Talk:Jane Akre

Vandalism
The external links are all not working and have been redirected to the wrong pages. Someone please rectify? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.27.22.226 (talk) 01:22, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Wrongful termination suits
I believe there were two separate wrongful termination suits, which Wilson lost and Akre won; Akre's win was overturned on appeal.

There is far more to this story than is reported in this article, this is not NPOV.

See, for example:

http://www.gene.ch/gentech/2000/Aug/msg00077.html (This link appears to be an opinion piece on the character of Jane Akre and Mr. Wilson.  It's certainly not NPOV, and it doesn't add anything to the story)

http://www.milkismilk.com/news-akre-wilson-questions-1-21-05.htm (struck because it's a dead link; Also, other links on that website are more character assassination pieces, not NPOV).

http://www.johnsugg.com/2005/08/letter_to_the_f.html Briholt 03:01, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Whistleblower Law
I took the liberty of making it clear that it was section 448.01 of the FLORIDA legal code that was at issue here, along with a citation to the Florida legal code at onecle.com. If there's a better legal reference for the FLorida code, please feel free to update the reference

Alienburrito (talk) 02:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Dubious
Provide documentation for the following assertion:

"FOX did not dispute that it tried to force Akre to broadcast a false story, but argued that, under the First Amendment, broadcasters have the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports. This would be the sixth time that FOX had used this argument in court."

I want to see excerpts from the transcripts of the trial. -- 195.225.107.17 04:10, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I would also like to see transcripts from the trial, because I can't find it Briholt 21:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

"The court agreed with WTVT's (Fox) argument "that the FCC's policy against the intentional falsification of the news -- which the FCC has called its "news distortion policy" -- does not qualify as the required "law, rule, or regulation" under section 448.102.[...]Because the FCC's news distortion policy is not a "law, rule, or regulation" under section 448.102, Akre has failed to state a claim under the whistle-blower's statute."[1] Charleenmerced 07:51, 10 February 2007 (UTC)Charleenmerced
 * I added a somewhat supporting quote from the courts opinion:


 * But this quote is regarding a technical argument. Ms. Akre is saying that WTVT broke the law when it broke the FCC 'intentional distortion' policy. And given that's breaking the law, she argues that she has whistle blower status which protects her from being fired.  The court, however, is actually saying "no, breaking the FCC policy is not the same as breaking the law of Florida, and as such Ms. Akre has no protection under the Whistle Blower law."  Therefore, the court overturned the lower courts decision.  Briholt

Now, this is a completely separate issue from whether WTVT actually pressured Ms. Akre to intentionally distort news. Without knowing the specifics of what transpired in the editorial room we will not have a reasonable chance of knowing whether intentional distortion took place. Additionally, given reference to the FCC adjudicating on a case by case basis, without a clear indication of what constitutes evidence as intentional distortion (see my quotes below) it's not clear how our public airwaves are protected from dishonest news sources. Briholt 22:11, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

The sixth time? could you direct me the other ones, or maybe make a small note in the Fox news article (assuming I haven't missed it there.)?


 * "Wilson and Akre became popular among many left wing media outlets. The 2003 documentary The Corporation featured Wilson and Akre discussing their battle with WTVT, with Wilson claiming falsely that the jury "determined that the story they pressured us to broadcast, the story we resisted telling, was in fact false, distorted, or slanted."[12][13] Project Censored called their story one of the "Most Censored Stories" of 2003, falsely[14] claiming that the "Court Ruled That the Media Can Legally Lie."[15] Robert F. Kennedy Jr. later wrote in his book, Crimes Against Nature, "What 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?", [16] failing to note that Wilson and Akre originally brought the suit.[17] Following the story, Akre and Wilson won the Goldman Environmental Prize for the report,[18] as well as an Ethics in Journalism Award from the Society of Professional Journalists.[19] The two continue to challenge WTVT's license, the last such challenge coming in 2005.[20]"

^ every "falsely" in this paragraph is completely unsubstantiated. For cryin' out loud. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.163.161.27 (talk) 00:49, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You may want to read the supporting evidence. Perhaps a second reference directly to the legal opinion would help as well? Ed Wood&#39;s Wig (talk) 11:47, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

