The world according to Monsanto : pollution, corruption, and

the bovine growth hormone affair, part two 121that’s important. I don’t think this story is worth going to court and to trialspending a couple of hundred thousand dollars to fight Monsanto.’ ”According to Jane Akre (when I met her in July of 2006), on April 16, 1997,Dave Boylan allegedly threatened to fire the two reporters for “insubordination”if they refused to reedit the report following to the letter the “recommendations”of Fox News: “We paid $3 billion to buy these stations,” he wasreported to have said. “We’re the ones who decide what the content of thenews should be.” Steve Wilson replied that if the report was broadcast withouttheir consent, they would file a complaint with the Federal CommunicationsCommission for violation of the Communications Act of 1934.On May 6, the new manager of Channel 13 reportedly changed tactics:he offered to pay the reporters a full year’s salary, including benefits (about$200,000), and to appoint them to fictitious positions as consultants. In returnfor this “golden handshake,” they had to promise never to reveal howFox had censored the report or what they had discovered about rBGH. “Putyour offer in writing, and we’ll look at it,” Steve answered, to Jane’s great surprise.But she soon understood. 13The invaluable document was an exhibit in the complaint they filed afterthey had been fired “without cause” on December 2, 1997. To establish theirclaim, Jane and Steve relied on a recent Florida law on whistle-blowers,pointing to the fact that the various lies that their employer had wanted toforce them to include in their report were contrary to the public interest andviolated the regulations of the Federal Communications Commission.* Thiswas the first time that reporters had used this law and Fox News took thecase very seriously, hiring a dozen lawyers, including some from the firmof Williams and Connolly, which represented Bill Clinton in the MonicaLewinsky affair.For two years, they filed countless motions to dismiss in order to avoid atrial. Jane and Steve were forced to sell their house to pay for their legalcosts, but they won a preliminary victory: the case would be heard in aTampa court in July 2000. After five weeks of trial, the jury had to answerone question: “Do you find that the plaintiff, Jane Akre, has demonstrated bya preponderance of the evidence that the defendant ...terminated her em-*According to the terms of this law, a whistle-blower is an employee who is the victim of retaliatorymeasures for having refused to participate in an illegal activity carried out by his company or for havingthreatened to denounce that activity to the authorities.