Frequently this is a reference to a suit between a Fox affiliate station and a pair of their reporters who were terminated amid editorial conflicts and whistleb

Frequently this is a reference to a suit between a Fox affiliate station and a pair of their reporters who were terminated amid editorial conflicts and whistleblower actions. It is a complicated suit with a number of claims. There are enough bits which if extracted and held up alone can support the grandparent's claim, but on a whole doesn't really say that. It is a bit hard to google about because a lot of the people who choose to write about it are partisan, but you can get a feel for the mess in the Snopes article†. As with lots of law, part of it turns on technical definitions. The Appeals Court (not Supreme) found that the FCC policy against falsification did not meet the legal definition of "law, rule, or regulation" in a particular section of relevant law. Remember, three of those four quoted words probably don't mean what you think they do unless you are a legal scholar. It's like having a variable in a program named "loop_count". Maybe it is a count of the looping, maybe not, unless you read all the referencing code. The wikipedia article‡ is currently ok too, but who knows by the time you read it. † https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/fox-skews/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/fox-skews/ ‡ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Akre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane_Akre