webodec3ARCHIVEPreview
Open in TheBrain

Bovine Growth Hormone rBGH bak

---

no merri

key early jrnl fail

Jane Akre fired? press suppress

MONSANTO GMO

==

their site, copyright 2004

http://www.foxbghsuit.com/

smear Sugg

...  (Sidebar --  Other inaccuracies here in NB- that our case was thrown out on the basis of news distortion, leaving the impression that Fox was not guilty of such a thing.  False! NewsBlues doesn’t understand the legal technicalities here, nor did they do any research for this report.

The appellate decision to overturn our case does not go into what the jury decided after a five week trial---that Fox WAS guilty of news distortion.  The 2nd DCA does not look into the merits of the case at all.  Instead the 3 justices decided that the news distortion we were fighting, does not qualify as a whistleblower issue, therefore the case never should have gone to trial in the first place.

Why doesn’t it fall under the definition?  Under whistleblower law, the misdeed the whistleblower reports must be illegal, defined as a violation of a law, rule or regulation.  The basis of our case was that lying, falsifying the news over the public airwaves is illegal in that it violates the Federal Communication Commission’s rules and regulations against news distortion.   The three judges didn’t agree.

The bottom line is good news for any disreputable news broadcaster---go ahead and lie on the public’s airwaves.  The 2nd DCA has essentially decided that a whisteblower will never be able to blow the whistle on a broadcast station’s misdeeds.  That sounds like a story to me. ...

Some more Background:   A whistleblower in Florida is someone who a.) fails to participate in or b.) plans to report to authorities what they believe to be his or her employer’s illegal activity.  For example, if my boss tells me to pour sludge into the municipal waterway, I do not have to have a chemical analysis done of the material and research state laws to first determine what amount of petrochemical by-products are allowable under county and state ordinances before I report it.  The law is intended to grant remedy to whistleblowers and not make them jump through that hoop.

The jurors in my case said YES to the fact that Fox was guilty of pressuring me to falsify the news.  There was no doubt about whether I merely reasonably believed the story was “false, distorted, or slanted.”  When you look at the actual jury verdict form, the jury determined it was actually false, distorted, or slanted.  In fact, if jurors did not accept that premise, they could not have gone on to find in my favor and award me $425,000.  Here is the Verdict Form for Jane Akre from our trial of July-August 2000.

"Do you find that the Plaintiff Jane Akre has proven, by the greater weight of the 

evidence,   that the Defendant, through its employees or agents, terminated her employment

or took other retaliatory personnel action against her , because she threatened to disclose to the Federal Communications Commission under oath, in writing, the broadcast of a false, distorted, or slanted news report which she reasonably believed would violate the 

prohibition against intentional falsification or distortion of the news on television, if it were aired?”

“YES,” the jurors checked.

...

==

jeff smith

...The material for this series is drawn from my books Genetic Roulette and Seeds of Deception, and my 18-minute online film Your Milk on Drugs—Just Say No!.

Also see Part 1, and Part 2.

Get Our Milk off Drugs, Part 3

I know from personal experience how satisfying it is to catch some nasty multinational corporation telling lies about the safety of their product—especially when that company is Monsanto, the world’s largest maker of genetically modified (GM) foods. So I could only imagine the excitement of investigative reporters Jane Akre and Steve Wilson, who had caught a Monsanto executive on film repeatedly lying about GM bovine growth hormone (rbGH or rbST).

The two worked at WTVT, a Fox television station in Tampa, Florida, and were described as a “television dream team.” Akre was a former CNN anchorwoman and reporter, Wilson a three-time Emmy Award winner whom Penthouse described as “one of the most famous and feared journalists in America.” Their four-part news series on rbGH was scheduled to begin on February 24, 1997. It was going to expose Monsanto’s lies to the world, and show how the milk from treated cows was dangerously linked to cancer.

Lies, Damn Lies, and Monsanto’s Lies

Monsanto’s dairy research director Bob Collier, PhD, was the rbGH front man who was interviewed by Jane Akre. Here is a sample of some of his claims.

Collier said, [rbGH] “is the single most-tested product in history.” The reporters, however, found that “experts in the field of domestic animal science say that this claim is demonstrably false.”

When asked why rbGH had not been approved in Europe, he said the EU “approved it technically from a safety standpoint, but the dairy policy there was such that they still have price supports . . . it proved to be a moratorium based on market issues not health issues.”

In reality, health was Europe’s keyreason for banning the drug. A December 1994 letter from the Vice President of the Agriculture Committee of the European Commission to the director of the FDA stated,

“Consumers in the European Community and their representatives in the European Parliament are apparently much more concerned about the unresolved human health issues related to [rbGH] than your agency was when it authorized the product.”

When Akre asked Collier whether injections “rev up” the cows, he said the hormone “does not change the basal metabolic rate, it merely increases the amount of milk produced.” But his statement is contradicted even by Monsanto’s literature.

Injected cows also have much higher levels of udder infections, which put more pus in the milk. To treat this, farmers use more antibiotics, which also end up in the milk. But Collier claimed that increased levels of antibiotics in the milk weren’t a problem, since every truckload of milk is tested. But scientists and Florida dairy officials told the reporters that each truckload is only tested for penicillin-related antibiotics. There’s also a spot check for one other antibiotic every three months Such monitoring misses mostof the more than 60 varieties of antibiotics used by dairy farmers.

Collier also made the wild claim, “We have not opposed” voluntary labeling of products as rbGH-free. In truth, Monsanto filed lawsuits against two small dairies to force them to stop labeling their milk as rbGH-free. According to Rachel’s Environment and Health Weekly “The dairies folded and Monsanto then sent letters around to other dairy organizations announcing the outcome of the two lawsuits—in all likelihood, for purposes of intimidation.” Years later, as the trend towards rbGH-free milk started taking off, Monsanto asked the FDA and FTC to make such label claims illegal. When the feds turned down their request, Monsanto asked state governments to ban the labels.

At one point in the interview, Akre had had enough of Collier’s lies. She was not going to let him get away with it anymore. (Here is an excerpt from my book *Seeds of Deception*.)

Akre redirected the conversation to IGF-1, the growth hormone associated with cancer. Akre recollected, “I asked about the limited testing for the effects of altered milk on humans. Collier tells me ‘because the concentration of IGF-1 . . . doesn’t change, there is no change in exposure, so the FDA concluded there is no indication that long-term chronic studies were justified.’”

Now Akre was ready. She reached into a stack of papers on her lap—research she had collected and some of the five pounds of documents sent to her by Monsanto, which, she is sure, they didn’t expect her to read.

Akre pulled out an FDA report published in Science1990, stating that Monsanto’s own studies clearly show an increase of IGF-1 in milk. Colliers, who was fidgeting, clearing his throat, and stammering, was clearly uncomfortable.

He reassured her that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the Government Accounting Office also review the process for human safety and concluded that Monsanto’s test process was correct. But Akre was ready again: “I pull out an American Medical Association report that says further study is needed as to the effects of IGF-1 on humans.” She points out that the NIH also said more study is needed.

Collier then tried to claim that IGF-1 is destroyed during the process of digestion, but Akre had read the studies and knew that too was false.

Akre and Wilson wove Collier’s lies throughout their 4-part series, which made it clear that rbGH was a potentially hugepublic health danger. They were sure the program would have a big impact. They were right, but it wasn’t what they planned.

Monsanto Threatens Fox

On the Friday before Monday’s air date, Monsanto’s lawyer faxed a letter to Roger Ailes, the head of Fox News in New York, claiming that the series was biased and unscientific. It threatened, “There is a lot at stake in what is going on in Florida, not only for Monsanto, but also for Fox News and its owner.” Rupert Murdoch, of course is the owner, and part of what was at stake was lots of Monsanto advertising dollars—for the Florida station, the entire Fox network, and Murdoch’s Actmedia, a major advertising agency used by Monsanto. Fox pulled the series for “further review.”

After the Florida station’s general manager, who had a background in investigative reporting, meticulously vetted the show, he verified that every statement was accurate and unbiased. The station re-scheduled the series for the following week.

Monsanto’s attorney immediately sent another, more strongly worded letter to Ailes, this time indicating that the news story “could lead to serious damage to Monsanto and dire consequences for Fox News.” The airing was postponed indefinitely.

The Florida station’s general manager and news manager were soon fired, and according to Wilson, the new general manager was a salesman with no news experience.Wilson tried to convince him to run the rbGH story on its merits. He said Monsanto’s whole PR campaign was based on the false statement that milk from rbGH-treated cows is “the same safe wholesome product we’ve always known.” But even Monsanto’s own studies showed this to be a lie, and it could be endangering the public. Wilson recounted to me,

“I tried to appeal to his basic sense of why this is news. He responded, ‘Don’t tell me what news is. We paid $2 billion for these television stations and the news is what we say it is. We’ll tell you what the news is.’”

According to Wilson, the manager offered hush money to the two reporters. They would be paid the full amount of what was remaining in their contract, but they were free to go—essentially fired. But there was a catch. They were to agree never to talk about rbGH again—not for any other news organization.

Wilson responded, “I’m never going to agree for any amount of money you offer me to gag myself from revealing in some other time and place what’s going on here.” Wilson told me,

“He looked at us with this blank stare like he’d never heard such a thing. And he said, ‘I don’t get it. What’s with you people? I just want people who want to be on TV. . . . I’ve never met any people like you before.’ He just offered us 6 figuresand to him what we were being asked to do in exchange was no big deal. Why in the world would we turn it down? And lose a chance to continue to be on TV—as if that is such a big deal that one would sell one’s soul to continue to do it.”

The reporters offered to re-write the show to make it more palatable, but with each draft, Fox attorneys instructed them to make it more favorable to Monsanto. Over the next 6 months, they re-wrote the script 83 times.

Akre and Wilson “were repeatedly instructed to include unverified and even some outright false statements by Monsanto’s dairy research director.” For example, they were told to include a statement that milk from rbGH-injected cows is the same and as safe as milk from untreated cows. The reporters said that management even threatened to fire them if the statement was not included.

Akre told me, “We knew it was a lie. Monsanto’s own study showed it was a lie. Yet we were told to leave that statement in without refutation, even though we had contrary evidence. That’s falsifying the news.”

When they showed the evidence to Fox’s lawyer that Monsanto’s claims were false, according to Wilson she replied, “You guys don’t get it—it isn’t about whether you have your facts right or whether it’s true. It’s the fact that we don’t want to put up $200,000 to go up against Monsanto.”

Fox suspended the two for “insubordination,” then fired them altogether.

TV News Goes to Court

Akre and Wilson sued the Fox station. They based their case on Florida whistle-blower laws, which protect employees from retaliation for reporting (or threatening to report) . to a government regulatory agency. employer misconduct, which violates any law, rule or regulation speaking out (or threatening to speak out) against their employer for breaking the law. The jury awarded Akre $425,000, agreeing that her dismissal was retaliation for her threat to tell the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) about the station’s plan to report false information on television.