^I see that I am not the only one whose attention was attracted by the signs of viewpoint advocacy in the quoted paragraph. The characterization of various claims by Wilson and other sources commenting on the court case as false is sourced to an article in Reason, a Libertarian periodical. I read the Reason article cited as a source, “The Strange Case of Steve Wilson” by John Sugg. That Sugg invites the reader to draw inferences about Wilson’s character based on Wilson’s weight – a prominent rhetorical feature in the early part of the article – gives one reason to wonder about the standard of journalism at work there. Some things said in the Reason article, if true, place Wilson and Akre in a bad light and could be important to a full understanding of the story; however, the possibility also exists that the article was written as an ideologically motivated smear or character assassination. If Sugg’s article is to be used as a source on Wikipedia, the relevant claims need to be confirmed with independent, and I daresay more reliable, sources. Also let’s not forget Wikipedia’s guidelines:

“This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should not be inserted and if present, must be removed immediately.”

There is no reason why this Wikipedia page should either accept uncritically Akre and Wilson’s claims about their court case, or should report as fact the opinions of their detractors. I have restored the changes that I made on 11 April 2010 to the paragraph in question, and that were reverted by Ed Wood’s Wig. I suggest that until some more solid sourcing comes to light, the article be used to report the controversy rather than to assert contended views as accepted fact. JEM. 15 April 2010.--24.41.28.120 (talk) 14:37, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * That's why we must keep my edits as they are, as the reliable sourcing indicates the verifiable information that we have available. We must be governed by the sources, not what we want the sources to say. Ed Wood&#39;s Wig (talk) 15:12, 15 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The article by John Sugg cited in this paragraph is not a reliable source. Your advocacy has compromised the integrity of this Wikipedia article.  JEM.  --24.41.28.120 (talk) 16:10, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * And why is it not a reliable source? Ed Wood&#39;s Wig (talk) 16:20, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Let’s set aside the credibility problems that Reason has had in the past. The publication has defended itself against the appearance that it had been one among many outlets to benefit from ExxonMobil’s funding of misleading science journalism denying anthropogenic climate change.  This charge was raised against ExxonMobil in a 2006 letter from the British Royal Society, the world’s oldest scientific fellowship.  (Reason had abandoned its climate denier stance in 2004.)  I take issue specifically with the John Sugg piece cited on the Jane Akre Wikipedia page, not with the publication as a whole.  The attention drawn in Sugg's article to Wilson's weight and personal appearance, a rhetorical tactic that attempts to persuade by playing on readers’ prejudices, marks the article as a work of partisan polemics, not a work of sober journalism and a trustworthy factual source.  The blow to credibility is especially important because so much of Sugg's article relies on his account of his own contacts and investigations, rather than on material that is independently documented.  He derides this same approach to reporting in his attack on Wilson’s tabloid journalism when he tells us that Wilson admittedly had no “proof” (i.e. only eyewitness testimony) in his exposé of Detroit’s “Michigan Boys,” a group of politicos and businessmen who allegedly consorted with prostitutes while on a junket to Costa Rica.  Authoritative reporting only works when the reporter speaks with authority.  In short, Sugg’s article is a colorful editorial.  It has its place.  It should not be mistaken for solid reporting.  JEM --24.41.28.120 (talk) 20:18, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Reason has had no credibility issues. Your issue with the tone of the article does not change the facts of the article, which is a) what is referenced and b) what is at issue here.  This issue is not about the Michigan Boys, but about the unsupportable, false claims made by Akre and Wilson. Ed Wood&#39;s Wig (talk) 14:02, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You are undertaking to edit Wikipedia. A key responsibility of an editor is to be judicious.  Are you able to distinguish the shades of gradation along the spectrum from documented facts, to advocacy, to agenda-driven distortion?  If you accept sources uncritically, without being able to assess their intrinsic quality, integrity, and credibility, but based on whether they tell you what you want to hear (and on what you wish others to believe), then you will make poor editing decisions and leave a trail of messes for other people to clean up.  Take some time to read the Wikipedia guidelines.  "Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a means of promotion."  No doubt you're a person of strong convictions, and there are many channels for the expression of that.  This is not the place for dogmatic opinions or shutting out competing points of view.  It's the dialogue, not the heartfelt convictions and moral certainties of one person or one bloc, that leads to the truth.   JEM --24.41.28.120 (talk) 18:30, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Here's the issue at hand - the entire Akre/Wilson debacle is advocacy, and it's up to us to a) report their claims as they've stated them and b) bring about the verifiable facts in the case. Verifibly speaking, from both Reason and the court opinion, their claims hold no weight, and to state otherwise does a disservice.  The Akre/Wilson point of view is given its hearing, and the facts are referenced.  Ed Wood&#39;s Wig (talk) 04:26, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I see that Ed Wood’s Wig has reverted my edits to this paragraph for a second time. Rather than enter into an edit war, I would like to offer my rationale for my edits, and a criticism of some details of the paragraph in its current form.

