The video is 12 minutes, but it took 12 minutes for my blood to cease boiling.

It's a perfect example of how the world's second largest agribusiness/chemical goliath can and does put it's big censoring foot on the throats of media who would expose their lies and dirty little secrets. And how it's slimy tentacles can reach and wrap around any greedy, outstretched hand at the U.S. FDA. Of which, we now know, there are many.

You'd think in this day and age media giants (like that pinnacle of literacy, Fox, )would have heard of a little thing called THE INTERNET and YouTube and other instant-access venues for information. But, in a world where money talks, it's obvious that they are still of the mindset that money doesn't just talk, but it still has the capacity to shut people up as well.

Thank goodness it didn't shut these people up. For all the good it did for them.

http://myspacetv.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=1699610893

Fox So-called "News" claims it was "totally vindicated" because it won it's appeal in a case where it fired invesitgative reporters for objecting to Fox airing information it knew was false. The Florida court threw out the award to the two reporters who filed suit under the Whistle Blower law in which a person may not be fired for reporting illegal activities.

The court ruled that Fox So-Called "News" committed no crime since making up the news is not illegal, therefore, the plaintiffs had no standing as Whistle Blowers.

So that's the level of integrity of Fox So-Called "News." They are "totally vindicated" because employees with integrity can not be considered whistle blowers under Florida law while Fox So-called "News" has the right to lie to us.

Vindicated? Yeah right.

(With manure as deep as they dish on their So-Called "News" programs, why do they even need Monsanto?)

Wayne

The Monsanto's tentacles have wrapped up more than what's on the surface, and this is another of their not-so-widely-publicized connections:

http://henwhisperer.blogspot.com/2008/02/before-you-vot...hillary-clinton.html

Scary, huh?

We have to be careful as what we hear and read especially on the internet. Any fool can write something on the internet and there is rarely anyone to hold them accountable for it, one of the things I dislike about the web. Did the Fox incident happen with a local Fox station or the Foa News Channel? Somesaid the court case was in Florida so I was curious?

I'm not sure what you mean, homsteader, by the "incident" happening with a local Fox station OR the Fox News Channel? If you watched and listened to the video, the reporters submitted an "undercover" story (sensationalistically- labeled as such a segment for and by Fox) by their head of "news" *ahem* programming. The revealing story just happened to be about Monsanto's illegal bonvine growth hormones in our milk supply. If the reporters were based out of a local Fox subsidiary (like WOHL in Orlando) and the request came from their programmer there, or if the request came from Roger Ailes himself in the New York Office, is irrelevant. FOX is a big hen house and dictates - literally - what each of their little chicks does and doesn't do and how they should and should do it. They run a very specifically-aimed coop which is aimed at the basest instincts of the American viewer. Unless they're threatened by a bigger rooster. As in this case: The c@cks at Monsanto.

They (Fox) crept behind a Florida law to cover their asses simply because the Fox subsidiary station where the reporters worked, was in Florida. FOX caved to censorship demands from the top in NYC via letters sent directly from Monsanto to them. It was the big Fox NY cheeses who found a loophole in Florida law w/which to squeeze their local reporters.

I suppose if a major network wanted to squelch a report from one of their correspondents in Baghdad but could only do so using Baghdad law, they'd probably do that, too. Which doesn't really make FOX any different than any other whoring network I guess. The network bottom line all suckles at the teats of big business. "Get it done or get it undone or there's no more milk money", say the great Motherf... The methods that were chosen this time were underhanded. But legal and they worked. The whole process and reason for it still sucked IMO. They reporters didn't report. The reporters were fired. The reporters lost their civil suit (based on Florida law).

But - in this case - the Internet was/is a good thing. While all the voices heard on the Internet and words written on the Internet can be quite questionable and sometimes, downright wrong, there's just too many aspects to this particular story that ring all too true. I'm skeptical about most things. But not about this. Especially not where an entertainment, unethical, sensationalistic pseudo-news network like Fox is concerned with the added "integrity" of one of the top three biggest world agribusiness manipulators like Monsanto.

I am sorry Gardenz, but homesteader raises a valid point with his question on local or network. a local station does not have to answer to the network as to what they air. They are "affiliate stations" and not owned by the networks themselves. I used to work for an NBC affiliate (WNDU in South Bend, IN).

While a network can "disipline" its network reporters according to the laws in whatever state they happen to be in, they cannot attack the reporters from their local stations. Only the locals can do that.

