court." - Are you serious? Did they really use this article?!

I added the bold emphasis to this claim because I can't find that argument in the amicus brief. It may have come out in a verbal exchange during a trial, but I can't find evidence to that. Briholt 21:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Decision of Florida 2nd court

You can read that here, case number 2d01-529:

http://www.2dca.org/opinion/February%2014,%202003/2D01-529.pdf

Here is the Amicus brief submitted on behalf of COX news and WVTV: http://www.foxbghsuit.com/090201amicusbrief.pdf Although there won't be anything like 'first amendment protects lies' I am finding the argument that basically says no one can regulate reporting except FCC, and they won't touch the veracity of a report for fear of exercising censoring practices. Quotes to come. Briholt 18:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

---

To summarize the Amicus Brief, the argument is not about protecting false statements as news. Teh argument is about whether the courts can get involved with this. It's a technical argument:

The government and courts cannot get involved with editorial decision making because that is what the FCC is for. The FCC will adjudicate conflicts regarding accuracy, but will leave the journalistic process of reporting facts up to the news company because the very nature of reporting is always biased from some point of view or another.

Key quotes from the brief:

This following argument basically says that the government and courts can't get involved with editorial decisions:

• "The essence of the claim is alleged "illegal" editing by news management, a position that grates against the fundamental principle that the "choice of material to go into a newspaper" - or news broadcast - must be determined by "editorial control and judgment," not official decree. Tornillo, 418 U.S. at 258. "

This following argument basically says that the FCC's policy is to stay out of editorial decisions because those editorial decisions are governed by the journalistic process:

• "[The FCC's] practice has been to give the policy against news distortion "an extremely limited scope." Galloway v. FCC, 778 F.2d 16, 20-21 (D.C. Cir. 1985). For example, in rejecting a complaint filed about a network news report by the Central Intelligence Agency, the Commission noted that it was being asked to "second-guess the journalistic judgment and editorial workings of ABC news" and stressed that "under no circumstances will the Commission engage in assessments of truth or falsity when considering whether news programming was deliberately distorted. Nor will it sit in judgment of the way particular news programming was handled." The FCC described such choices as "the very essence of the journalistic process."

The following quote get's to the nuts and bolts about First Amendment protections. The claim here is that the FCC will get involved with 'news distortion' on the condition that they receive "extrinsic evidence of deliberate distortion" but that there isn't any clear definition in how much evidence is needed.

• "The FCC has recognized that allegations of news distortion require a heightened burden of proof because of First Amendment concerns. Accordingly, it has applied a "particularly high threshold" for intervention in the news distortion matters area "because news and comment programming are at the core of speech which the First Amendment is intended to protect." Liability of NPR Phoenix, L.L.C. Licensee, 13 FCC Rcd. 14,070, 14,072 (Mass Media Bureau 1998). See also Complaint of Denny Mulloy, FCC 86-360, 1986 WL 290825 (Aug. 13, 1986) ("The first amendment does not permit the Commission to investigate a news distortion complaint unless it receives extrinsic evidence of deliberate distortion of news programming."). 28/ Consistent with the First Amendment, the FCC has required intentional falsification of the news by the licensee's top station or news management before any finding of news distortion. "
  
• 28/ Serafyn v. FCC, 149 F.3d 1213 (D.C. Cir. 1998) is not to the contrary.Although the court in that case remanded the FCC’s dismissal of a news distortion case to the agency, it did not propose “to determine just how much evidence the Commission may require or whether Serafyn has produced it.” Id. at 1220. Nor did the court consider any First Amendment issues. It found only that the Commission should have conducted a further investigation on the facts of that case, pursuant to the Communications Act. Id. at 1219

• Briholt 21:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)