Ripoff Report Needs Your Help!
Report: #613743

Complaint Review: Randy Travis - Fox News Atlanta - Atlanta Georgia

  • Submitted:
  • Updated:
  • Reported By: JDH — Atlanta Georgia USA
  • Author Confirmed What's this?
  • Why?
  • Randy Travis - Fox News Atlanta Atlanta, Georgia United States of America

Randy Travis - Fox News Atlanta Questionable Reporting Atlanta, Georgia

*Author of original report: Update On Randy Travis And Fox News

Show customers why they should trust your business over your competitors...

Is this
Report about YOU
listed on other sites?
Those sites steal
Ripoff Report's
We can get those
removed for you!
Find out more here.
How to fix
Ripoff Report
If your business is
willing to make a
commitment to
customer satisfaction
Click here now..

Randy Travis

A half hour multimedia film is now being produced on the questionable reporting of Randy Travis of Fox News Atlanta.  It will consist of interviews of people he has done stories on that they claim is totally misleading, headline seeking and scandalous.  This will be aired over YouTube and other similar outlets on the web.  Millions of people will see it.

The questionable reporting, according to them, is prepared out of context and edited in the studio to protect Fox from litigation.  Randy Travis has never done a live interview and there is talk that his days at Fox are limited.  Weve been trying to get Randy Travis into court for three years and we welcome litigation so we can do discovery under oath.

Murdoch owns Fox Television and the New York Post.  Read these articles and reader beware.  Everybody is equal on the web and more people view it than on local television.

The FAIR site has been redesigned! This page is available for archival purposes only and has not been updated since January 2005. Please update your links. To access the new homepage, go to You may also wish to visit the advanced search page or the archives page.

Extra! Update, June 1998

"We Paid $3 Billion For These Stations. We'll Decide What the News Is."

Steve Wilson and Jane Akre, a husband-and-wife investigative reporting team at WTVT, Fox's Tampa Bay affiliate, thought they had a dynamite story: Despite promises to consumers, supermarkets in Florida were selling milk produced with rBGH, a synthetic growth hormone developed by Monsanto that boosts milk production. The use of rBGH causes udder infections in cows, requiring increased use of antibiotics, but the monitoring of antibiotic residues in milk was inadequate, Akre and Wilson found.

Most ominously, the Fox reporters found that some scientists believe that rBGH-boosted milk contains heightened levels of IGF-1, a hormone associated with increased risk of cancer (Science, 1/23/98). Despite Monsanto's claim that rBGH is "the most studied molecule certainly in the history of domestic animal science," no thorough studies exist on whether milk produced with rBGH is carcinogenic.

These are vital facts for consumers in Florida--and around the country--to know. But the story never aired on WTVT, and Wilson and Akre are now out of a job and suing Fox--because of Fox's efforts to alter their story to make it acceptable to Monsanto.

On February 21, 1997, days before the first installment of the rBGH story was scheduled to air, Monsanto sent a letter to Roger Ailes, the head of Fox News. (Ailes was a campaign advisor to Ronald Reagan and George Bush, and the executive producer of Rush Limbaugh's TV show.) The letter questioned Akre and Wilson's "objectivity and capacity for reporting on this highly complex scientific subject," and charged that the reporters "have prejudged the safety of [rBGH] and the corporate behavior of Monsanto." The letter urged Ailes to involve himself directly in an effort to "get the facts straight" about rBGH, hinting none-too-subtly that the alternative would be a massive lawsuit: "There is a lot at stake in what is going on in Florida, not only for Monsanto, but also for Fox News and its owner."

That same day, Akre and Wilson were told that their story was being postponed, and an endless round of revisions, cuts and conferences with lawyers ensued. (The pressure only intensified after Monsanto sent Ailes a second letter warning of "dire consequences for Fox News.") Fox's attitude was made clear by in-house counsel Carolyn Forrest, who reportedly told Akre and Wilson, "I don't think this story is worth going to court and to trial spending a couple of hundred thousand dollars to fight Monsanto." Her position, the reporters say, was that "it doesn't matter if the facts are true"; what mattered was that no story air that could result in a Monsanto lawsuit that wouldn't be immediately dismissed.