Fox appealed and the case was overturned. It turns out that lying on TV is not against the law. The FCC’s policy against news distortion is a policy, not a “rule, law, or regulation,” so the Florida’s whistle-blower law did not apply. Furthermore, in a move certain to chill future whistleblowers, the court used the “Non-Prevailing Party Pays” provision of the state’s whistleblower protection act torule that Akre and Wilson pay nearly $200,000 of Fox’s legal fees.

The reporters have since been the recipients of numerous awards for their ethics and courage, including the Goldman environmental prize, considered the Nobel Prize for the environment. The Fox station eventually ran a neutered report on rbGH that contained Monsanto’s false statement that rbGH milk is unchanged. Fortunately, one of the earlier versions of the original Akre and Wilson series became public domain when it was used as an exhibit in their trial. With their blessing, I extracted footage from their excellent piece for my 18-minute film Your Milk on Drugs—Just Say No!, which is available online Also see Part 1, and Part 2 of this series.

Email Governor Sebelius before April 16, urging her to veto a bill that would require all national dairy brands that label their products as rbGH-free, to also place a false disclaimer, saying that there is no difference in milk from treated and non-treated cows.

Jeffrey M. Smith is the author of Seeds of Deception: Exposing Industry and Government Lies About the Safety of the Genetically Engineered Foods You’re Eating and Genetic Roulette: The Documented Health Risks of Genetically Engineered Foods distributed by Chelsea Green Publishing. Smith worked at a GMO detection laboratory, founded the Institute for Responsible Technology, and currently lives in Iowa—surrounded by genetically modified corn and soybeans. For more information, visit Chelsea Green.

==

https://grist.org/article/food-2010-10-06-court-rules-on-rbgh-free-milk/

oct 2010

Earlier this week, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the state of Ohio’s ban on labels that identify milk as rBST- or rBGH-free, meaning produced without the use of artificial bovine growth hormone. Consumer and organic food groups were jubilant at the Ohio news, which may have far-reaching repercussions not only for all milk, but for genetically engineered foods.

First, some background: rBGH stands for recombinant bovine growth hormone; rBST for recombinant bovine somatotropin. Both are a genetically engineered variation on naturally occurring hormone that farmers inject into cows to increase milk production by as much as 10 percent. It has also been proven to increase the incidence of mastitis in cows, which as any breastfeeding mother knows is a painful condition requiring treatment by antibiotics — and indeed, rBGH use has also upped the use of antibiotics in dairy cattle.

The United States is the only developed nation to allow people to drink milk from cows given artificial growth hormone. All 27 countries of the European Union, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, and Canada have banned its use in milk destined for human consumption.[Update: Brazil does allow it.] In 2007, Monsanto, which created and manufactured Posilac, the most popular form of rBST, began encouraging its dairy-farmer customers to protest their rBGH-free competitors’ labeling. Campaigns to restrict rBGH-free labeling were launched in 14 states, as this Ethicurean satire chronicled, but only Ohio passed the effort. In October 2008, Monsanto saw the writing on the dairy wall and dumped Posilac on Eli Lilly.

Thanks to consumer pressure, approximately 60 percent of milk in the U.S. is rBST-free at this point, labeled or not, according to the Center for Food Safety. However, that leaves an enormous amount of milk still being produced with these hormones, and by extension cheese and most brands of ice cream, except for Ben & Jerry’s.

Pus budget

The joyful reception to the appeals court’s decision is about more than the right of consumers to know what’s in their food — something that may come in handy in the fight over labeling for genetically modified foods such as the new salmon. Much of the appeals court’s rationale hinged on its assertion that there is a “compositional difference” between milk produced using the hormones and milk produced without. While the district court denied this fact, the appeals court stated very clearly that such a denial “is belied by the record.”

As Jill Richardson helpfully summarized it, compared to untreated milk, rBST milk has:

The court’s decision notes that those higher somatic cell counts “make the milk turn sour more quickly and is another indicator of poor milk quality.”

While the “compositional difference” debate may seem to be semantic wrangling (although that “pus” mention sure is eye-catching!), the appeals court’s determination suddenly and unexpectedly undercuts the FDA’s entire rationale for allowing the sale of unlabeled rBST milk for human consumption. As with many technological processes, the FDA relies on the fact that the end product, whether it be milk or genetically engineered fish, is indistinguishable in all detectable ways from its conventionally produced counterpart.

For many, like Center for Food Safety attorney George Kimbrell, who coauthored the amicus brief on which the appeals court drew for its ruling, the court’s conclusion was a surprise. He told me that going into the appeal, he had thought it “highly unlikely” that the appeals court would address the issue directly, since neither party to the lawsuit brought it up during the underlying case. For him, it’s this aspect that makes the ruling truly groundbreaking.

He also observed that the FDA has not addressed the issue in a long time. “Perhaps it is time for FDA to go back and make a new determination about the differences in milk,” said Kimbrell.

:{:{True — or false and misleading? }:

}:

What will the FDA do now? According to FDA spokesperson Siobhan DeLancey,Probably nothing.[An editing error previously mischaracterized my analysis of the FDA’s probable inactivity as coming from its spokesperson.]

In an email exchange, FDA spokesperson Siobhan DeLancey sent me an excerpt of the current FDA rBST labeling guidelines, which date back to 1994. In it, the FDA allows producers to label milk voluntarily, but clearly doesn’t like it when they do:

FDA is concerned that the term “rbST free” may imply a compositional difference between milk from treated and untreated cows rather than a difference in the way the milk is produced. Without proper context, such statements could be misleading. Such unqualified statements may imply that milk from untreated cows is safer or of higher quality than milk from treated cows. Such an implication would be false and misleading.

She did assure me, however, that, “If the FDA becomes aware of scientific evidence that there is a compositional difference between the two types of milk, it will reevaluate at that time.”

Hmm. Wait a minute. Isn’t that what just happened?

I pointed out to her that the appeals court had just established exactly what the FDA claims has not been established, that rBST-free milk “is safer or of higher quality than milk from treated cows” and referred to reams of data indicating just that. So is the agency going to reevaluate?

The FDA had no comment.

Well, glad we cleared that up. In fairness, the agency has not yet had a chance to review the Ohio ruling. Of course, a consumer group could petition the FDA and demand a reevaluation of rBST milk, so that it — and not its artificial hormone-absent counterpart — would have to be the one labeled. Indeed, there would be no small irony in Monsanto’s campaign to expand the production of rBST-produced milk leading to mandatory labeling for it, much less establishing legal precedent to support labeling of genetically modified foods — the cornerstone of Monsanto’s business — which some advocates say this ruling provides.

And what of the concern that Monsanto will simply push the state of Ohio to appeal the appeal all the way to the Supremes? Well, the Center for Food Safety’s Kimbrell thinks the chances of a successful further appeal are dim. “The bar

is set very high” at this point in the process, he said, and success requires finding “big errors of law… either statutory or constitutional in nature” which this decision simply does not have.

Even so, until and unless someone demands the FDA act in response to this ruling, the appeals court yet may find its most surprising and groundbreaking finding quietly ignored.

==

ACS

https://www.cancer.org/cancer/cancer-causes/recombinant-bovine-growth-hormone.html

Recombinant Bovine Growth Hormone}:

Recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH) is a synthetic (man-made) hormone that is marketed to dairy farmers toincrease milk production in cows. It has been used in the United States since it was approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 1993, but its use is not permitted in the European Union, Canada, and some other countries. This document summarizes what is known about the product and its potential effects on health.

What is recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH)?

The human form of growth hormone, also called somatotropin, is made by the pituitary gland. It promotes growth and cell replication. Bovine growth hormone (BGH), also known as bovinesomatotropin (BST) is the natural form of this hormone in cattle.

Recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH) or recombinant bovine somatotropin (rBST) refers to bovine growth hormone that is made in a lab using genetic technology. Some rBGH products on the market differ chemically from a cow's natural somatotropin by one amino acid. Both the natural and recombinant forms of the hormone stimulate a cow's milk production by increasing levels of another hormone known as insulin-like growth factor (IGF-1).

What are the health concerns in humans?

Concerns about possible health effects on humans from milk produced using rBGH have focused on 2 main issues.

First, does drinking milk from rBGH-treated cows increase blood levels of growth hormone or IGF-1 in consumers? If it does, would this be expected to have any health effects in people, including increasing the risk of cancer? Several scientific reviews have looked at these issues and are the main focus of this document.

Second, cows treated with rBGH tend to develop more udder infections (mastitis). These cows are given more antibiotics than cows not given rBGH. Does this increased use of antibiotics lead to more antibiotic-resistant bacteria, and is this a health concern for people? This remains a concern, but it has not been fully examined in humans.

IGF-1 in milk from rBGH-treated cows

Bovine growth hormone levels are not significantly higher in milk from rBGH-treated cows. On top of this, BGH is not active in humans, so even if it were absorbed from drinking milk, it wouldn't be expected to cause health effects.

Of greater concern is the fact that milk from rBGH-treated cows has higher levels of IGF-1, a hormone that normally helps some types of cells to grow. Several studies have found that IGF-1 levels at the high end of the normal range may influence the development of certain tumors. Some early studies found a relationship between blood levels of IGF-1 and the development of prostate, breast, colorectal, and other cancers,but later studies have failed to confirm these reports or have found weaker relationships. While there may be a link between IGF-1 blood levels and cancer, the exact nature of this link remains unclear.

Some studies have shown that adults who drink milk have about 10% higher levels of IGF-1 in their blood than those who drink little or no milk. But this same finding has also been reported in people who drink soy milk. This suggests that the increase in IGF-1 may not be specific to cow's milk, and may be caused by protein, minerals, or some other factors in milk unrelated to rBGH. There have been no direct comparisons of IGF-1 levels in people who drink ordinary cow's milk vs. milk stimulated by rBGH.

At this time, it is not clear that drinking milk, produced with or without rBGH treatment, increases blood IGF-1 levels into a range that might be of concern regarding cancer risk or other health effects.

Scientific reviews

In the early 1990s, the FDA and other organizations looked at 3 questions regarding IGF-1 exposure from rBGH-treated milk. These were:

The available evidence can be summarized as follows:

At least 8 other national and international review committees have evaluated the evidence concerning potential health effects of rBGH on humans and dairy cows. These reviews (and the most recent year they convened) are listed below. Several of these reports document adverse effects on cows,including higher rates of mastitis, foot problems, and injection site reactions.

Current usage and regulatory status

Although the use of rBGH is still approved in the United States, demand for the product has decreased in recent years. Many large grocery store chains no longer carry milk from cows treated with rBGH. A United States Department of Agriculture survey conducted in 2007 found that less than 1 in 5 cows (17%) were being injected with rBGH.