And just who tells or influences the local station to make those decsions? (aka: "You want this job? You want these sales? You want to keep this station?) In the broadcasting business $hit falls downhill. In most big businesses actually. Yes, the "discipline" came through a Florida venue. But who put the disciplinary wheels in motion? Fox Broadcasting Network out of New York. I seem to remember seeing Roger Ailes name on one of those 'scathing'-finger-wagging letters to that local station as well as reference to NY Legal Dept.

I worked for a major, major NYC radio station for many years in their news division so I'm familiar w/affiliate procedures and how the HEAD of News Programming can put the squeeze on local affiliate stations and local stringer reporters and their pieces. AND how the CEO and Network President puts the squeeze on everyone. I also worked an equal number of years for a huge advertising agency that 'majored' in media sales. So I've seen the donut hole from both sides.

"Owned" is one of those semantic words in broadcasting. "Local Joe" may own WBOO which is an affiliate of Big Ass Radio in New York owned by Mr. Magoo. Local Joe may think he can call the shots cause, after all, he purchased the station when it was a tin can and a string broadcasting out of a shack. Along came Mr. Magoo's Big Ass Radio in the Big Apple. He liked Local Joe's WBOO and wanted to take Local Joe's station nationwide. IOW, pick up stories and broadcast them if Mr. Magoo felt them "nationwide-worthy". Great for Local Joe. More sales! Great for the stringer reporters. More visiblity & money.

But if Mr. Magoo has "creative" or (bah in the case of FOX) "ethical" differences w/one of WBOO's reporters or their reports which even though broadcast locally, could have nationwide ramifications...AND Mr. Magoo gets his nuts squeezed by one of his largest sponsors, then Mr. Magoo sends a kindly letter to Local Joe (the second one comes from Mr. Magoo's legal department) and "requests" the story be squelched or altered. aka: censored.

Local Joe can huff and puff all he wants about "independently owned". But that's where that "owned" word becomes hazy. Technically, yes, it's independently owned. But when Local Joe signed over his sole rights to stories and content on his station to Mr. Magoo's Big Ass Radio in N.Y., Local Joe also had to abide by Mr. Magoo's Legal Department's R&R.

Ever see the movie "Network"? But a tip of the iceberg. When I saw it back in the 70's I thought I was watching a video of a typical news meeting at our station.

Sorry for the blathering. While each person's experiences can be different, I'm just referencing what I came to know up close and personal where I worked. I learned who really greased the wheels, lined the pockets and called the shots. I saw more than one affiliate crumble, change programming (not of their choosing) and 'owners' of independently own stations phizzle off into the great media void.

And Even Mr. Magoo's tenure is tentative. Like everyone else who thinks they're "in charge", they all answer to the shareholders and the shareholders keep their shares value high by making sure whoever is the CEO-du jour keeps the sponsors happy and agreeable. The Sponsors. The REAL owners of them all.

Linda, I just want to tell you that I think you have done a wonderful job of explaining how networks and network affiliations work. I've had a bit of experience in advising local affiliates, and I just could not have done a better job.

Thank you, ctdahle. I came away w/some bad memories and many good ones from working in radio news and subsequent years in ad/pr agencies & R&TV ratings agencies. But mostly, I came away with one helluva education that still serves me well.

Sorry for the delay in responding, my modem went out. I'm not going to rip the Fox network until I see more proof. I didn't watch the video because I just have dialup. Did a directive come down from the top of Fox mmaybe maybe not but I won't accuse someone of such without solid evidence, I'll have to do more research before making a decision like that. Suing over such a thing is typical of today's society even if it is true. Some are letting their dislike of Fox in my opinion override having credible proof of wrong doing. Just because other networks act in a similar way doesn't mean Fox did.

Watch the video. It's easier to form an opinion before posting several times if one knows what is being discussed.

Wayne

As I said above I have regular dialup and probaly would take two hours to download the video.

It's nice to hear that so many people in this forum are the progressive type who speak their minds and care so much about the political side of soil.

however, i just tuned in tonight to see that this magazine has sold out. they have a banner right at the top promoting miracle gro. Miracle Gro is anything but organic. they have been poisoning our soil and our pets and children for a very long time.

Stealing the word organic and putting onto the label of a soil product or two like they've done recently is a lie, and does not in any way make them a good company making safe products or dismisses all the bad things they've done and continue to do.

Their products are toxic and are made in an unsustainable way. This magazine has sold out to the criminals. Shame on organic gardening.

Welcome Dirt Works to our funny farm. You can write the people in charge here with your thoughts. They even reply sometimes. It can't hurt. The more the merrier. I guess that some of the decision makers here are willing to disregard what organic gardening really stands for in exchange for the bottom line looking better. It is sad. We are better than that.