In a memo, Akre and Wilson assured station management that they were willing to work with lawyers to produce a balanced and accurate story that would be legally unassailable, but insisted that they could not take part in airing a program that was false or misleading. In response, the reporters allege in their lawsuit against Fox, they were told by station manager David Boylan: "We paid $3 billion for these television stations. We will decide what the news is. The news is what we tell you it is."

After dozens of rewrites, the journalists and the station still couldn't agree on a version of the report that everyone was happy with. Fox didn't seem to want to kill the piece, but that appears to have been more about fear of bad PR than about a commitment to report the news: At one point the station offered to pay Wilson roughly $125,000, if he would just go away and never tell anyone how the story had been handled. He turned down the offer.

After Keystone Kops-like personnel maneuvers in which the couple were variously suspended without pay, suspended with pay and forbidden to work out of the studio, Fox eventually notified them by fax that they were both fired on November 30, 1997. The station never aired any version of the story they had produced.

All this has come to light because of Akre and Wilson's lawsuit against the Fox affiliate, charging breach of contract and violation of Florida's whistleblower protection act. How far the suit will get is unclear: Courts have been rightly reluctant to second-guess news judgments made by media owners. But regardless of its outcome, the filing of the suit has shed light on the cowardice and compromise often exhibited by news outlets in the face of corporate pressure.

Many of the central documents in the case are on a website posted by Akre and Wilson ( Rachel's Environment & Health Weekly has an excellent summary of the scientific questions about rBGH posted at

Please ask your local news outlets to cover the health effects of rBGH, and Monsanto's efforts to suppress such questions.

[FAIR Home] | [More on Fox...] | [More on Food Safety...]

June 3, 2007

DEALBOOK; Dow Jones, Murdoch and

an Enticing 'Kiss'


FOR many people, especially shareholders, money often makes the bitterest of medicines easier to swallow. So too for the Bancroft family, it would seem.

Late last week the Bancrofts, who control Dow Jones & Company, said they would consider selling the company to Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation. At $60 a share, Mr. Murdoch's bid is so generous that it apparently overwhelmed even family members who think of him as the Dr. Evil of journalism.

''You may love your house, but if someone offers you twice what it's worth, you have to at least listen to the offer -- no matter how much you like or dislike the buyer,'' one family member told me, refusing to be identified because the family has agreed not to speak publicly.

The next hurdle in the negotiations, though, is going to have very little to do with money. The Bancroft family is planning to sit down with Mr. Murdoch and his family tomorrow to discuss how he plans to protect the editorial independence of The Wall Street Journal, according to people briefed on the meeting.

In the mergers-and-acquisitions game, this is what bankers like to call negotiating over ''social issues,'' which are often prove more pivotal in the late stages of a deal than mere dollars and cents.

So here's the playbook: Mr. Murdoch has already offered up the prospect of creating ''an independent, autonomous editorial board exactly along the lines of what was established at The Times of London'' -- ostensibly to protect The Journal from his penchant for meddling.

That sounds nice, but the Bancrofts are going to want a board that acts like a cop on the beat and is able to withstand any efforts by Mr. Murdoch to become a puppeteer. After all, as Harold Evans, the former editor of The Times of London, wrote in his book, ''Good Times, Bad Times,'' he once challenged Mr. Murdoch about violating his pledge of editorial autonomy. And what, according to Mr. Evans, was Mr. Murdoch's reply about that promise? ''They're not worth the paper they're written on."

The Bancrofts are expected to raise the possibility of structuring any sale so that it resembles Thomson's recent acquisition of Reuters, people close to the family said. In that transaction, Thomson will maintain a board of independent outside trustees. That board will oversee both the editorial integrity of its news products and play a role in business affairs (including having the ability to block a takeover and influence the company's corporate board.)

