Fw: Got Milk? Get Fired ~ Fox News fired reporters for refusing to falsify Monsanto story

[Guest guest]

This is what it is like going up against the big Corporations...what a mind

boggling challenge...

Patty

From: " ilena rose " <ilena@...>

Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2001 11:31 AM

Subject: Got Milk? Get Fired ~ Fox News fired reporters for refusing to

falsify Monsanto story

~~~ this story is amazing ... what courage they have to stand up to the Big

Fish ... thanks much dr. david and rich for sending this ~~~

http://www.alternet.org/print.html?StoryID=10832 The state of news

reporting in the U.S.....

Got Milk? Get Fired

Jane Akre, In These Times

May 8, 2001

Viewed on May 10, 2001

-------------------------------------------------------------------

After three judges, 27 months of pre-trial wrangling and five weeks of

courtroom testimony, the jury finally had its say. On August 28, 2000, it

awarded me $425,000 in damages for being fired by TV station WTVT in Tampa,

Florida. WTVT is a Fox station owned by Rupert Murdoch. The verdict made me

the first journalist ever to win a " whistleblower " judgment in court

against a news organization accused of illegally distorting the news.

Notwithstanding being vindicated in court, I have yet to collect a dime of

that jury award. There is no telling how long Fox will drag out the appeals

process as it seeks to have the judgment overturned by a higher court.

Meanwhile, I am still out of work, as is my husband, Steve , who was

also fired on December 2, 1997, for refusing to falsify a news story to

appease the powerful Monsanto Corporation.

The story Fox tried to kill involved rBGH milk, which is produced using

Monsanto's recombinant bovine growth hormone. We documented how the

hormone, which can harm cows, was approved by the government as a

veterinary drug without adequate testing of how it affected the children

and adults who drink rBGH milk.

You would think that our jury verdict, with its landmark significance for

journalists everywhere, would spark some interest from the news media

itself. Instead, the silence has been deafening. One of the biggest names

in investigative reporting -- Mike Wallace of 60 Minutes (made infamous by

the movie " The Insider " ) -- took a look at our case, and then decided not

to do a story. Why not? He deemed it " too inside baseball. " Translation:

There is an unwritten rule that news organizations seldom turn their

critical eyes on themselves or even their competitors.

This rule is not absolute, of course. Some previous legal challenges

involving the media have received heavy news coverage, including the battle

between 60 Minutes and Vietnam-era Gen. Westmoreland; the " food

disparagement " lawsuit that Texas cattlemen brought against talk-show host

Oprah Winfrey; and the multimillion-dollar lawsuit brought against ABC-TV

by the Food Lion grocery store chain.

All of those other lawsuits, however, involved conflicts between a news

organization and some outside group or individual. Our lawsuit involved a

conflict within the media, pitting labor (working journalists Steve and

myself) against broadcast managers, editors and their attorneys who

hijacked the editorial process in an effort to remove all risk of being

sued or losing an advertiser.

Prior to my firing at WTVT, I had worked for 19 years in broadcast

journalism, and Steve's career in front of the camera was even longer. He

is the recipient of four Emmy awards and a National Press Club citation.

His reporting achievements include an exposé of unsafe cars that led to the

biggest-ever auto recall in America.

However, we have spent three years off the air, tied up in a seemingly

interminable legal battle. Few people recognize our faces anymore.

The truth is, only Monsanto really knows how many U.S. farmers are

presently using rBGH, which is reportedly now injected into more than 30

percent of America's dairy herd (rBGH is trade-named Posilac, and is also

known as recombinant bovine somatotropin or rBST). The company persistently

refuses to release sales figures, but claims it has now become the

largest-selling dairy animal drug in America. The chemical giant's

secretive operations were part of what made the story of rBGH such a

compelling one for me to explore as an investigative reporter.

In late 1996, Steve and I were hired as investigative journalists for the

Fox-owned television station in Tampa. Looking for projects to pursue, I

soon learned that millions of Americans and their children who consume milk

from rBGH-treated cows unwittingly have become participants in what amounts

to a giant public health experiment. Despite promises from grocers that

they would not buy rBGH milk " until it gains widespread acceptance, " I

discovered and carefully documented how those promises were quietly broken.

I also learned that health concerns raised by scientists around the world

have never been settled, and indeed, the product has been outlawed or

