I reviewed the website that mtnglo provided (one of your responders), and agree with you that this was an injustice which I hope both Akre and Wilson (the reporters fired for not perpetrating the lie FOX News wanted told on use of hormones in cows) appeal the reversal all the way to the Supreme Court.
One small detail that may be useful: I notice the St. Louis Journalism Review piece (dated December 1, 2004) focused on use of the word "media" as part of FOX's contention they had a "right to lie"...Was the word "news" ever brought into play? If Akre and Wilson did a zoom lens approach in an appeal and defined "news" as factually based, whereas "media" can veer off into exaggeations, distortions, ad-influenced slants, etc., perhaps this would revisit the issue and produce a different outcome than the overturn. They were, after all, part of the NEWS team, and it would be false advertising (lots of laws against that) to claim a news program using the word "News" in its title and presented by a station with "News" in ITS title is really a MEDIA channel that is allowed to distort or lie. If nothing else, the reporters could have the Supreme Court say that if FOX continues to use the word NEWS instead of media, then accuracy must be a factor. LOL (Wouldn't that be FUN!)
Research what qualifies as NEWS, using PBS, CNN ("the most trusted name in news"), and other reputable broadcasts who cite the need for "accuracy". Go over Dan Rather's wrongful firing over being "wrong" about the (I believe Karl-Rove planted) story of Bush's cocaine use where a mysterious "stranger" with an internet "suddenly" discovered the ink was not valid...this was a PLANT that CBS never once investigated--a PR stunt that told the truth, but with an element of untruth that could be "uncovered" to taint, negate and obfuscate the entire message (which Dan Rather was correct in reporting). The Rather firing (and any others the attorneys for Akre and Wilson can uncover related to the importance of truth in news broadcasts) lays the groundwork for proving that a NEWS program MUST be factual or there will be consequences. I bet the reporters could prevail on this argument alone.
I also wonder if some mileage could be gained from reviewing the paperwork submitted in order to let Rupert Murdoch, an Australian who was not a citizen of the U.S. at the time he bought the station, buy into the American television market. I believe there was a prohibition at the time for foreign nationals to own our banks (BCCI scandal under Reagan) and our television stations (later changed). It's worth a look-see. Another aspect would be to examine any documents used to establish the FOX channel that would have been submitted to government---unfamiliar territory for me, but isn't there some sort of Charter required that requires a "statement of purpose" or something? If there was dutifully obedient paperwork which stated a goal of integrity or honesty (anything related to being truthful), perhaps these words themselves would work against the later premise by FOX that they would deliberately lie, and would help Akre and Wilson hoist FOX News owners on their own petard.
Hope they see this and decide to pursue.
PS: I think these reporters should sue Monsanto, because in the second website given by mtnglo, there is an admission by FOX that Monsanto put pressure (coercion) on them to slant the story.
"The Republican Noise Machine: Right-Wing Media and How It Corrupts Democracy" by ex-conservative rightwing insider David Brock.