Summary

The available evidence shows that the use of rBGH can cause adverse health effects in cows. The evidence for potential harm to humans is inconclusive. It is not clear that drinking milk produced using rBGH significantly increases IGF-1 levels in humans or adds to the risk of developing cancer. More research is needed to help better address these concerns.

The increased use of antibiotics to treat rBGH-induced mastitis does promote the development of antibiotic-resistant bacteria, but the extent to which these are transmitted to humans is unclear.

The American Cancer Society (ACS) has no formal position regarding rBGH.[cowed?!]

==

press2:

Akre GMO  1997

After it was FDA approved (90 days on 30 rats, though a proper cancer study would be two years on ten times as many rats), Monsanto lawyers immediately threatened to sue anyone that labeled any dairy product as GMO free (and later in fact sued two small dairies in Florida for? __).   A PR firm was hired by Monsanto to do early computer analysis so that offending journalists and publication could be dealt with.  For example assist editor of the Boston Globe was called before they even ran their story and told that none of the other publications covering the press conference in which a scientist noted cancer risks were publishing that info (actually USA Today did, but caller noted a “heated meeting” with them.  After the reporter refused to back off,  her USAToday editor promised any rBGH stories would be closely scrutinized).

A more complicated story happened at Fox TV in Florida.

Jane Akre (AP  award) and Steve Wilson (four Emmy awards and a National Press Citation), married,who had a good reputation as investigative reporters, were hired by a Florida  TV station in 1996.  A few months later Wilson was fired when Fox bought the station (GM with journalism background was replaced by essentially a salesman Dave Boylan who had none).  After a three month investigation in five states, they wrote a  four-part story about Monsanto's  genetically-engineered recombinant bovine growth hormone ( rBGH ) in the milk supply cleared for broadcast February 1997 and promotional radio ads began.  Then Roger Ailes, head of Fox  News and former GOP operative going back to Nixon, got a threatening letter from John J. Walsh of Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft, a New York law firm retained by Monsanto, accusing the reporters of bias, and suggesting dire consequences in the wake of Food Lion if they ran the story.  “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 ostensibly 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’." (Akre).

“  In reality, journalistic reluctance to discuss hypothetical, as-yet unproven health risks is driven more by fear of corporate lawsuits than by a desire to be "responsible." One such lawsuit by the Food Lion grocery store chain resulted in a $5.5 million judgment against ABC-TV in January 1997--just one month prior to Monsanto's threatening letter aimed at killing the Akre-Wilson story.  It was a verdict that Monsanto's attorney made sure to mention in his letter to Roger Ailes. "What has Monsanto concerned . . . is the assault on their integrity . . . blatantly carried on by Ms. Akre and Mr. Wilson," Walsh wrote. "In the aftermath of the Food Lion verdict, such behavior would alone be cause for concern."

  "A lot of people now are more fearful of doing investigative journalism since Food Lion . . .which is why we have so many lawyers involved," admits Phil Metlin, who took over as WTVT's news director in July 1997. "We have to be careful . . . and prudent."end q

They double-checked but could find no errors, and offered to do a second interview with Monsanto, which it refused when they could not get the exact questions, as opposed to the supplied topics, in advance.   Fox's legal vice president, Carolyn Y. Forrest, accused Akre and Wilson that they were writing "combative, contentious memoranda"  and that  "subsequent scrutiny of the BGH script has been inspired by the unnecessary risk caused by the lack of fairness and the deficiencies we have found in the story."( cite).

The GM offered them to pay them for the remaining seven months of their contract if they would go away and no tell no one about the story, which they refused.  The reporters made requested changes, mostly deletions of information that bolstered credibility of critics.  After a “hell” of rewriting 83 drafts, they offered to scrap the story, but the station wanted to broadcast an inaccurate version.  The station “offered to release them” from their contract, threatened them with insubordination and breech of contract, and  to give the story to a reporter who can do it in an unbiased way (although the local reporter busy on a hard-hitting expose of which pizzeria used the least cheese).

The new GM [salesman not jrnl?] was not interested in looking at the story, and asked "Are you sure this is a hill you're willing to die on?"  On April 16, they say, he told them, "We paid $3 billion for these television stations. We will decide what the news is. The news is what we tell you it is." He then notified them they would be fired for insubordination within 48 hours and another reporter would make the requested changes."  When we said we'd file a formal complaint with the FCC if that happened," notes Wilson, "we were not fired but were each offered very large cash settlements to go away and keep quiet about the story and how it was handled." They did not accept. But on May 6, they received a separation agreement that would bind them to silence about "Monsanto's pre-broadcast objections to the News Report, the Station's legal review of the News Report and the Station's response to Monsanto's objections."

They refused to sign -- but kept a copy. On May 29, according to the lawsuit, Forrest told them she didn't think their story was "worth going to court and to trial spending a couple hundred thousand dollars to fight Monsanto." The reporters say she made it clear that "it doesn't matter if the facts are true"; what mattered was whether the station could quickly and easily defend itself from a possible lawsuit by Monsanto. By June 19, the reporters say they had rewritten the script as directed. They still contended that the changes were misleading or inaccurate.   Akre says she was told to be available for other work starting June 23 and was assigned to report on the vandalism of a vacant house, a "news story" not covered by any other station.

The BGH series, meanwhile, was rescheduled to air July 28. The reporters met with the new vice president for news, Philip Metlin, and say he agreed that some of the changes didn't work. They modified the changes, but Fox lawyers didn't like their modifications. The broadcast was rescheduled, then rescheduled again. The couple left on a long-planned vacation -- and returned in September to a letter notifying Wilson of possible termination three months hence.(Akre's letter apparently went astray in the mail.) In October, they say, they were suspended without pay("as an act to evidence good faith and to evidence willingness to continue to work on the BGH story") and locked out of their offices, where computers contained much of their research.During their suspension, they were told to complete two versions of the script, theirs and the requested one. On Dec. 2, Akre and Wilson were fired.   (Batz).

“Three months after we were fired and six weeks after we filed our lawsuit, the station finally got around to airing an rBGH story, filled with many of the same lies and distortions that Steve and I refused to broadcast. The reports, aired by a young and inexperienced reporter, looked to us like nothing more than damage control instigated by Fox attorneys.”(akre).

Fox hired Williams and Connolly ($600/hr) , which rented the top two floors of the Tampa Hyatt hotels, has travel expenses and a full staff.  Akre and Wilson had two labor lawyers working out of a historic house.  The corporate lawyers tried three times to get the suit dismissed, the second motion weighed nine pounds.  Ralph Nader and Walter Cronkite testified for the plaintiffs, though the opposing lawyer argued that since he was not a lawyer, Cronkite, managing editor for thirty years,  was not qualified to speak to the preparation of a newscast.

The reporters sued the station and posted online both versions for the script, which the station's lawyers claim is a serious breech of contract, amounting to theft.  Akre won $425,000  (the judge apparently gave erroneous instructions that caused Wilson, who had to act as his own attorney, to get no damages)   Fox, claiming only to want to get is good name back,  tried in vain to vacate the jury’s  verdict, arguing “There is no law, rule or regulation against slanting the news” (Akre).

In February 2003 [fox?] won on appeal because of a technicality (the FCC suggests the media not lie, but it's not a law?   Thus she could not be covered under whistleblower statute).  There was no judgment on whether broadcast version contained falsifications.  Wilson and Akre continue to try to revoke license of station; they won the  Goldman Prize as well as an award from Society of Professional Journalists.

Thom Hartmann has interesting analysis: in 1998 a political activist named Mark Kasky sued Nikefor publishing a letter in the San Francisco Examiner about the conditions in its overseas factories in which it made claims it knew were not true, contradicted by its own and external audits.  Kasky won in the California Supreme Court, which held Nike engaged in false advertising and unfair competition, which they appealed to the Supreme Court.  Hartmann thinks the court agreeing to hear the case is odd (because     ),  but even stranger is it then dismissed the case (perhaps because Rehnquist did not want to rule on corporate personhood).  Nike ended up settling, and Kasky spent the money to  fight sweatshops.  Perhaps not coincidentally, at this very time the Akre suit is being fought;  unanimous jury verdict, but lost on appeal (no law against lying), so now legal  for news corporations to lie and force their reporters to under penalty of being fired.

---

monsanto fox akre &  wilson fired for insubordination by licensee of public air waves b/c refused to lie, then mgr tried to pay them off (3 bill just paid for station)

gmo bgh

thom hartman

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=jDKLFn0pty4#at=20

Ever wonder why it is that Fox News can lie over and over again - yet continue to call itself "News"? It's because Fox News is a corporation - and ever since that 1886 Supreme Court case of Southern Pacific Railroad versus Santa Clara County when a rogue court reporter named JC Bancroft Davis slipped corporate personhood into the legal record - the courts have ruled time and time again that corporations - since they have all the rights that actual people have - could also lie just like people can.

Except for one time. Back in 1998 - a political activist named Mark Kasky sued Nike alleging that Nike was lying to its customers by publishing in the San Francisco Examiner a letter assuring everyone that the corporation's workers around the world enjoy basic labor rights like a minimum wage - health and safety regulations - and equal opportunity employment. Kasky knew this claim wasn't true. A 1996 audit of the Nike revealed that workers in Vietnam were routinely exposed to cancer-causing chemicals that were illegal in the United States. And a Mothers Jones article later cited a Nike-funded study that found, "evidence of physical and verbal abuse and sexual harassment at nine of its contract factories in Indonesia." After realizing he and thousands of other Nike customers were lied to and were buying Nike products under false assumptions - Kasky took the corporation to court. And in 2002 - Kasky won his case before the California Supreme Court which ruled that Nike did indeed break laws against unfair competition and false advertising.

but appeal scotus 2003 freedom of sp = lie; rhenquist suddently dismissed case, nike settled w. kasky, fox corp about to defend right to lie (akre) 6 jurors all agreed; falsified news; appeals reversed, fox has right to lie, and force reporters to; control vocab, gw; fairness doctr 1987; const amend to bal budget, but we need mta cali t GOPTV as ailes imagined in 70's

rbst gmo fox killed akre and wilson investigation on milk monsanto hired lawyer who sent letter

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=JL1pKlnhvg0  invest rept

---

prnotes

2 PR Watch / Fourth Quarter, 2000

ALSO IN THIS ISSUE:

We Win, Fox Spins

page 2

Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell: The Story

We Weren’t Allowed to Air

page 4

Who Is the Dairy Coalition?

page 7

An Uphill Battle:

Our Lawsuit Against Fox

page 8

Who Is That Masked Client?

page 9

Liquid Truth: Advice from

the Spinmeisters

From Trust Us, We’re Experts, by

Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber

page 10

The Cost of Taking a Stand

by Jane Akre

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

of courtroom testimony, the jury finally had its say. OnAugust 18,

2000, it awarded me $425,000 in damagesfor being fired by TV station WTVT in Tampa, Florida.

