Pravda

I find the statement “If, as claimed by some detractors of FOX News, the court had ruled that there was a “right to lie” held by broadcasters, Akre and Wilson certainly would have been aware of it” a little unrealistic: Do you honestly think this would be common knowledge to simple employees, or to the common public? You don’t think they would suppress that type of information? News caster: “Before we get into our news cast you should know that we have the right to lie if we want to”. That’s just not a story any news agency would want to run, no matter how honest they are, because it hurts their entire industry as a whole.

Do you have a law degree, publicly recorded references, or notarized documents from a legal authority that this interpretation is the correct one (I’m not claiming I have one, nor that I am necessarily educated in the law)? Would you be willing to swear under full commercial liability that your answer is definitive? I read the entire court case, and until such time as you can provide evidence of your claims, I think this statement wins out:

“We agree with WTVT 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.”

The reason the claims did not fall under the whistle-blowers act (as you stated) is that no CRIME was being committed, they were not breaking a “law, rule, or regulation under section 448.102″ (again, if you read the entire document you can see where they define the word “rule”, and it doesn’t apply here).

I believe you have interpreted it wrong. In fact, I don’t think you read this document to the end, considering it ends with:

“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. Accordingly, we reverse the judgment in her favor and remand for entry of a judgment in favor of WTVT. Reversed and remanded.”

I mean, they are saying it flat out: Akre did not bring a crime that fit under the whistle-blowers act (and the “crime” the alleged was telling a lie), therefore Akre had no case. Appeal upheld.

Since I cannot find any other site or information to corroborate your story I am going to consider your interpretation flawed and purely your opinion, and I think others should as well. Perhaps you should consider an update with references, or a retraction?