One of the problems of bias in the paragraph as it now stands involves a selective labeling of viewpoints. Media that have reported on the Akre/Wilson case are branded as “left wing” (more correctly written as “left-wing,” using a hyphen with the phrasal adjective); meanwhile, the text passes over without comment the Libertarian alignment of the source cited in criticism of Akre/Wilson and others. The Akre/Wilson controversy might usefully be framed as a left-right debate in this Wikipedia article, or alternatively could sidestep the ideological frame in favor of a discussion of the facts available from reliable sources. However, the approach currently in place, of explicitly labeling one viewpoint while ignoring the ideological basis of an opposing opinion, reflects bias.

There's no reason why references to John Sugg’s article in Reason should be removed. The article merely needs to be treated as a source of opinion or of facts under dispute.

The use of the Sugg article is particularly clumsy in the following sentence:

"Robert F. Kennedy Jr. later wrote in his book, Crimes Against Nature, 'What 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?', [16] failing to note that Wilson and Akre originally brought the suit."

First, the use of this quote on the Wikipedia page fails to indicate that, in Kennedy’s book, the passage is not Kennedy’s own discourse but is a quotation attributed to Wilson. Thus the intro to the quote should be corrected to: “Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in his book Crimes Against Nature quotes Wilson: ....” (This mistake is not due to Sugg but was introduced by whoever wrote this part of the Wikipedia article.)

Second, the discrediting qualification that immediately follows the quote (the claim that Kennedy “fail[ed] to note that Wilson and Akre originally brought the suit”) is inaccurate. Kennedy does indeed make it clear that Akre and Wilson initiated the lawsuit in his renarration of their account; see Crimes Against Nature, page 181 (searchable on Amazon.com and Google Books). Even considered without its context, the quote makes issue of reporters’ ability to “challenge” broadcasters, so the qualification that follows (“failing to note that Wilson and Akre originally brought the suit”) misses the point, while framing the quotation so as to appear to discredit it. Altogether I would say that the quote is not correctly handled.

It’s possible for reasonable people to disagree about the rights and wrongs of the Akre & Wilson case. Where consensus is lacking, let the Wikipedia article state the controversy. Ed Wood's Wig, I would be willing to work with you to agree on wording that avoids advocacy and respects the range of opinion, in accordance with Wikipedia's neutrality guidelines.

