Toronto gun violence leaves two dead

[Kitch]

Because Monsanto threatened to bring a legal suit against them. Not very complicated...

The Fox station was promoting the story aggressively until the night before it was scheduled to air when the Monsanto Corporation threatened Fox. Fox then demanded that Akre and Wilson change their story. They put them through 83 re-writes and eventually fired them just before Christmas 1997.

http://www.democracynow.org/2003/7/25/mons...for_advertising

Very simple. But it's important information, don't you think? And it's an example of a corporation having power over what information is disseminated.

[Kitchener]

Organized crime exists no matter what

Good point. Let's criminalize alcohol.

[White Doors]

Very simple. But it's important information, don't you think? And it's an example of a corporation having power over what information is disseminated.

No, it's a good example of libel and slander laws.

[Argus]

No, it's a good example of libel and slander laws.

Actually, it's more like a good example of how a wealthy organization can be a vexatious litigant and use the courts as a weapon to bludgeon opponents even if they have no chance of actually winning a case.

[White Doors]

Actually, it's more like a good example of how a wealthy organization can be a vexatious litigant and use the courts as a weapon to bludgeon opponents even if they have no chance of actually winning a case.

You think FOX was bullied by Monsanto?

[cybercoma]

No, it's a good example of libel and slander laws.

Was the information incorrect? That's the implication of what you're saying. I'm only vaguely familiar with the Monsanto case, but I seem to recall the findings were accurate. Do you know where I can find more information on it?

[White Doors]

Was the information incorrect? That's the implication of what you're saying. I'm only vaguely familiar with the Monsanto case, but I seem to recall the findings were accurate. Do you know where I can find more information on it?

The very fact that the product is still available and was actually just sold to another company makes the story moot.

http://ca.news.finance.yahoo.com/s/2008200...y-business.html

About Posilac®

Posilac (rbST) is approved by numerous regulatory authorities worldwide to help dairy farmers improve milk productivity. BST (bovine somatotropin) is a natural protein produced in all cattle, helping adult cows produce milk. Milk from cows receiving Posilac is unchanged from milk from cows not receiving this supplement.

Since it received U.S. FDA approval in 1994, Posilac has become a leading dairy animal supplement in the United States and many other countries. Supplementing dairy cows with Posilac enhances milk production and serves as an important tool to help dairy producers improve the efficiency of their operations and produce more milk more sustainably.

and to the incident itself,

Fox television affiliate WTVT/Fox13 in Tampa, Florida was sued by Steve Wilson and Jane Akre, two former employees who were fired in relation to their report on BST. The journalists originally wrote a story in 1996 that covered the potential for human health risks of rBST. The station began publicizing the upcoming broadcast of the story, but after a threatening letter from Monsanto, the station asked for changes to the story. Ultimately, following their refusal to change the story and threats to report the station to the FCC, the journalists were fired. This story is featured at length in the documentaries The Corporation and Outfoxed.

After a five-week trial which ended August 18, 2000, Akre was awarded $425,000 in damages; Wilson was awarded nothing. The jury found that Fox's actions were in retaliation for Akre's refusal of "a false, distorted, or slanted story", in the words of the jury. The jury did not, however, agree that the station bowed to pressure from Monsanto to alter their reporting.

Fox appealed and prevailed February 14, 2003, when an appeals court issued a ruling reversing the jury. The court's basis was that FCC policies on news agencies reporting the truth are not legally binding; and as such, Fox had no legal requirement to report the truth in a news story.

In 2004, Fox filed a $1.7 million counter-suit against Akre and Wilson for trial fees and costs.[citation needed]

Edited November 3, 2008 by White Doors

[Argus]

Was the information incorrect? That's the implication of what you're saying. I'm only vaguely familiar with the Monsanto case, but I seem to recall the findings were accurate. Do you know where I can find more information on it?

Monsanto is sueing people simply for claiming that their products are HGH free. They're suggesting that this, by implication, suggests there's something wrong with HGH but I can't see how there's any basis in law to support banning companies from making that claim. If there is there certainly should not be.