WTVT is a Fox station, owned by one

of the richest people in the media, 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 this vindication,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 and fellow journalist

Steve Wilson, who was also fired by Fox and who filed suit along

with me. December 2 marked the third anniversary of our firing for

refusing to falsify a news story in order to appease the powerful Monsanto Company.

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 at one of the best network newsmagazines 

took a look at our case—and then decided not to do a story.

Why not? It was deemed to be “too inside baseball.” Translation: there

is an unwritten rule that news organizations seldom turn

their critical eyes on themselves or even 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 general William Westmoreland; the

“food disparagement” lawsuit that Texas cattlemen

brought against talk-show hostOprah Winfrey; and the

multi-million-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 do what should never be done in investigative reporting—remove all risk

of being sued or sending an advertiser packing.

By saying this is just “inside baseball,” the

veteran newsman who declined to cover our story was

effectively siding with the owners against the players.

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 Citation. His reporting

achievements include an exposé of unsafe cars that

led to the biggest-ever auto recall in America.

Today, however, we have spent three years off the air,

tied up in a seemingly interminable legal battle. Few

people recognize our faces anymore. Our story has circulated

throughout the world via email and our website

(www.foxBGHsuit.com), yet we remain curiously anonymous—

so far from famous, in fact, thateven Monsanto’s

own public relations representatives sometimes have a

hard time recognizing us.

HAPPY SHINING PEOPLE

I had the opportunity to meet a couple of those industry PR people in October 2000 at the annual conference

of the Society of Environmental Journalists (SEJ). The

conference brought together hundreds of environmentally conscious, mostly young journalists to Lansing,

Michigan, to delve into topics such as hybrid auto technology, nuclear misdeeds, and Great Lakes pollution.

Together with PR Watch editor Sheldon Rampton, I participated in a panel discussion titled “Fibbers, Spinners,

and Pseudo-journalists.”

The SEJ conference also featured an exhibit hall, and

in an adjoining room, the biotech industry had mounted

a glossy display, staffed by two representatives who stood

out like a couple of well-suited salesmen at a college

campus. Standing before their expensive photo kiosk

depicting gold-drenched fields of harvest, they offered literature from the

Council for Biotechnology Information,

an industry-funded organization whose stated mission is

“to create a public dialogue.” It’s all part of industry’s

$50-million PR campaign touting the safety and benefits of genetically engineered foods. Its slick handouts at

the SEJ conference reeked of the moneyed corporations

they represent—Aventis, CropScience, Dow Chemical,

DuPont, Monsanto and Novartisamong others.

Stuck inside one of their glossy presentations was a

list of ten “tenets for consumer acceptance of food

biotechnology.” Among the tips: “Biotechnology must be

placed in context with the evolution of agricultural practices,” and “Emphasize the exhaustive research over

many years that led to the introduction of each new product of food biotechnology.”

Also included was a list of biotech food products

you’ve probably already consumed or used. Corn,

cotton, potatoes, soybeans, and sweet potatoes were on

the list, as was rBGH milk produced using Monsanto’s

recombinantbovine growth hormone that is reportedly

now injected into more than 30% of America’s dairy

herd. Our reporting on rBGH (trade named Posilac, and

also known as recombinant bovine somatotropin or

rBST) was what got Steve and me fired at Fox Television’s WTVT.

Mark Buckingham, one of the men in suits at the SEJ

conference, told us that this was his first U.S. assignment

for Monsanto. In this country just three weeks from the

U.K., Mark worked hard at being the perfect salesman.

His wide, toothy smile never dimmed when a reporter

challenged him about the supposed wonders of biotech.

The smile stayed in place when I introduced myself and

cordially explained that I was one of the journalists whose

career has been ruined by the company that writes

his paychecks. At first he acted as though he knew

nothing about the case, and then—still smiling—

acknowledged that maybe he had heard a little bit about

it. Buckingham kept smiling even when Sheldon Rampton challenged

the industry mantra that numerous studies had been done to assure the safety of genetically

modified foods.

“Can you name some actual peer-reviewed studies?”

Rampton asked. After some hemming and hawing,

Buckingham took Rampton’s card and promised to send

the studies along later by mail, since he just didn’t

happen to have them on hand. (Editor’s note: Two

months later, they have yet to arrive.) ■ endit

[Flack Attack

In our Second Quarter 1998 issue, PR Watch wrote

about TV investigative reporters Jane Akre and Steve

Wilson, who were fired after refusing to go along with

misleading alterations to their story about Monsanto’s

genetically-engineered bovine growth hormone.

Akre and Wilson recently won a landmark whistleblower

lawsuit against the station that fired them, yet

their former network continues its legal efforts to

reverse the ruling and crush them financially. In this

issue, we are honored to publish Jane Akre’s firsthand

account of her experiences standing up to corporate

and media powers that have tried to silence them.

Journalists everywhere should take a close look at

this case and its implications. If the Fox network and

Monsanto get away with destroying the careers of these

two seasoned reporters, the same thing can happen to

anyone who tries to stand up for a story that they

believe in. With few resources other than the courage

of their convictions, Akre and Wilson have struggled

to place issues before the public that otherwise would

remain hidden from view. In addition to their battle in

the courts, they have used the skills they honed in the

newsroom to fight back in the court of public opinion.

They have created a website (www.foxBGHsuit.com)

that includes a downloadable video of their suppressed

news story, plus court documents and other facts about

their case. We encourage you to visit their website and,

in light of their continuing financial struggles, to consider making a donation to their cause.

We hope that after reading their story, you will also

share it with others and help get the word out. The

public needs to inform itself and take action when the

news media fails to do its job properly, and this is an

egregious example. end sidebar]

---

Don't Ask, Don't Tell: The Story We Weren't Allowed to Air

by Jane Akre

The truth is, only Monsanto really knows how many U.S. farmers are presently using their recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH). 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, my husband Steve Wilson and I were hired as investigative journalists for the Fox-owned television station in Tampa, Florida. Looking for projects to pursue, I soon learned that millions of Americans and their children who consume milk from rBGH-treated cows have unwittingly become participants in what amounts to agiant 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 immediately after they were made three years earlier. 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. By any standard, it was a solid story, but little did I know that it would become the last story of my 19-year broadcast journalism career and the heart of a dispute that could nearly destroy me and my family.

---

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. Remember those Florida grocers who promised consumers that milk from hormone-treated cows would not end up in the dairy case until it achieved widespread acceptance from consumers and others? 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, thepresident 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 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 (rBGH)," they say. It 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 today.

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 "0%" artificial BGH 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."

Lawyered Up

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 Monday, 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 ostensibly 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 Roger 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 had recently been purchased by Fox, and we soon discovered that the new management had a radically different definition of media responsibility than anything we had previously encountered in our journalistic careers. As Fox took control, it fired the station manager who had originally hired us and replaced him with Dave Boylan, a career salesman devoid of any roots in journalism and seemingly lacking in the devotion to serving the public interest which motivates all good investigative reporting.

Kill The Story, Kill the Messenger

[Dave Boylan, station manager at Fox WTVT, asked, "What would you do if I killed your rBGH story?"]

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 customer 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 devised the sort of "solution" that you might expect from a salesman. He 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 would essentially 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 the story or to run it. 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 about airing it.

Meanwhile, Behind the Scenes

Monsanto hadn't stopped with the threatening letters. In January, I had interviewed Roger Natzke, a dairy science professor at the University of Florida. Everything had gone well. We got a tour of the "Monsanto dairy barn" at the Gainesville dairy compound where Posilac had been tested in the mid-1980s. Natzke gave the product a glowing report and admitted hepromoted its use to farmers through Florida's taxpayer-supported agriculture extension offices. After spending a few hours with us, Natzke gave us directions to a good lunch joint.

Natzke must have forgotten about this relatively pleasant exchange when, one month later, he called the station to complain about my reporting techniques. "She's not a reporter" was part of the phone message submitted to my boss alongside the words "St. Simon's Island." What does that mean? I asked. The assistant news director, apparently not seeing any connection or conflict, told me that Natzke had just returned from a weekend at the island resort with Monsanto officials.

The same week that Natzke called and the Monsanto threat letters arrived, Florida farmer Joe Wright wrote a complaint letter to the station. This time we were not shown the correspondence. Only in the light of our lawsuit did the station have to produce it in "discovery" one year later. The pieces of the puzzle behind the Monsanto pressure began falling into place.

Wright, who had spent five minutes on the phone with me a month earlier, informed the station that "Ms. Acre's (sic) work is gaining notoriety in our dairy industry. . . .The word is clearly out on the street that Ms. Acre is on a negative campaign based on everyone's assessment of the numerous interviews she has already conducted." Wright had reached these conclusions after attending the 22nd Annual Southern Dairy Conference in Atlanta, a "Who's Who" of the dairy industry where our report was the topic of intense discussion. Following the conference, he went to Dairy Farmers Inc., a dairy promotion group, which helped draft his letter of complaint to my employers and discussed filing a food disparagement suit against the station should the story air.Behind the scenes, a much more stealthy attack on us and our story was launched by the Dairy Coalition, a pro-rBGH group formed around the time of Posilac's FDA approval. Its director, Dick Weiss, took a call from Steve in 1998 and--not realizing exactly who Steve Wilson was--bragged that the Dairy Coalition had "swamped the station" with all sorts of pressure to have the story killed. As he recounted the story, Weiss laughed like a college kid who had just pulled the best prank in the frat.

Getting the Boot

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 according to Fox lawyers, who were fully in charge of the editing process. "It was like being circus dogs jumping through hoops," Steve said.

At the first window in our contracts, December 2, 1997, we were both fired, allegedly for "no cause." However, an angry Carolyn 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 as Steve commented when he read the letter, 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.

Three months after we were fired and six weeks after we filed our lawsuit, the station finally got around to airing an rBGH story, filled with many of the same lies and distortions that Steve and I refused to broadcast. The reports, aired by a young and inexperienced reporter, looked to us like nothing more than damage control instigated by Fox attorneys.

Published in PR Watch, Fourth Quarter 2000, Volume 7, No. 4 cached http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:RlNcS70iyeIJ:www.prwatch.org/node/232/www.SourceWatch.org&hl=en&gl=us&strip=1

---

akre

An Uphill Battle: Our Lawsuit Against Fox

Going to court against a powerful conglomerate like

the Fox network is a daunting experience, and Fox knows

how to intimidate people. Prior to our dismissal, Dave

Boylan had flaunted the company’s wealth in an attempt

to make us back down. “We paid three 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!”