I hope other members of the community will weigh in on this paragraph in order to improve the article. JEM--24.41.28.120 (talk) 20:58, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Regarding the use of "left wing," the only time it's used is when noting that they have become popular with the left wing press. That remains true.  If you want to rephrase that, be my guest, but don't ruin the factual basis.  As for the RFK book, the piece I saw did not attribute the quote to Wilson, and I will repair that.  That's my error.  However, Kennedy (and Wilson, for that matter) did fail to note that Wilson and Akre originally brought the case.  We need to remain honest, and the consensus of the legal community and of reality is that things did not go as Wilson and Akre claim - per neutrality guidelines, we give their minority viewpoints an airing, but we are not required to pretend it is the correct one. Ed Wood&#39;s Wig (talk) 14:02, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Glad you at least fixed the attribution error, but the other problems remain unaddressed. I've already pointed out that Kennedy acknowledges, on page 181 of Crimes Against Nature, that Akre and Wilson initiated litigation in response to their termination of employment.  The text as it stands is factually wrong and misleading.  If you are operating in good faith, you will address the remaining errors.  Obviously I attempted to do that myself and you reverted my edits.  Thus I leave it to you to consider how you will procede, what your goals are as an editor of Wikipedia, and whether this is the best place to prosecute an agenda.  JEM--24.41.28.120 (talk) 18:30, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
 * There are no other problems. Kennedy acknowledges what is claimed by him - the timeline in the article regarding when and how Akre and Wilson were dismissed and when the suits came about is accurate.  We can add the Kennedy book as a second source to the already-accurate claim if you wish.  Ed Wood&#39;s Wig (talk) 04:26, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll come back to this later -- in late May 2010, I expect -- and suggest some alternative wording in the discussion area. Together perhaps we can agree on some wording that maintains accuracy while giving an account of the differing points of view.  JEM.--24.41.28.120 (talk) 03:47, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Original complaint
http://www.courttv.com/archive/legaldocs/misc/foxsuit.html   Briholt 03:02, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Fox's argument

 * "FOX did not dispute that it tried to force Akre to broadcast a false story, but argued that, under the First Amendment, broadcasters have the right to lie or deliberately distort news reports. This would be the sixth time that FOX had used this argument in court." - Are you serious? Did they really use this article?!

I added the bold emphasis to this claim because I can't find that argument in the amicus brief. It may have come out in a verbal exchange during a trial, but I can't find evidence to that. Briholt 21:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Decision of Florida 2nd court
You can read that here, case number 2d01-529:

http://www.2dca.org/opinion/February%2014,%202003/2D01-529.pdf

Here is the Amicus brief submitted on behalf of COX news and WVTV: http://www.foxbghsuit.com/090201amicusbrief.pdf Although there won't be anything like 'first amendment protects lies' I am finding the argument that basically says no one can regulate reporting except FCC, and they won't touch the veracity of a report for fear of exercising censoring practices. Quotes to come. Briholt 18:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

