>I remember one such case, and probably the one referenced.

That's the one. Probably the only one that got to court.

>2 TV journalists had done a serious expose of bovine growth hormone (legal in U.S. but not many other places) and the station got heavy heat before airing from Monsanto (or whichever company produces the chemical) and the network didn't publish the show.
>They tried hard to get the commentators to change it and tell half-truths and eventually the station made a mistake that allowed the commentators to sue. They won (jury verdict, if I remember) but it was overturned on appeal on the basis stated above.

And the basis is the twist... yes, we did harrass our reporters and fired them, but they aren't whistleblowers because they didn't catch us in anything illegal. We have the legal right to lie in the interest of Monsanto and dairy industry. So they're screwed and we win.

>Too bad it didn't get much publicity (but you don't have to guess how come < s >) because then news might have started to state "We do not lie on our news broadcasts".

...only in advertisements, and we make sure you never know which is which.