The world according to Monsanto : pollution, corruption, and

120 the world according to monsantoBob Franklin, the general manager of the station, asked to see the report:“He found it very good,” Jane Akre recalled, “and together we agreed to offerMonsanto another interview. The company asked us to send the list of questionsbeforehand, which we did, but finally it refused to meet with me.”A few days later, another letter reached Fox News headquarters. This timethe tone was openly threatening: “I find it nothing short of amazing that oneweek after my detailed letter to you about the concerns of my client MonsantoCompany ...I should be writing to you again to advise you that thesituation has not improved, but clearly worsened in terms of the irresponsibleapproach being taken by WTVT’s news correspondent Jane Akre,” thelawyer wrote. He inveighed against the eight questions submitted by the reporter,particularly one on “crack for cows.” “Indeed some of the pointsclearly contain the elements of defamatory statements,” he continued,“which, if repeated in a broadcast, could lead to serious damage to Monsantoand dire consequences for Fox News.”“What could Fox News be afraid of?” I asked after carefully reading thetwo letters.“Of losing advertising,” Jane answered. “Monsanto is a major advertiser,particularly for Roundup and NutraSweet, its two leading products, whichrepresents a substantial budget.”“That’s how you and Steve became whistle-blowers?”“Yes. We never would have imagined going through an experience like thatin a country that prides itself on being the greatest democracy in the world.”Open warfare had now been declared. In Tampa, it was conducted byDave Boylan, who had just been appointed general manager of Channel 13after it was purchased by Fox. He asked the two journalists to start fromscratch and prepare a new version of the report, which had been canceleduntil further notice. “We rewrote the script eighty-three times!” Jane saidwith some amusement, adding that she had kept drafts of every version.“But it was never suitable. For example, we couldn’t use the word ‘carcinogenic,’but had to replace it with ‘possible health implications.’ Or we had tominimize the scientific competence of Dr. Samuel Epstein, and so on. Welater discovered that the Dairy Coalition had flooded Fox News with documentssupposedly demonstrating the harmlessness of rBGH. Every versionwas carefully reviewed by Carolyn Forrest, a lawyer for Fox News, who oneday in exasperation said: ‘Don’t you understand? It’s not the truth of the facts