After Fox local counsel Patricia Anderson lost two

major efforts to have the suit derailed, the network apparently

decided it needed bigger, smarter, meaner lawyers.

They turned to William McDaniels and the Washington

firm of Williams and Connolly, the same firm that Bill

Clinton used to help him through Whitewater, Monica

Lewinski, and his famous redefinition of the word “is.”

Six weeks before the start of the trial, Williams and

Connolly camped out on the top two floors of the Hyatt Hotel

in downtown Tampa. Using more than a dozen lawyers

and some of the top firms around the country to help

with various pre-trial chores, Fox staff lawyers flew back

and forth between Los Angeles and Tampa regularly.

Had it not been for our two competent attorneys, we

would have never been successful. Tom Johnson and

John Chamblee are a couple of labor lawyers who work

out of an historic house in downtown Tampa. Ultimately,

they fought off one motion to dismiss then a summary

judgement motion. The second motion to dismiss, slickly

crafted by Williams and Connolly, was nine pounds of

color coded and tabulated legal language which was very

slick and no doubt very expensive. Chamblee fired back

and we survived their third effort to get the case kicked.

CRAZY LIKE A FOX

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, 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.

Dave Boylan had to be flown into town for his testimony.

On the eve of the trial, Fox rewarded him with a

promotion to general manager of the Fox-owned station

in Los Angeles. The man who had told us “we paid three

billion for these stations, we’ll tell you what the news is,”

lost his bravado on the stand, shooting quick, nervous

smiles at the jurors while checking in with the defense

team after every answer.

During our cross-examination of Boylan, it helped

that Steve knew exactly what had transpired during 1997.

Earlier in the trial, it had been estimated that lost revenue

in advertising from Monsanto ads for Roundup or

Nutrasweet could have cost the station about $50,000.

Fox bragged that $50,000 was nothing for an organization of its size,

but Steve’s relentless interrogation of

Boylan showed that the actual cost of going up against

Monsanto could have been much higher.

“You testified Fox owns 23 stations?” Steve asked.

“Yes,” Boylan answered.

“Could Monsanto pull advertising off all 23?”

“Yes.”

“And the Fox News Channel?”

“Yes.”

“And the Sky Channel in Europe?”

“Yes.”

“It could extend beyond $50,000?”

“It could,” Boylan admitted.

THUMP, THUMP

Fox attorney Bill McDaniels 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 and in addition to their professional responsibility to be accurate, not to be used as an instrument

of deception to the audience,” Nader said.

McDaniels also objected vehemently to Walter

Cronkite’s inclusion as an expert on our side. The Fox

counsel said, “Mr. Cronkite is not an expert in the prebroadcast review of a story.” I couldn’t believe my ears.

For thirty years Cronkite was the managing editor of the

CBS Evening News. During Cronkite’s deposition,

McDaniels 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 towards that sort of thing. That is a violation

of every principle of good journalism,” Cronkite said.

THE RULING

The jury awarded me with $425,000 but gave nothing to Steve,

who had been forced to act as his own attorney.

Steve repeatedly showed dogged determination in

questioning many of the witnesses and getting them to

admit some of the most damaging things that ultimately

undermined the Fox defense. In the end, we suspect

Steve received no award because of what seems to be an

erroneous instruction from the judge to the jury. The

jurors were told, incorrectly we believe, that in order to

find for each of us, they must determine there was no

other reason each of us was fired other than the fact we

resisted orders to lie on the air and threatened to blow

the whistle to the FCC.

In any event, we view the verdict

as a win for both of us. Our trial was never about

money. It was about a reporter’s duty to resist and blow

the whistle loud and strong when pressured to lie and

distort the news over the public airwaves.

Fox immediately announced that it would appeal. On

October 12 and again on November 3, the network

argued to the judge that he should vacate the jury’s verdict.

During the trial itself, McDaniels had claimed that

Fox merely wanted “to get our good name back” and

repair the damage to its credibility which we had

inflicted by telling our story on our website and

speaking to groups around the world. During the Motion to

Vacate, however, McDaniels 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 Fox’s Motion to Vacate, 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.

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

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.

Fox will appeal first to the 2nd District Court of

Appeals, then the Florida Supreme Court and eventually the U.S. Supreme Court, if it is willing to hear the

case. All the while, we won’t see a cent of our winnings.

And despite our victory, it is possible that Fox’s army

of lawyers will eventually succeed in their effort to overturn the verdict on some legal technicality. Frankly, our

struggle is still a hardship shouldered almost entirely by

our single family. Put that up against the $600-an-hour

Williams and Connolly lawyers who fly first class, stay

in luxury hotels, and have legions of legal minions to

research and churn out unending briefs for us to answer.

Alas, friends, this is the way the system works. ■end akre

PR Watch / Fourth Quarter, 2000 p9

[Who Is That Masked Client?

We didn’t think much about it at first. A young

man sat in the back of the courtroom during our

five-week trial, taking careful, thorough notes.

Finally Steve approached him and asked who he

was, fully expecting the young man to say he was

from a local law school or college. Instead he fessed

up, identifying himself as Ian Davis, an intern

representing thePublic Strategies PR firm, based in

Austin, Texas.The most famous member of Public

Strategies is President Clinton’s former press secretary,

Mike McCurry, who heads its lobbying arm

in Washington, D.C. (Other Public Strategies

clients include Anheuser-Busch, ARCO, BristolMyers Squibb,

the Edison Electric Institute, Lockheed Martin, Reuters and Southwest Airlines.)

Davis said he didn’t know which client he was

taking notes for. He didn’t know what aspect of the

trial he was supposed to focus on. He didn’t know

how long he would be there. In fact the intern said

he was just working a summer job with the group.

That’s why you can imagine how surprised I was

when, the other day, I called the Austin office of

Public Strategies to find out if Monsanto was a

client, and Ian Davis answered the phone. He is still

just an intern, he said, and he still didn’t know who

his client was.]

---

Monsanto and Fox: Partners in Censorship

by Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber

By all accounts, Jane Akre and Steve Wilson are tough, bulldog reporters--the sort of journalists you'd expect to make some enemies along the way.

That, according to Florida TV station WTVT, was why it hired the husband-and-wife team with much fanfare in November 1996 to head the station's "news investigative unit." Now, in the wake of their firing barely a year later, the Fox network affiliate is accusing them of theft for daring to independently publish the script of the story that they were never allowed to air.

"This is really not about a couple of disgruntled former reporters whining that their editors wouldn't let them do a story they thought was important," Wilson said in announcing that he and Akre are suing WTVT for breach of contract. "Jane and I have each spent more than 20 years in the news business. . . . It doesn't take that long for every reporter to learn that every now and then--usually when the special interest of your news organization or one of its friends is more important than the public interest--stories get killed. That's bad enough, but that's not what happened here. . . . Fox 13 didn't want to kill the story revealing synthetic hormones in Florida's milk supply. Instead, as we explain in great detail in our legal complaint, we were repeatedly ordered to go forward and broadcast demonstrably inaccurate and dishonest versions of the story. We were given those instructions after some very high-level corporate lobbying by Monsanto (the powerful drug company that makes the hormone) and also, we believe, by members of Florida's dairy and grocery industries."

The hormone in question is genetically-engineered recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH), the flagship product in Monsanto's campaign to take command of the ultra-high-stakes biotechnology industry. Injections of rBGH (sold under the brand name Posilac®) induce higher milk production in dairy cows, but critics warn of potential health risks to both cows and humans.

The Florida dispute offers a rare look inside the newsroom at the way stories get spun and censored. It is also cracks the facade that Monsanto has erected through a highly effective, multi-million-dollar PR offensive aimed at preventing the news media from reporting the views of rBGH critics.

The Dairy Coalition

Coordinated by the DC-based PR/lobby firm ofCapitoline/MS&L, the pro-rBGH campaign brings together drug and dairy industry groups in an ad hoc network called the Dairy Coalition, whose participants include university researchers funded by Monsanto, as well as carefully selected "third party" experts; the International Food Information Council, an industry funded coalition that attacks health and safety concerns about food as unwarranted and unscientific; the National Association of State Departments of Agriculture, representing the top executive of every department of agriculture in all fifty states; the American Farm Bureau Federation, the powerful right-wing lobby behind the movement to pass food disparagement laws like the one under which Oprah Winfrey was sued in Texas; the American Dietetic Association, the national association of registered dietitians which hauls in large sums of money advocating for the food industry; the Grocery Manufacturers of America; the Food Marketing Institute; and other dairy andfood associationsat the state and regional levels

Immediately after FDA approval of rBGH, attorneys for Monsanto sued or threatened to sue stores and dairy companies that sold milk and dairy products advertised as being free of rBGH, to make sure that any dissenters within the well-organized food industry would be frightened into towing the industry line.

Extensive media monitoring and aggressive intervention and punishment of offending journalists has been critical to the media management campaign. As early as 1989 the PR firm of Carma International was hired to conduct a computer analysis of every story filed on rBGH, ranking reporters as friends or enemies. This information was used to reward friendly reporters while complaining to editors about those who filed reports that were deemed unfriendly.

Leaked internal documents from the Dairy Coalition reveal how journalists who do not toe the line are handled. In January of 1996 dairy officials wrote Mary Jane Wilkinson, assistant managing editor of the Boston Globe, to complain about an upcoming food column by Globe writer Linda Weltner. "On February 23rd, [Dr.] Samuel Epstein . . . made unsupported allegations linking milk and cancer. We're concerned that Ms. Weltner will give Epstein a forum in the Boston Globe to disseminate theories that have no basis in science." The letter invoked carefully cultivated contacts to smear Epstein as a scaremonger with "no standing among his peers in the scientific community and no credibility with the leading health organizations in this country." It noted that "others in the news media who attended Epstein's press conference or reviewed his study--such as The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times and the Washington Post--chose not to run this 'story.' . . .USA Today was the only newspaper to print these allegations and we recently held a heated meeting with them."

Another internal dairy industry document bragged about the handling of USA Today health reporter Anita Manning, whose balanced article on the subject offended the rBGH lobbyists. "On Wednesday representatives of the Dairy Coalition met with reporter Anita Manning and her editor at USA Today. When Manning said that Epstein was a credible source, the Dairy Coalition's Dr. Wayne Callaway pointed out that Epstein has no standing among the scientific community. . . . When Manning insisted it was her responsibility to tell both sides of the story, Callaway said that was just a cop-out for not doing her homework. She was told that if she had attended the press conference, instead of writing the story from a press release, she would have learned that her peers from the Washington Post, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and the Associated Press chose not to do the story because of the source. At this point Manning left the meeting and her editor assured the Dairy Coalition that any future stories dealing with [rBGH] and health would be closely scrutinized."