[White Doors]

Monsanto is sueing people simply for claiming that their products are HGH free. They're suggesting that this, by implication, suggests there's something wrong with HGH but I can't see how there's any basis in law to support banning companies from making that claim. If there is there certainly should not be.

If the statement (reporting) was correct, they wouldn't have to worry about being sued

[Argus]

If the statement (reporting) was correct, they wouldn't have to worry about being sued

They would if it would cost them tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands to defend against the lawsuit.

[White Doors]

They would if it would cost them tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands to defend against the lawsuit.

FOX is hardly a poor pauper.

chances are the story had verifiable false claims in it and when FOX was notified by Monsanto, they asked the reporters to take the false claims out and they refused and they were fired.

pretty straight forward. I'm not seeing any conspiracy here

[Kitch]

FOX is hardly a poor pauper.

chances are the story had verifiable false claims in it and when FOX was notified by Monsanto, they asked the reporters to take the false claims out and they refused and they were fired.

pretty straight forward. I'm not seeing any conspiracy here

[/quote

That word, conspiracy, has been so demonized by those who'd rather not consider possibilities. Anyway...

FOX won the court case against the two reporters because the FCC apparently doesn't require news stations to tell the truth when reporting 'news'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bovine_somato..._Fox_television

And, some info on Posilac:

http://www.awionline.org/farm/rbgh-s99.htm

http://www.organicconsumers.org/rBGH/rach621.htm

An indirect link to the news report that was shut down by FOX/Monsanto:

http://www.foxbghsuit.com/bgh5.htm

I don't know exactly what this is... but it's interesting:

www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys/00/apr00/042700/emc0092.rtf

It's not as simple as you make it sound. This is indeed an example of a corporation silencing the media, regardless of how large the media company is.

Besides, what does it actually mean for one corporation to "bully" another? Corporations are not people. They don't have morals, opinions, or emotions. They have a goal, and that goal is to make money. If a corporation's ability to make money is threatened, however that may happen, then it's a business decision... it's not an example of corporate submission to bullying.

[White Doors]

I see, so you are trying to stick up for the 'little guy' here being FOX news?

lol

Look, if something can be proven that FOX was bullied, then I would look into it but until then I will enjoy the irony of a Canadian (l)iberal defending FOX news.

[Kitch]

I see, so you are trying to stick up for the 'little guy' here being FOX news?

lol

Look, if something can be proven that FOX was bullied, then I would look into it but until then I will enjoy the irony of a Canadian (l)iberal defending FOX news.

What makes you think anybody is 'defending' FOX? I originally made a post that described the way that information is filtered before it is 'allowed' to become news. Monsanto produces a drug that harms the cows and potentially harms humans. Some FOX reporters were going to inform Americans of this and Monsanto threatened to sue FOX who then did what they could to suppress the story. The drug is banned in Canada and Europe, partly because of the harm it causes to cows and partly for the potential it has to harm humans. Why, do you think, that is?

Why do you keep using the word "bullied"? It was business decisions by both corporations leading to... the important part of the problem... suppression of important information!

Of course Monsanto wouldn't want that info out there. It's in their interest to lie. Of course FOX doesn't care about the info. Their interest is to keep advertising dollars... which Monsanto and the other companies owned by the same people provide.

I believe that your approach communicates nothing more than disbelief that either Monsanto would lie, that FOX would allow them to lie or that the drug really doesn't cause any harm. You're not saying that information isn't filtered, you're just saying you don't believe that there was anything to filter. Am I correct?

[Argus]

FOX is hardly a poor pauper.

chances are the story had verifiable false claims in it and when FOX was notified by Monsanto, they asked the reporters to take the false claims out and they refused and they were fired.

pretty straight forward. I'm not seeing any conspiracy here

I meant for small cases. For something like Fox you're looking at more like hundreds of thousands on up.

And while they're no poor pauper, they're also not an organization which puts much importance on journalism and informing the public. They're basically a big shill for the Republican party. Since the big shots at Fox saw nothing to be gained on behalf of the Republican Party they saw no reason to waste money on a lawsuit with Monsanto.

[White Doors]

I meant for small cases. For something like Fox you're looking at more like hundreds of thousands on up.

