Mark West

John Edwards is right.

Iím not talking about his political orientation, although he is to the right of me and, I think, of most progressives.

Iím talking about his unwillingness to appear on Fox Televisionís presidential debates, no matter who the other sponsors of those debates might be.

Edwards is right because Fox News wants to present itself as a legitimate source of news. Despite its endless pandering to Americaís least appealing characteristics, despite its thinly veiled support for the Republican Party and its current noxious leadership, Fox still sees being taken seriously as a news organization as something desirable.

And what better way to buy legitimacy than by sponsoring legitimate news events, such as presidential debates? Even if your news broadcasts are slanted, even if your news content sounds like it was faxed from Karl Roveís office, you can still put on a presidential debate, and grab some gravitas.

But the fact of the matter is that Fox is not a news network. The courts have ruled, in New World Communications of Tampa, Inc, versus Jane Akre, that it doesnít have to even try to tell the truth.

Akre worked at a Florida Fox affiliate as a reporter, where she was working on a story about bovine growth hormone (BGH) and its effects on the safety of milk destined for human consumption. BGH mimics a hormone that cows naturally produce, and when administered to milk cows, increases their productivity. Unfortunately, it also leads to a 79-percent increase in mastitis, and a resultant 19-percent increase in the number of cells arising from such infections found in milk.

That data was data generated by Monsanto, the producer of the hormone, and yes, it does mean pus in your milk. The estimated market for the product is some $500 million ó yet much of the surplus milk produced will be purchased by the government, according to Consumers Union, and discarded, under the federal price-support system.

Akre produced a news segment which described the health problems which could be caused by BGH, and she was fired. She sued under Floridaís ìwhistleblowerî law; a state court agreed, and the case was then appealed.

The interesting thing about this case isnít the notion that a Fox television station might slant reporting to argue that BGH was good for you, or that global warming was a myth, or that John Kerry was a chicken. The interesting thing is that the District Court found that the FCCís dictum concerning the intentional falsification of the news, the ìnews distortion policy,î is not a law or rule. Itís a hint, a suggestion. There wasnít a violation of law upon which Akre could base her status as a whistleblower ó and so her case was thrown out.

So here we have a Fox affiliate, arguing in court that it has a right to distort the news because the FCCís ìnews distortion policyî is just a suggestion. And the court agreed.

Would you want to appear on such a network, and give it even the least gloss of respectability?

Itís time for Democrats, and newsmakers as a whole, to boycott Fox. Let them have ìAmerican Idol;î but letís deny their ìnewsî network any claim to legitimacy.
ï
Mark West is a professor of mass communications at UNC Asheville.