A February 1996 internal document of the Dairy Coalition notes that "The Coalition is convinced its work in educating reporters and editors at the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post and the Associated Press led to those organizations' dismissal of Samuel Epstein's pronouncements that milk from [rBGH] supplemented cows causes breast and colon cancer. They did not run the story."

The same document brags of knocking prominent New York Times food reporter Marian Burros off the beat entirely: "As you may recall, the Dairy Coalition worked hard with the New York Times last year to keep Marian Burros, a very anti-industry reporter, from 'breaking' Samuel Epstein's claim that milk from . . . supplemented cows causes breast and colon cancer. She did not do the story and now the NYT health reporters are the ones on the [rBGH] beat. They do not believe Epstein. Marian Burros is not happy about the situation."

Given this climate of systematic intimidation and capitulation by news media management, the remarkable fact about the case in Florida is not that the story was killed. What makes this case unique is the dogged persistence that Akre and Wilson have shown in standing by their story.

The Deal that Soured

Steve Wilson is an Emmy award-winning former top investigative reporter for the TV news program "Inside Edition." His past work has produced stories that forced two recalls of faulty door latches in Chrysler minivans and exposed ABC news anchor Sam Donaldson's moves to accept farming subsidies while criticizing them on the air.Washington Post media critic Howard Kurtz calls Wilson "a dogged and careful investigator" with a "high-decibel level of journalism." Jane Akre has been a reporter and news anchor for 20 years and has won a prestigious Associated Press award for investigative reporting.

The couple's contract with the station stipulated that Akre would be paid $149,500 over two years to to file short investigative pieces every few days and anchor the station's weekend morning newscasts. Wilson's contract offered $85,500 for 10 hours of work per week on larger stories that would be timed for the all-important "sweeps" rating periods.

At the time of their hiring, it seemed like a good deal for all concerned. Akre had recently given birth to the couple's first child, and Wilson hoped signing up with a local station would give him the chance to spend more time at home and less on the road. "Jane and Steve, quite frankly, were only interested in a package deal . . . which suited me. They're both talented individuals who happen to be married," explained news director Daniel Webster.

A few months after their hiring, however, Webster was shown the door as part of a management shakeup following a $2.5 billion package deal in which WTVT and nine other stations were sold to the Fox network. By then, Webster had already given Wilson and Akre the editorial go-ahead for their first big investigative piece--an expose about possible health risks of rBGH-treated milk, which also provided solid documentation of numerous disturbing facts about Monsanto and its product:

Sudden Death

The resulting story, a four-part series, was cleared by management and scheduled to begin airing on Monday, February 24, 1997. As part of the buildup to network ratings sweeps, the story was already being heavily promoted in radio ads when an ominous letter arrived at the office of Fox News chairman Roger Ailes, the former Republican political operative who now heads Rupert Murdoch's Fox network news. The letter came from John J. Walsh, a powerful New York attorney with the firm of Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft, who accused the reporters of bias and urged the network to delay the story in order to ensure "a more level playing field" for Monsanto's side of the story. "There is a lot at stake in what is going on in Florida, not only for Monsanto but also for Fox News and its owner," Walsh wrote.

"Monsanto hired one of the most renowned lawyers in America to use his power and influence," Wilson says. "Even though our stories had been scheduled to run, even though Fox had bought expensive radio ads to alert viewers to the story, it was abruptly cancelled on the eve of the broadcasts within hours of receiving the letter from Monsanto's lawyer."

Initially, the story was postponed for a week, during which station editors and lawyers fine-combed the story but could find no inaccuracies. Akre and Wilson also offered to do a further interview with Monsanto and supplied a list of topics to be discussed. In response, Walsh fired back an even more threatening letter: "It simply defies credulity that an experienced journalist would expect a representative of any company to go on camera and respond to the vague, undetailed--and for the most part accusatory--points listed by Ms. Akre. Indeed, some of the points 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."

What followed next, according to Wilson and Akre, was a grueling nightmare of perpetual delays and station-mandated rewrites--73 in all, none of which proved satisfactory to station management. "No fewer than six airdates were set and cancelled," Wilson recalls. "In all my years as a print and radio and local and national television reporter, I've never seen anything like it."

At one point, their lawsuit claims, WTVT general manager David Boylan told them he "wasn't interested" in looking at the story himself and pressured them to follow the company lawyer's directions, adding, "Are you sure this is a hill you're willing to die on?" On another occasion, Boylan allegedly told them, "We paid $3 billion for these television stations. We will decide what the news is. The news is what we tell you it is." Boylan then notified them they would be fired for insubordination within 48 hours and another reporter would make the requested changes.

"When we said we'd file a formal complaint with the FCC if that happened," notes Wilson, "we were not fired but were each offered very large cash settlements to go away and keep quiet about the story and how it was handled." The reporters refused the settlement, which amounted to nearly $200,000, and ultimately were fired in December 1997.

The Perfect Case

Notwithstanding the dramatic issues and allegations at stake for reporters everywhere, the lawsuit has generated almost no national media attention and only a few stories in the Florida press--most of which are couched in timid "he said, she said" language that is sure to please Monsanto. One editorialist could not resist putting quotation marks around the word "facts" in discussing the case: "The 'facts' at issue were as slippery as a just-milked cow. . . . And the lines between advocacy, truth integrity and insubordination thin to pencil width when an expensive lawsuit's in the offing."

"Is this an example of local TV's growing reluctance to air hard-hitting investigative news pieces?" asked Eric Deggans of the St. Petersburg Timesbefore concluding that "The truth, as always, lies somewhere in the middle." After examining "the personality conflicts and lack of definitive scientific evidence" about rBGH, Deggans concludes that "Wilson's and Akre's case may not be the perfect example to illustrate the trend of increasingly irrelevant reporting in TV news."

Actually, the case isa perfect example to illustrate that trend. In fact, Deggan's response to the case shows how corporate interests have succeeded in dramatically shifting the terms of acceptability in journalistic discourse.

Good journalism--in particular, good investigativejournalism--is almost always controversial and accompanied by "personality conflicts." In dealing with technologically novel products like genetically-engineered hormones, "lack of definitive scientific evidence" is part of what makes the story controversial.

"Is there smoking-gun, iron-clad evidence available today that drinking milk from hormone-treated cows will lead to cancer in you or your children?" asks Wilson. "No. Many scientists will tell you because this is a drug injected into animals and not directly into humans the testing of its effects on milk-drinkers has never been thorough enough to know for sure. But ask yourselves this: how long did it take us all to learn about the effects of tobacco while the special interests insisted there was no evidence of any harm? Was it wrong to raise those issues before the link was indisputable? Or how about Agent Orange, dioxin, PCBs--all Monsanto products, by the way, all approved by the government, sworn by Monsanto to be safe. Was it wrong to raise those issues before we knew for certain?"

In reality, journalistic reluctance to discuss hypothetical, as-yet unproven health risks is driven more by fear of corporate lawsuits than by a desire to be "responsible." One such lawsuit by the Food Lion grocery store chain resulted in a $5.5 million judgment against ABC-TV in January 1997--just one month prior to Monsanto's threatening letter aimed at killing the Akre-Wilson story. It was a verdict that Monsanto's attorney made sure to mention in his letter to Roger Ailes. "What has Monsanto concerned . . . is the assault on their integrity . . . blatantly carried on by Ms. Akre and Mr. Wilson," Walsh wrote. "In the aftermath of the Food Lion verdict, such behavior would alone be cause for concern."

"A lot of people now are more fearful of doing investigative journalism since Food Lion . . . which is why we have so many lawyers involved," admits Phil Metlin, who took over as WTVT's news director in July 1997. "We have to be careful . . . and prudent."

The result, of course, has been that attorneys rather than reporters are empowered to make journalistic decisions.

For its part, WTVT insists that this system of institutional self-censorship must be defended in order to avoid "chilling the give-and-take essential in any newsroom in getting the news on the air in a timely and responsible manner." In legal court filings, the station insists that its "editorial discretion and judgment should not and cannot be the subject of second-guessing by a judge or jury, consistent with the First Amendment."

WTVT also objects to the fact that Akre and Wilson "conducted two press conferences the day they filed their suit" and "have also created a web site to publicize their issues, where they have posted the complaint and exhibits and where they are soliciting public comments." Worse yet, the website includes two complete scripts of their controversial rBGH report--one version showing how they wanted to write the story, and the other showing how the network wanted it edited. Neither version has ever aired. In fact, its filings in court claim that by posting the scripts on their website, Akre and Wilson "have misappropriated . . . property. . . . This misconduct by Plaintiffs is in itself a material and serious breach of the employment agreements [and] amounts to theft."

Theft it may be, in some strange legal sense, but Akre and Wilson don't care at this point. "I am risking my career by doing this, and I will probably never work in television again," Wilson said, "But we wanted to get this story out."

"As a mother, I know this is important information about a basic food I've been giving my child every day," Akre said. "As a journalist, I know it is a story that millions of Floridians have a right to know. The television station we worked for promised the story would be told. Instead, we spent nearly a year struggling to tell it honestly and accurately, and four months after we were fired for standing up for the truth, the station has done nothing but continue to keep this important news secret. It is not right for the station to withhold this important health information, and solely as a matter of conscience we will not aid and abet their effort to cover this up any longer. Every parent and every consumer has the right to know what they're pouring on their children's morning cereal."

Postscript: In May 1998, a month after Wilson and Akre filed suit, the station aired an rBGH story by the investigative reporter who was hired to replace them. His story, predictably, omitted many of their criticisms of Monsanto.

---

A version of this article appeared in the June 1998 issue of The Progressive magazine. Further information about the Akre-Wilson lawsuit is available on their website at <http://www.foxBGHsuit.com>.**http://www.prwatch.org/prwissues/1998Q2/foxbgh.html

Published inPR Watch, Second Quarter 1998, Volume 5, No. 2

---

wiki:

Jane Akre

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Jane Akre is an American former journalist and current editor-in-chief of InjuryBoard.com. She is best known for the whistleblower lawsuit by herself and her former husband, Steve Wilson, against Fox Broadcasting Company station WTVT in Tampa, Florida. Akre and Wilson are featured in the 2003 documentary film The Corporation about the same lawsuit.

