I will research the subject, but I suspect the article you are cutting & pasting from ,( noteably without citing the article) is from a very biased liberal source which, known for skewing reporets to say whatever evil they want to say about the right. "The factual basis of the entire documentary" WAS the memo, which turned out to be bogus. And if one iota of research was done, there would have been good reason to doubt the validity of the document & investigate it more thoroughly! But it said what they wanted it to say, so they went with it! -------------------------------- The questioner wrong on the legal aspect of the case AND wrong to imply the Fox News Network is gulity of something in this case. LEGAL - This is about when a whistleblower is protected & when a whistleblower can be fired. While it is clearly a bad thing for a reporter to be told to lie in a report, the ruling was about whether the boss could fire a person for not including the lie. IF this was a law or regulation, then the whistleblower would be protected. But a policy is a different thing. The court ruling in no way said it is OK to lie, it just said that the reporters COULD be fired for exposing the lie if the lie was not breaking an actual law. BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY!!!! You are trying to act like this is a case involving the Fox News network. It is NOT. This was a small local station. The station may be owned by the parent company of Fox News Network, but that is the extent of thier connection.