I made a suggestion for the other person who asked this question a day or so ago that the two reporters, Akre and Wilson, should appeal the overturn making use of the word "news" instead of "media" and have their attorneys do research on several fronts: (a) other news anchors (Dan Rather, for example) or journalists who have been fired over inaccuracies; (b) the "mission statement" (if any) that was filed with the FCC or other federal agencies when Rupert Murdoch (not a U.S. citizen at the time) took over an American television station---I believe foreign ownership of banks (BCCI scandal) and also U.S. television stations was illegal at the time (during Reagan/Bush years) although later changed; (c) see if at its inception or in any statement of purpose to anyone, FOX News or Rupert Murdoch used any word like "trust" or "accurate" to describe just the news (not the media aspect), because if so they are in breach of contract (the contract being their guarantee of "accuracy" or reportings the public could "trust" in their firing of the reporters. Also, I'd consider filing a lawsuit against Monsanto, because in one of the websites mtnglo, a responder, listed, FOX News testified that Monsanto had "pressured them" to either lie or misrepresent... which is collusion and coercion that resulted in job loss plus damages for Akres and Wilson. I said this with more clarity on the other question (in case you want to check my answers).
A producer-director named Robert Greenwald has done a short documentary on FOX News entitled "OUTFOXED: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism" that is available on-line. One of the websites is www.outfoxed.com. Note in these series of video clips, FOX consistently uses "fair and balanced" to describe the reporting.
"The Republican Noise Machine: Right-Wing Media and How It Corrupts Democracy" by ex-conservative rightwing insider David Brock.