And while they're no poor pauper, they're also not an organization which puts much importance on journalism and informing the public. They're basically a big shill for the Republican party. Since the big shots at Fox saw nothing to be gained on behalf of the Republican Party they saw no reason to waste money on a lawsuit with Monsanto.

Well let's agree to disagree on two things:

1 Fox is in the pocket of the republican party and

2 Fox participated in a coverup in regards to this Hormone.

[White Doors]

What makes you think anybody is 'defending' FOX? I originally made a post that described the way that information is filtered before it is 'allowed' to become news. Monsanto produces a drug that harms the cows and potentially harms humans. Some FOX reporters were going to inform Americans of this and Monsanto threatened to sue FOX who then did what they could to suppress the story. The drug is banned in Canada and Europe, partly because of the harm it causes to cows and partly for the potential it has to harm humans. Why, do you think, that is?

Why do you keep using the word "bullied"? It was business decisions by both corporations leading to... the important part of the problem... suppression of important information!

Of course Monsanto wouldn't want that info out there. It's in their interest to lie. Of course FOX doesn't care about the info. Their interest is to keep advertising dollars... which Monsanto and the other companies owned by the same people provide.

I believe that your approach communicates nothing more than disbelief that either Monsanto would lie, that FOX would allow them to lie or that the drug really doesn't cause any harm. You're not saying that information isn't filtered, you're just saying you don't believe that there was anything to filter. Am I correct?

Yes, I don't believe that there is anything to it other than these two FOX reporters were going to draw conclusions on something that they had no proof for. That is poor journalism and rightfully, FOX fired them both.

By the way, there are lots of drugs that are recalled after 'bad information' got out on them and they are recalled. CEO's go to jail if they willfully expose the public to risk. No one has any proef that this hormone is bad for people and the countries who are banning it are taking a wait and see cautionary approach.

And who knows, maybe it does have bad long term affects, I don't know and you know what? No one else does either including these two fox reporters which I imagine is the crux of Monsanto's argument.

If it were true then Monsanto would not have a legal leg to stand on. pretty simple.

Not all large pharmacare companies are fascists.

Edited November 4, 2008 by White Doors

[Kitch]

Well let's agree to disagree on two things:

1 Fox is in the pocket of the republican party and

2 Fox participated in a coverup in regards to this Hormone.

In your use of the term 'cover up', are you saying that FOX wasn't involved in preventing the truth from being broadcast, or are you saying that FOX wasn't involved in determining what the 'truth' is?

[Kitch]

Yes, I don't believe that there is anything to it other than these two FOX reporters were going to draw conclusions on something that they had no proof for. That is poor journalism and rightfully, FOX fired them both.

By the way, there are lots of drugs that are recalled after 'bad information' got out on them and they are recalled. CEO's go to jail if they willfully expose the public to risk. No one has any proef that this hormone is bad for people and the countries who are banning it are taking a wait and see cautionary approach.

And who knows, maybe it does have bad long term affects, I don't know and you know what? No one else does either including these two fox reporters which I imagine is the crux of Monsanto's argument.

If it were true then Monsanto would not have a legal leg to stand on. pretty simple.

Not all large pharmacare companies are fascists.

Actually, Canada and Europe banned it because it initiated an immune response and also caused the development of cysts in rats. This is an indication that it might not be safe for humans... a big indication.

How are you so sure that the reporters had no 'proof'?

[White Doors]

In your use of the term 'cover up', are you saying that FOX wasn't involved in preventing the truth from being broadcast, or are you saying that FOX wasn't involved in determining what the 'truth' is?

I can't make it any clearer than I have if you are unable to follow along that is not my issue.

As we are wildly off track, I will not be continuing this line of argument in this thread.

Should you wish to continue then feel free to make an appropriate thread.

[Kitch]

I can't make it any clearer than I have if you are unable to follow along that is not my issue.

As we are wildly off track, I will not be continuing this line of argument in this thread.

Should you wish to continue then feel free to make an appropriate thread.

You're making it clear that you care not to converse about things that you aren't very informed about but want to assert an unfounded belief anyway. Clever to request a mutual concession because you can't go any further though.