Professional life

Akre began her career at a small radio station as a news reporter and occasional disc jockey in 1978. She moved around the country as a news reporter and news anchor until spending some time at CNN.[1] Following her firing from a Tampa-area station, she joined WTVT, a Fox Broadcasting Company affiliate.[2]

Following her issues with WTVT, she took a series of jobs and was featured in The Corporation regarding her whistleblower lawsuit. In 2007 Akre became the editor-in-chief of the national news desk at InjuryBoard.com.[3]

Whistleblower lawsuit

In 1997, Wilson and Akre began work on a story regarding the agricultural biotechnology company Monsanto and recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH), a milk additive that had been approved for use by the Food and Drug Administration but also blamed for a number of health issues. Wilson and Akre planned a four part investigative report on Monsanto's use of rBGH, which prompted Monsanto to write to Roger Ailes, president of Fox News Channel, in an attempt to have the report reviewed for bias and because of the "enormous damage that can be done" as a result of the report.[4]

WTVT did not run the report, and later argued in court that the report was not "breakthrough journalism." Wilson and Akre then claimed that Monsanto's actions constituted the news broadcast telling lies, while WTVT countered that it was looking only for fairness. According to Wilson and Akre, the two rewrote the report over 80 times over the course of 1997, and WTVT decided to exercise "its option to terminate their employment contracts without cause,"[5] and did not renew their contracts in 1998. WTVT later ran a report about Monsanto and rBGH in 1998, and the report included defenses from Monsanto.[4]

Following Wilson and Akre's contract not being renewed, the two filed a lawsuit concerning WTVT's "news distortion" under Florida's whistleblower laws, claiming their termination was retaliation for "resisting WTVT's attempts to distort or suppress the Monsanto recombinant bovine growth hormone story."[6] In a joint statement, Wilson claimed that he and Akre "were repeatedly ordered to go forward and broadcast demonstrably inaccurate and dishonest versions of the story," and "were given those instructions after some very high-level corporate lobbying by Monsanto (the agriculture company that makes the hormone) and also ... by members of Florida’s dairy and grocery industries."[7] The trial commenced in summer 2000 witha jury dismissing all of the claims brought to trial by Wilson, but siding with one aspect of Akre's complaint, awarding Akre $425,000and agreeing that Akre was a whistleblower because she believed there were violations of the Communications Act of 1934 and because she planned on reporting WTVT to the Federal Communications Commission.

An appeal was filed, and a ruling in February 2003 came down in favor of WTVT, who successfully argued that the FCC policy against falsification was not a "law, rule, or regulation", and so the whistle-blower law did not qualify as the required "law, rule, or regulation" under section 448.102 of the Florida Statutes.[8] ... Because the FCC's news distortion policy is not a "law, rule, or regulation" under section 448.102 of the Florida Statutes,[8]Akre has failed to state a claim under the whistle-blower's statute."[6] The appeal did not address any falsification claims, noting that "as a threshold matter ... Akre failed to state a claim under the whistle-blower's statute," but noted that the lower court ruled against all of Wilson's charges and all of Akre's claims with the exception of the whistleblower claim that was overturned.[6]

The 2003 documentary, The Corporation, featured Wilson and Akre discussing their battle with WTVT, with Wilson claiming that the jury "determined that the story they pressured us to broadcast, the story we resisted telling, was in fact false, distorted, or slanted."[4][9] Project Censored called their story one of the "Most Censored Stories" of 2003,[4] claiming that the "Court Ruled That the Media Can Legally Lie."[10]

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. later quoted Wilson in his book, Crimes Against Nature, with Wilson asking "[W]hat reporter is going to challenge a network ... if the station can retaliate by suing the reporter to oblivion the way the courts are letting them do to us?"[11] Wilson and Kennedy both failed to note that Wilson and Akre originally brought the suit.[4] Following the story, Akre and Wilson won theGoldman Environmental Prizefor the report,[1] as well as an Ethics in Journalism Award from the Society of Professional Journalists.[12] The two continue to challenge WTVT's license, the last such challenge coming in 2005.[4]

References

  1. ^ a(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Akre#cite_ref-InjuryBoard.com_biography_0-0) b(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Akre#cite_ref-InjuryBoard.com_biography_0-1) InjuryBoard.com biography: Jane Akre. URL accessed 8 April 2010.
  2. ^ Reason: "The Strange Case of Steve Wilson," John Sugg, May 2006 issue.
  3. ^ Jane Akre biography, Injuryboard.com
  4. ^ a(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Akre#cite_ref-Reason.2C_May_2006_3-0) b(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Akre#cite_ref-Reason.2C_May_2006_3-1) c(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Akre#cite_ref-Reason.2C_May_2006_3-2) d(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Akre#cite_ref-Reason.2C_May_2006_3-3) e(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Akre#cite_ref-Reason.2C_May_2006_3-4) f(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Akre#cite_ref-Reason.2C_May_2006_3-5) Reason, May 2006.
  5. ^ New World Communs. of Tampa, Inc. v. Akre, 866 So. 2d 1231(2003)
  6. ^ a(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Akre#cite_ref-New_World_Communs_2003_5-0) b(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Akre#cite_ref-New_World_Communs_2003_5-1) c(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Akre#cite_ref-New_World_Communs_2003_5-2) New World Communs. of Tampa, Inc. v. Akre, 866 So. 2d 1231(2003)
  7. ^ Prepared Statement: Steve Wilson and Jane Akre, 2 April 1998. URL accessed 8 April 2010.
  8. ^ a(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Akre#cite_ref-law.onecle.com_7-0) b(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Akre#cite_ref-law.onecle.com_7-1) Florida Laws: FL Statutes – Title XXXI Labor Section 448.01 Legal day's work; extra pay
  9. ^ The Corporation.
  10. ^ Project Censored: The Media Can Legally Lie. 2003. URL accessed 8 April 2010.
  11. ^ Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Crimes Against Nature. 2004, Harper Collins Publishers, p182.
  12. ^ Society of Professional Journalists for Performing in an Outstanding Ethical Manner.

bk rev

As a result of news organizations being profit driven, any issue that might threaten the quarterly income statement is shied away from, or avoided completely, especially controversial investigative pieces in which lawyers who represent the targets of the news stories threaten to sue the parent corporation. For example, Jane Akredescribes in her essay “The Fox, the Hounds, and the Sacred Cows,” how Fox Newscovered up her story on a company called Monsanto that manufactures a growth hormone called Posilac (rBGH) which is injected into cows so they can produce more milk. The issue that she wrote about was that the milk produced by the injected cows contains a higher amount of a certain growth hormone (IGF-1) than milk produced from cows that are not injected. She states the following:

But here’s a primary concern of scientists around the world: IGF-1 doesn’t differentiate between “good cells” and “bad cells” and is known to stimulate the growth of cancerous cells as well. So will it promote the growth of cancerous cells in those drinking the supercharged milk? [p. 40]

Jane Akre believed she had an important story on her hands, as I imagine any reader might, in her place. Could the milk a parent buys for his or her child cause cancer is a question I’m sure everyone would want an answer to, naiveté aside. Unfortunately, the threat of litigation prevented discussion, let alone the beginning of an answer to the question Akre was asking.

Friday evening before the scheduled airdate, Steve and I were called to the news directors office. “Read this,” he said, handing us a fax. It was a letter from a New York law firm, Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft, addressed to Roger Ailes, president of Fox News in New York. It was written on behalf of the firms client, Monsanto Company, and John Walsh, the lawyer who authorized the letter, minced no words. […] He charged that we had conducted ourselves unethically in the field. And to make sure nobody missed the point, the attorney also reminded Fox News’ chief that our behavior as investigative journalists was particularly dangerous in the “aftermath of the Food Lion vedict.” 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. [p. 41-42]

Akre goes on to describe her fight with Fox News to prevent the story’s demise by semantic sterilization such as:

'A risk of cancer?' You don’t need to use that word, said company lawyers. Instead, call it 'human health implications.' The credentials of our scientists critical of the Monsanto product? We don’t need their credentials, just call him a 'scientist from Wisconsin.' [p. 47]

In the end, the story was never aired on Fox News [not exactly true?]  and Akre’s contract was not renewed. This is a fairly chilling revelation regardless of whether you watch Fox News or not, at least it was for this reader.

Into the Buzzsaw: Leading Journalists Expose the Myth of a Free Press

Kristina Borjesson, ed.

Foreword by Gore Vidal

Amherst: Prometheus Books, 2002.

HORMONAL RAGE Monsanto spikes a Florida TV story about its bovine growth hormone. Reporters refused to be cowed.

BY JEANNETTE BATZ

Steve Wilson and Jane Akre, a husband-and-wife team of investigative reporters for Tampa Bay's WTVT (Channel 13), were proud of their four-part series on Monsanto's bovine growth hormone (BGH). The station, a new Fox affiliate, was proud, too -- it bought radio ads to promote the series. They'd already begun to air when a Monsanto attorney sent a warning letter to the CEO of Fox News. Nine months of postponements, bitter arguments and 73 rewrites followed. The "facts" at issue were as slippery as a just-milked cow. Monsanto's BGH is a genetically engineered hormone injected into dairy cows to boost milk production. The reporters' initial script was full of lively criticism, punctuated by briefer clips of Monsanto denying, correcting, explaining. The science in question is fairly subjective; how you weight the various explanations is also a judgment call. Akre and Wilson leaned toward a handful of renegade critics, not the official regulatory agencies that have approved BGH without long-term testing. But they never expected to lose their jobs over it. Last Thursday, they filed suit against the station, charging that their December firing violated Florida's whistle-blower law.

 Akre, who once worked here at KTVI (Channel 2), has nearly 20 years of broadcast experience; Wilson has 25. Both have won awards for their reporting. For their BGH script, the pair had plenty of videotaped interviews and a binder of background material on the genetically engineered hormone's unexplored health risks, its prevalence on Florida dairy farms, the effects on dairy cows and the large grocers who had quietly reneged on a promise not to sell milk from treated cows until BGH won widespread acceptance. The reporters say the series' script had been approved by the local station's news director and scheduled for Feb. 24, 1997, when a letter arrived at the office ofFox News chief Roger Ailes on Feb. 21 from John J. Walsh of Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft, a New York law firm retained by Monsanto.

Walsh wanted to notify Ailes that Monsanto officials had sensed bias in the WTVT reporters and doubted their ability to be fair. He suggested that Fox senior executives proceed with caution."There is a lot at stake in what is going on in Florida," he concluded, "not only for Monsanto, but also for Fox News and its owner." Walsh never suggested censoring the story, of course; he simply urged "a more level playing field" and a more leisurely pace. "While Akre and Wilson spoke of a 'deadline' for submission of these materials," he wrote, "it is inconceivable that treatment of this important subject, which is not a breaking news story, be rushed to fill some pre-designated news programming slot." The series was postponed one week; Akre and Wilson were notified that very afternoon.

WTVT fine-combed the story, but, according to the reporters, could find no inaccuracies. It was decided that Akre would offer Monsanto a second interview. When a Monsanto official requested a list of the questions in advance, however, Akre offered a list of topics instead. (It is not standard practice for journalists to provide specific questions.) Walsh fired back a letter saying, "It simply defies credulity that an experienced journalist would expect a representative of any company to go on camera and respond to the vague, undetailed -- and for the most part accusatory -- points listed by Ms. Akre. Indeed, some of the points clearly contain the elements of defamatory statements which, if repeated in a broadcast, could lead to serious damage to Monsanto anddire consequences for Fox News." He ended by reminding Ailes that the development of the series "requires close, continuing attention from you and/or other senior news executives of Fox."