shunned in every other major industrialized country on the planet. Clearly,

there is not " widespread acceptance " of rBGH, not in 1996 when I began my

research, and not today.

Steve helped me gather and produce a TV report based on the information we

discovered. The investigation began with random visits to seven farms to

determine whether and how widely rBGH was being used in Florida. I

confirmed its use at every one of the seven farms I visited, and then I

discovered what amounted to an ingenious public relations campaign that

seemed to have succeeded in keeping consumers in the dark. I learned that

behind the scenes, those grocers and the major co-ops of Florida's dairymen

had pulled the wool over the eyes of consumers with what amounted to a

clever " don't ask, don't tell " policy combined with some careful wording to

answer any inquiries about the milk.

In an on-camera interview, the president of one of the two giant dairy

co-ops in the state said that he had written a letter to dairymen on behalf

of grocers requesting that farmers not inject their cows with the

artificial growth hormone. But in response to my questions, the co-op

president made a startling confession. He admitted he did nothing but write

the letter.

" Did the dairymen get back to you? " I asked. " No. " " What was their

response? " " They accepted it, I guess. They didn't respond. "

To this day, any consumer who calls to inquire about rBGH gets essentially

the same well-coordinated response from a big Florida grocer or their dairy

supplier: " We've asked our suppliers not to use it, " they say. This is a

truthful but incredibly misleading statement that nearly always produces

the desired result, leading consumers to the false conclusion that their

local milk supply is unaffected by rBGH use.

Even if you ask directly, " How much of your milk comes from cows injected

with an artificial growth hormone? " we discovered that you are still likely

to be misled or lied to.

Steve recently made an inquiry to the dairy co-op that supplies the milk

served to our daughter and her classmates in their school cafeteria. First

he was told there was " zero percent " rBGH use. Then a woman in the dairy's

Quality Assurance department offered the assurance that rBGH is not used at

all " as far as we know. " Pressed further, she said the co-op " does not

recommend it because cows do just fine without, " but ultimately admitted

that the co-ops " have no authority to check whether it is or is not being

used. " Steve pressed further: " Couldn't you just ask the dairy farmers who

supply your milk whether or not they're injecting their cows? " A long

silence followed. Finally, the reply: " I suppose we could, but they could

just lie to us. "

After nearly three months of investigation that took me to interviews in

five states, we produced a four-part series that Fox scheduled to begin on

February 24, 1997. Station managers were so proud of the work that they

saturated virtually every radio station in the Tampa Bay area with

thousands of dollars worth of ads urging viewers to watch. But then, on the

Friday evening prior to the broadcast, the station's pride turned to panic

when a fax arrived from a Monsanto attorney.

The letter minced no words in charging that Steve and I had " no scientific

competence " to report our story. Monsanto's attorney described our news

reports, which he had never seen, as a series of " recklessly made

accusations that Monsanto has engaged in fraud, has published lies about

food safety, has attempted to bribe government officials in a neighboring

country and has been 'buying' favorable opinions about the product or its

characteristics from reputable scientists in their respective fields. "

And to make sure nobody missed the point, the attorney also reminded Fox

News CEO Ailes that our behavior as investigative journalists was

particularly dangerous " in the aftermath of the Food Lion verdict. " He was

referring, of course, to the then-recent case against ABC News that sent a

frightening chill through every newsroom in America.

The Food Lion verdict showed that even with irrefutable evidence from a

hidden camera--documenting the doctoring of potentially unsafe food sold to

unsuspecting shoppers--a news organization that dares to expose a giant

corporation could still lose big in court.

Confronted with these threats, WTVT decided to " delay " the broadcast,

ostensibly to double check its accuracy. A week later after the station

manager screened the report, found no major problems with its accuracy and

fairness, and set a new air date, Fox received a second letter from

Monsanto's attorney, claiming that " some of the points " we were asking

about " clearly contain the elements of defamatory statements which, if

repeated in a broadcast, could lead to serious damage to Monsanto and dire

consequences for Fox News. "

Never mind that I carried a milk crate full of documentation to support

