I had never heard about this until now. Fox was found guilty of knowingly distorting the news. But it was reversed on appeal, because "the Federal Communications Commission position against news distortion is only a “policy,” not a promulgated law, rule, or regulation." That fact that they knowingly distorted the news was never disputed.<quoted text>Looks like you never read the case you speak so highly of.
And how did NBC and ABC get by with lies they have told?
Do you have an example of either NBC or ABC being taken to court on similar charges?
"On August 18, 2000, a six-person jury was unanimous in its conclusion that Akre was indeed fired for threatening to report the station's pressure to broadcast what jurors decided was "a false, distorted, or slanted" story about the widespread use of growth hormone in dairy cows.
The court did not dispute the heart of Akre's claim, that Fox pressured her to broadcast a false story to protect the broadcaster from having to defend the truth in court, as well as suffer the ire of irate advertisers. Fox argued from the first, and failed on three separate occasions, in front of three different judges, to have the case tossed out on the grounds there is no hard, fast, and written rule against deliberate distortion of the news.
The attorneys for Fox, owned by media baron Rupert Murdoch, argued the First Amendment gives broadcasters the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on the public airwaves.
In its six-page written decision, the Court of Appeals held that the Federal Communications Commission position against news distortion is only a "policy," not a promulgated law, rule, or regulation. Fox aired a report after the ruling saying it was "totally vindicated" by the verdict."