Next came a hellish period of rewriting, documentation, argument.According to the reporters' lawsuit, they were told to include information they knew to be false or misleading. In an April 10, 1997, letter,Fox's legal vice president, Carolyn Y. Forrest, informed Akre and Wilson that they were writing "combative, contentious memoranda" about a story that was being handled no differently than any other. "I am sure you can appreciate that the application of neutral principles will yield different results," she wrote, "depending on the subject matter to which the principles are applied." She tacitly conceded that the Monsanto letter had begun the discussion, but said "subsequent scrutiny of the BGH script has been inspired by the unnecessary risk caused by the lack of fairness and the deficiencies we have found in the story." What deficiencies did the requested rewrite correct? If you compare the scripts posted on the reporters' Web site, the requested version made more deletions than additions,omitting credentials of controversial experts and deleting such quotes as, "We're going to save some lives if we review this now," from a scientist critical of Monsanto's product. The rewrite also deleted the University of Florida's role in the research, promotion and approval of BGH; deleted specific mention of IGF-1, a growth factor that increases in milk from treated cows; and substituted "human health implications" for "cancer."

The Florida grocers who had originally pledged not to sell the milk until it won widespread acceptance (they later reneged) were credited with responding to consumer wishes, not protecting their sales. The reporters say they were told to withhold information about Monsanto's previous behavior so it wouldn't look as if they were "building a case" against Monsanto. Meanwhile, they had to fight to keep a colorful"crack for cows" description of BGH first uttered eight years ago by the Massachusetts agricultural commissioner and since quoted by more than a dozen publications. WTVT made their reporters track down the former commissioner and confirm the quote.

[insert no color:

There were a few additions, though: Akre and Wilson say they were required to include the assertion, "This is the most studied molecule certainly in the history of domestic animal science," which they believed to be untrue. At one point they suggested simply killing the story rather than doing something they considered misleading. "We will not 'kill' the story," Forrest assured them, "but we will review and edit it until it meets our standards.... If you are chafing under the editorial and legal scrutiny, you may find it more useful to actively cooperate in producing a fair and balanced report." If they couldn't live with that, she suggested they say so, "without rancor or bombast, and we will release you from your contract with us. Although we want you to remain a part of our team, please be advised that your failure to adhere to and cooperate with our procedures and directions constitute insubordination and are a breach of your employment agreement."

According to the lawsuit, the new WTVT general manager, David Boylan, told Akre and Wilson that he "wasn't interested" in looking at the story himself and pressured them to follow the company lawyer's directions, adding, "Are you sure this is a hill you're willing to die on?" On April 16, they say, he told them, "We paid $3 billion for these television stations. We will decide what the news is. The news is what we tell you it is." He then notified them they would be fired for insubordination within 48 hours and another reporter would make the requested changes."When we said we'd file a formal complaint with the FCC if that happened," notes Wilson, "we were not fired but were each offered very large cash settlements to go away and keep quiet about the story and how it was handled." They did not accept. But on May 6, they received a separation agreement that would bind them to silence about "Monsanto's pre-broadcast objections to the News Report, the Station's legal review of the News Report and the Station's response to Monsanto's objections." They refused to sign -- but kept a copy. On May 29, according to the lawsuit,Forrest told them she didn't think their story was "worth going to court and to trial spending a couple hundred thousand dollars to fight Monsanto." The reporters say she made it clear that "it doesn't matter if the facts are true"; what mattered was whether the station could quickly and easily defend itself from a possible lawsuit by Monsanto. By June 19, the reporters say they had rewritten the script as directed. They still contended that the changes were misleading or inaccurate. Akre says she was told to be available for other work starting June 23 and was assigned to report on the vandalism of a vacant house, a "news story" not covered by any other station.

end insert]

There were a few additions, though: Akre and Wilson say they wererequired to include the assertion, "This is the most studied molecule certainly in the history of domestic animal science," which they believed to be untrue. At one point they suggested simply killing the story rather than doing something they considered misleading. "We will not 'kill' the story," Forrest assured them, "but we will review and edit it until it meets our standards.... If you are chafing under the editorial and legal scrutiny, you may find it more useful to actively cooperate in producing afair and balanced report." If they couldn't live with that, she suggested they say so, "without rancor or bombast, and we will release you from your contract with us. Although we want you to remain a part of our team, please be advised that your failure to adhere to and cooperate with our procedures and directions constitute insubordination and are a breach of your employment agreement."

According to the lawsuit, the new WTVT general manager, David Boylan, told Akre and Wilson that he "wasn't interested" in looking at the story himself and pressured them to follow the company lawyer's directions, adding, "Are you sure this is a hill you're willing to die on?" On April 16, they say, he told them, "We paid $3 billion for these television stations. We will decide what the news is. The news is what we tell you it is." He then notified them they would be fired for insubordination within 48 hours and another reporter would make the requested changes."When we said we'd file a formal complaint with the FCC if that happened," notes Wilson, "we were not fired but were each offered very large cash settlements to go away and keep quiet about the story and how it was handled."They did not accept. But on May 6, they received a separation agreement that would bind them to silence about "Monsanto's pre-broadcast objections to the News Report, the Station's legal review of the News Report and the Station's response to Monsanto's objections." They refused to sign -- but kept a copy. On May 29, according to the lawsuit,Forrest told them she didn't think their story was "worth going to court and to trial spending a couple hundred thousand dollars to fight Monsanto." The reporters say she made it clear that "it doesn't matter if the facts are true"; what mattered was whether the station could quickly and easily defend itself from a possible lawsuit by Monsanto. By June 19, the reporters say they had rewritten the script as directed. They still contended that the changes were misleading or inaccurate. Akre says she was told to be available for other work starting June 23 and was assigned to report on the vandalism of a vacant house, a "news story" not covered by any other station.

The BGH series, meanwhile, was rescheduled to air July 28. The reporters met with the new vice president for news, Philip Metlin, and say he agreed that some of the changes didn't work. They modified the changes, but Fox lawyers didn't like their modifications. The broadcast was rescheduled, then rescheduled again. The couple left on a long-planned vacation -- and returned in September to a letter notifying Wilson of possible termination three months hence. (Akre's letter apparently went astray in the mail.) In October, they say, they were suspended without pay ("as an act to evidence good faith and to evidence willingness to continue to work on the BGH story") and locked out of their offices, where computers contained much of their research.During their suspension, they were told to complete two versions of the script, theirs and the requested one. On Dec. 2, Akre and Wilson were fired. 

On April 2 of this year, they filed a civil suit against the station. (If they win, they plan to give whatever's left after legal fees to a journalism organization to fund journalists in similar predicaments.) When we called Boylan, the station manager, for comment, we were furnished with an official statement blaming "journalistic differences": "The reporters were not willing to be objective in the story nor accept editorial oversight and news counsel.... The station stood by its standards of fairness and balance in its reporting despite the reporters' threats of retaliation." The station also says its rejected offer to pay Wilson and Akre to work as "consultants" in exchange for their silence "can in no way be characterized as 'hush' money."

The "science" of BGH milk is a muddle of corporate interests, subjective interpretations, blithe approvals and persistent accusations first addressed by the RFT four years ago ("Udder Madness," Jan. 19, 1994). Critics of BGH cite higher levels of antibiotic residue in milk from treated cows, because superproducers are vulnerable to mastitis (udder infections). Monsanto biotech spokesman Gary Barton points to a two-year study that Monsanto contracted six months after BGH hit the market, which showed no increase in antibiotic sales or residues. But, according to Wilson, the sampling and screening process is inadequate for a wide array of antibiotics. "The lab director for the Tampa Independent Dairy co-op is the only man who routinely tests every single load of raw milk that comes from farms in this area," notes Wilson. "In an on-camera interview, he admits he tests for dangerous and illegal antibiotic drug residue only in the penicillin family."

Another point of contention is IGF-1, a substance that increases in milk from treated cows and has been shown to speed tumor growth in other contexts. Monsanto attorney Walsh wrote that "there is no increase in the level of IGF-1 in the milk," but Barton says the potential exists for a slight increase that still falls within a "normal" range. (Some estimate a 25 percent increase, some say 2-20 times as much, some say roughly 10-fold.) Barton says the levels occurring naturally in the human body are far higher than the negligible increase in the milk, and he groans over a recent flurry of calls about a January report in Science linking high IGF-1 levels to prostate cancer. "That's interesting," he says, "but it had nothing to do with milk."

Dr. Michael Hansen, a research biologist at the Consumer Policy Institute in Washington, D.C., who was one of the reporters' sources, says "what is important is the hormones' local concentration. You don't measure globally throughout the body. Hormones are often active at incredibly low levels, and there is often an exquisite balance." Hansen agrees that normally, "IGF-1 would degrade fairly rapidly," but he says "the presence of casein, the major protein in milk, appears to help it survive digestion." These issues are still new enough, and complex enough, that what you believe is ultimately a matter of whose research and interpretation you trust. Most regulatory groups have agreed with Monsanto. But economics play a part in the emerging consensus, too. And Akre feels justified in her skepticism about official reassurances of safety: "Monsanto owned the studies they contracted out with universities."

Akre and Wilson are convinced that, despite repeated assurances that the story was important, the station never wanted to air it after that first Monsanto letter. The station claimed that the problem was one of insubordination, yet even after they fired the reporters, "they did nothing to get the story on the air with a reporter they could trust," observes Wilson. "Their local reporter was out trying to find out which pizza parlor put the least cheese on their pizza." The recipient of the initial letter, Ailes, was unavailable for comment after undergoing hip surgery. Pat Anderson, the attorney representing WTVT, says all Ailes did was "pass the letter down the food chain," because thestation is owned by Fox Television Stations Inc., not Fox News.

"I don't exactly understand the corporate structure -- it is truly complicated," she adds. "But eventually it filtered its way down to the station." Fast filtering: The reporters say they were notified of the postponement the afternoon of the day Ailes received the letter. Still, Anderson says the real problem was that the series couldn't pass the company lawyers' libel review. "Prepublication review is a normal thing," she points out. "What was not normal about this was the reporters' refusal to include Monsanto's side of the story. I think what happened is, the reporters became convinced; they became advocates." And the lines between advocacy, truth, integrity and insubordination thin to pencil width when an expensive lawsuit's in the offing. Meanwhile, back at corporate headquarters, Barton says it's not Monsanto's fault the story was never broadcast. "I don't know why they couldn't get their story on the air," he remarks lightly. "All we've ever asked from journalists is to be as fair as possible. We never stopped answering their questions. All of a sudden, they just stopped calling. I always wondered what happened." The reporters' allegations are posted on their Web site: www.foxBGHsuit.com.