To summarize the Amicus Brief, the argument is not about protecting false statements as news. Teh argument is about whether the courts can get involved with this. It's a technical argument: The government and courts cannot get involved with editorial decision making because that is what the FCC is for. The FCC will adjudicate conflicts regarding accuracy, but will leave the journalistic process of reporting facts up to the news company because the very nature of reporting is always biased from some point of view or another. Key quotes from the brief: This following argument basically says that the government and courts can't  get involved with editorial decisions:  "The essence of the claim is alleged "illegal" editing by    news management, a position that grates against the fundamental principle     that the "choice of material to go into a newspaper" - or news broadcast     - must be determined by "editorial control and judgment," not official     decree. Tornillo, 418 U.S. at 258. "   This following argument basically says that the FCC's policy is to stay out of editorial decisions because those editorial decisions are governed by the journalistic process:  "[The FCC's] practice has been to give the policy against news distortion    "an extremely limited scope." Galloway v. FCC, 778 F.2d 16, 20-21     (D.C. Cir. 1985). For example, in rejecting a complaint filed about a network     news report by the Central Intelligence Agency, the Commission noted that     it was being asked to "second-guess the journalistic judgment and editorial workings of ABC news" and stressed that "under no circumstances will the Commission engage in assessments of truth or falsity when considering whether news programming was deliberately distorted. Nor will it sit in judgment of the way particular news programming was handled." The FCC described    such choices as "the very essence of the journalistic process."      The following quote get's to the nuts and bolts about First Amendment protections.   The claim here is that the FCC will get involved with 'news distortion' on the   condition that they receive "extrinsic evidence of deliberate distortion"   but that there isn't any clear definition in how much evidence is needed.    "The FCC has recognized that allegations of news distortion require a heightened burden of proof because of First Amendment concerns. Accordingly, it has applied a "particularly high threshold" for intervention in the news distortion matters area "because news and comment programming    are at the core of speech which the First Amendment is intended to protect." Liability of NPR Phoenix, L.L.C. Licensee, 13 FCC Rcd. 14,070, 14,072 (Mass    Media Bureau 1998). See also Complaint of Denny Mulloy, FCC 86-360, 1986 WL    290825 (Aug. 13, 1986) ("The first amendment does not permit the Commission     to investigate a news distortion complaint unless it receives extrinsic evidence     of deliberate distortion of news programming."). 28/ Consistent with the First Amendment, the FCC has required intentional falsification of the news by the licensee's top station or news management before any finding of news distortion. " 28/ Serafyn v. FCC, 149 F.3d 1213 (D.C. Cir. 1998) is not to the contrary.Although the court in that case remanded the FCC’s dismissal of a news distortion case to the agency, it did not propose “to determine just how much evidence the Commission may require or whether Serafyn has produced it.” Id. at 1220. Nor did the court consider any First Amendment issues. It found only that the Commission should have conducted a further investigation on the facts of that case, pursuant to the Communications Act. Id. at 1219     Briholt 21:44, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Results of countersuit?
"In 2004, Fox filed a US$1.7 million counter-suit against Akre and Wilson for trial fees and costs." What's the current status of that? DMacks (talk) 14:54, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Ed Wood's Wig's editorializing
User Ed Wood's Wig has been inserting biased comments into this entry. Several users have tried to remove them but simply due to his relentlessness, Ed Wood's Wig has managed to keep those comments in the entry. If you, as well, wish to remove his editorializing, please leave a comment on my talk page. --Drono (talk) 00:42, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * This isn't editorializing. We're forced to deal with verifiability, and to leave Akre and Wilson's claims in place without noting the dishonesty of them is to do a disservice to the entry.  If you can show me where the bias is and how Wilson and Akre's claims are not counterfactual, please share them. Ed Wood&#39;s Wig (talk) 13:56, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You can't link to an opinion piece and call it fact. Get that whole last paragraph out of here.
 * What opinion piece? Ed Wood&#39;s Wig (talk) 01:35, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Your edits have been contested by three separate users. Please don't play games. Viriditas (talk) 21:58, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * With no discussion as to why. Don't play games. Ed Wood&#39;s Wig (talk) 22:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * The person adding content is responsible for answering questions about their additions. Please explain why you keep adding the word "false". Viriditas (talk) 22:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Because the statement is false, and the source backs it up. Are you trying to say it is not? Ed Wood&#39;s Wig (talk) 22:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That is not an explanation of any kind. What statement are you referring to, and which source?  Please learn to talk specifically about edits, and always mention the source by name. Viriditas (talk) 22:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Cease speaking down to me. You made the edit to remove the word, so you must have an idea of what the source and statement are.  Ed Wood&#39;s Wig (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 22:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC).
 * I'm sorry, but you appear to not understand how talk pages work. If you can't answer questions or engage in discussion, then Wikipedia probably isn't the best place for you.  Editors cannot just add the word "false" to any statement they disagree with. Viriditas (talk) 22:58, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * When you can speak to me like a human being, I'll be glad to continue the discussion with you. Ed Wood&#39;s Wig (talk) 22:59, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * There has not been any discussion. You added the word "false" to a BLP article.  I asked you why?  You responded with "because" and "the source backs it up".  Please demonstrate this "because" and show me how the source backs it up. Viriditas (talk) 23:01, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Article describes rGBH as a milk additive
"(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"

This doesn't sound right. Isn't rGBH administered to the cow, not added to the milk?

Also, the article says it is blamed for "a number of health issues." From what I can tell, the health issues in question are primarily those of the cows. Effects on human health of those drinking affected milk are more speculative, based on changes in composition to the milk.

--50.135.209.86 (talk) 18:39, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Jane Akre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100406161747/http://www.injuryboard.com:80/jane-akre/ to http://www.injuryboard.com/jane-akre/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—<sup style="color:green;font-family:Courier">cyberbot II <sub style="margin-left:-14.9ex;color:green;font-family:Comic Sans MS"> Talk to my owner :Online 20:29, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jane Akre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100623021855/http://law.onecle.com/florida/labor/448.102.html to http://law.onecle.com/florida/labor/448.102.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:42, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jane Akre. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100421103357/http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/11-the-media-can-legally-lie to http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/11-the-media-can-legally-lie/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:18, 20 December 2017 (UTC)