every word of our proposed broadcast. Our story was pulled again, and if

not dead, it was clearly on life support as Fox's own attorneys and

top-level managers, fearful of a legal challenge or losing advertiser

support, looked for some way to discreetly pull the plug.

The station where we worked recently had been purchased by Fox, and we soon

discovered that the new management had a radically different definition of

media responsibility than anything we previously had encountered in our

journalistic careers. As Fox took control, it fired the station manager who

originally hired us and replaced him with Dave Boylan, a career salesman

without any roots in journalism and seemingly lacking the devotion to serve

the public interest that motivates all good investigative reporting.

Not long after Boylan became the new station manager, Steve and I went up

to see him in his office. He promised to look into the trouble we were

having getting our rBGH story on the air. But when we returned a few days

later, his strategy seemed clear. " What would you do if I killed your rBGH

story? " he asked. What he really wanted to know was whether we would tell

anyone the real reason why he was killing the story. In other words, would

we leak details of the pressure from Monsanto that led to a coverup of what

the station had already ballyhooed as important health information every

consumer should know?

It was suddenly and unmistakably clear that Boylan's biggest concern was

the concern of every salesman, no matter what product he peddles: image. He

understood that it could not be good for the station's image if word leaked

out that powerful advertisers backed by threatening attorneys could

actually determine what gets on the six o'clock news--and what gets swept

under the rug.

Boylan was in a jam. If he ran an honest story and Monsanto's threatened

" dire consequences " did materialize, his career could be crippled. On the

other hand, if he killed the story and the sordid details leaked out, he

risked losing the only product any newsroom has to sell: its own

credibility.

To resolve this dilemma, Boylan offered us a deal. He would pay us for the

remaining seven months of our contracts, in exchange for an agreement that

we would broadcast the rBGH story in a way that would not upset Monsanto.

Fox lawyers essentially would have the final say on the exact wording of

our report, and once it aired, we were free to do whatever we pleased--as

long as we forever kept our mouths shut about the entire ugly episode.

As journalists, Steve and I wanted to get the story on the air more than

anything. A buyout, no matter how attractive, was out of the question.

Neither of us could fathom taking money to shut up about a public health

issue that absolutely and by any standard deserved to see the light of day.

The remainder of 1997 was a tense standoff, with the station unwilling to

either kill or run the story. Fox attorney Carolyn Forrest was sent in to

review our work, with a mandate from Fox Television Stations President

Mitch Stern to " take no risk " with the story. " Taking no risk " meant

cutting out substance, context and information. Boylan told us to " just do

what Carolyn wants " with the story, but what Carolyn really wanted to do

was destroy it. We rewrote the story, rewrote it and rewrote it again,

trying to come up with a version that would both remain true to the facts

and satisfy the station's concerns.

Nearly a full year passed as we wrangled over this important public health

story. After turning down the station's buyout offer, we ended up doing 83

rewrites of the story, not one of which was acceptable to Fox lawyers, who

were fully in charge of the editing process.

At the first window in our contracts, December 2, 1997, we were both fired,

allegedly for " no cause. " However, an angry Forrest made a major legal

mistake when she wrote a letter spelling out the " definite reasons " for the

firing, and characterizing our response to her proposed editorial changes

as " unprofessional and inappropriate conduct. " But just what is the

" professional and appropriate " response that reporters should make when

their own station asks them to lie on television?

On April 2, 1998, we filed a whistleblower lawsuit against Fox Television.

Under Florida state law, a whistleblower is an employee, regardless of his

or her profession, who suffers retaliation for refusing to participate in

illegal activity or threatening to report that illegal activity to

authorities. We contended that we were entitled to protection as

whistleblowers, because the distortions our employers wanted us to

broadcast were not in the public interest and violated the law and policy

of the Federal Communications Commission.

Going to court against a powerful conglomerate like Fox is a daunting

experience, and Fox knows how to intimidate people. Prior to our dismissal,

Boylan had flaunted the company's wealth in an attempt to make us back

down. " We paid $3 billion for these stations, " he told us on one occasion.

" We'll tell you what the news is. The news is what we say it is! "

The Fox legal strategy was woven tightly from day one and helped by a

well-coordinated team effort. They claimed that we had turned our backs on

the story and were using the whistleblower claim as a " tactic. " We missed

deadlines, they said, and had told managers and lawyers we were " going to

get Monsanto. " They also claimed that we became convinced that rBGH milk

causes cancer, and that we became advocates instead of objective reporters

of the controversy.

None of that was true. Our story did bring forth information that had been

suppressed for far too long: that a spin-off hormone in the altered milk

has been linked to tumor proliferation; that consumers did not have the

benefit of labeling at the grocery store shelf because Monsanto had sued

two small dairies to block it; and that the FDA's Center for Veterinary

Medicine, which reviewed the drug, did not do long-term human toxicity

tests. The cancer questions to this day remain unanswered. The human

effects are, in essence, being tested on consumers in the marketplace.

The Fox effort, though united, was not flawless. Fox News Vice President

Phil Metlin told the six-person jury that if he ever learned a news

organization was trying to eliminate risk by using a threatening letter as

a " road map " to craft a story, such news would " make me want to throw up. "

But just days later, on the stand, a local attorney for Fox admitted he did

just that, using Monsanto directives to help craft the rBGH story. Metlin

actually turned white. He also didn't score any points with his bosses when

he admitted that he found no errors in our reporting of the rBGH story, and

he saw no reason why our final version of the story could not be aired.

Fox attorney Bill Mcs earned the nickname " Thumper " from our team

because he made an audible noise with his foot whenever he got nervous.

There was a lot of thumping during the presentation of our case,

particularly when Ralph Nader took time from his presidential campaign to

serve as an expert witness. Fox had tried unsuccessfully, through

objections, to have Nader eliminated as a witness.

Nader told jurors what the FCC has repeatedly said, that it is " a most

heinous act " to use the public's airwaves to slant, distort and falsify the

news. " A reporter has a legal duty to act in accordance with the

Communications Act of 1934 in addition to their professional responsibility

to be accurate, not to be used as an instrument of deception to the

audience, " Nader testified.

Mcs also objected vehemently to Walter Cronkite's inclusion as an

expert on our side. " Mr. Cronkite is not an expert in the pre-broadcast

review of a story, " said the Fox counsel. I couldn't believe my ears. For

30 years Cronkite was the managing editor of the CBS Evening News. During

Cronkite's deposition, Mcs had asked the 83-year-old anchorman

whether he was a lawyer and suggested to Cronkite that he couldn't be an

expert in the pre-broadcast review of a story unless he was an attorney.

In his deposition, Cronkite said that an ethical journalist should resist

directives that would result in a false or slanted story being broadcast.

" He should not go a microinch toward that sort of thing. That is a

violation of every principle of good journalism, " Cronkite testified.

The jury awarded me with $425,000. Fox immediately announced that it would

appeal. The network argued to the judge that he should vacate the jury's

verdict. During the trial itself, Mcs had claimed that Fox merely

wanted " to get our good name back " and repair the damage to its credibility

that we had inflicted by telling our story on a Web site

(www.foxbghsuit.com) and speaking to groups around the world. During the

motion to vacate, however, Mcs seemed to toss the network's

credibility in the garbage by making an argument that any legitimate news

organization would be embarrassed to voice. " There is no law, rule or

regulation against slanting the news, " he told the judge.

The judge denied the motion, but years of appeals lie ahead. Every

indication we have received suggests that the network plans to continue its

efforts to wear us down with time-consuming, tedious and expensive legal

maneuvers. Fox will appeal first to the 2nd District Court of Appeals, then

the case could go to the Florida Supreme Court and eventually the U.S.

Supreme Court. All the while, we won't see a cent of our winnings.

They have the financial wherewithal to do this, whereas we have been out of

work for more than three years with no immediate job offers on the horizon.

Somehow we will have to find a way to house and feed ourselves and our

daughter, while simultaneously continuing to wage a full-time battle

against a media giant.

This article originally appeared in In These Times, and a version of it

appeared in PR Watch (www.prwatch.org).