Advisers are toying with a possible mechanism that might keep Mr. Murdoch from getting too much ink on his fingers, according to people involved in the talks. He and his executives could pledge that they would have no interaction with the newsroom without being chaperoned by an ombudsman, who could also write in the pages of The Journal if Mr. Murdoch or anyone from the News Corporation tried to influence news coverage. It may sound silly and perhaps a bit overboard, but it would go a long way toward assuring the Bancrofts -- and maybe even the public -- about Mr. Murdoch's pledge to be truly hands-off.

Peter A. Chernin, the president of the News Corporation, said at a conference sponsored by The Journal on Wednesday that ''it's easy and glib and fun to sort of point to Page Six and say we want to Page Six-ify The Wall Street Journal.'' But, he said, ''the notion that we want to somehow buy it to change it is completely counterintuitive.'' Mr. Chenin contended that the reason the News Corporation is willing to pay such a high premium for Dow Jones is that it values the paper's editorial integrity.

MR. MURDOCH clearly wants Dow Jones, and he is likely to be willing to jump through any number of hoops to get it, a fact that the Bancrofts can leverage to their advantage. But the family can't impose so many conditions that it would be impossible for the News Corporation to run Dow Jones as it sees fit -- a prospect that could cause Mr. Murdoch to walk away.

If the family and Mr. Murdoch can resolve outstanding ''social issues,'' then negotiations will return to haggling over the price of the takeover. While the Bancrofts have said they are open to other bidders, and may want to ignite a bidding war, let's be honest: It is unlikely any economically rational company or individual can top Mr. Murdoch's offer.

That doesn't mean he won't have to raise his bid, however. ''You have to tip the waiter,'' is an old phrase among Wall Street bankers and lawyers, and a sweetened offer may be necessary to win over the family. Sometimes an 11th-hour increase in a bid is called a ''kiss.'' And it's now quite clear that the Bancrofts have moved away from spurning Mr. Murdoch's advances and may be wetting their lips.

DealBook also has a newsletter and a Web site,, that is updated continuously when markets are open.


Cash-For-Coverage Alleged at NY Post

(The NY Post Is A Fox Affilliate Who Have In Our View The Same Scandalous Philosophy)
The Associated Press
Saturday, May 19, 2007; 10:02 PM
Strippers! Sex acts! Illicit gifts!

A typical day for the New York Post's salacious Page Six _ except this time, the bold-faced names in the widely read gossip column included the paper's owner, its editor and the editor of the column itself.

Post editor Col Allan, according to a one-time Post employee, received sexual favors from the dancers at a well known Manhattan strip club. Owner Rupert Murdoch spiked stories that were bad for his business ventures, the ex-employee alleges.

And longtime Page Six honcho Richard Johnson accepted a cash gift from a Manhattan restaurateur for a favorable mention _ typical, the fired worker claims, of an operation where graft and freebies flowed freely.

The Post acknowledged the last charge was partially true. It said Johnson received a "Christmas gift" of $1,000 cash in 1997. He was confessed the gift to Allan and was reprimanded, the paper said. It did not say when Johnson came forward to Allan, who did not take over the Post until 2001.

Allan, meanwhile, insisted that his behavior several years ago at the club, Scores, was "beyond reproach."

A Post spokesman said the tabloid would not respond to the other allegations point by point. "They're branding them generally as false," Howard Rubenstein said Saturday.

In an apparent pre-emptive strike Friday, the Post published the charges made in a four-page statement by a former Post reporter, Ian Spiegelman. The rival Daily News jumped on the story in Saturday's paper, with the front page tease, "Ex-Post Reporter Alleges Seedy Shenanigans

Spiegelman's assertions, if true, would bolster any legal action against the tabloid by another ex-Post writer, Jared Paul Stern. The allegations involving billionaire media mogul Murdoch also could complicate his News Corp.'s offer to buy Dow Jones & Co., which owns The Wall Street Journal.

Murdoch specifically spiked any "unflattering stories about Chinese officials" over concerns they might have "endangered Murdoch's broadcasting privileges" in the country, Spiegelman said.

Murdoch has insisted his reputation as a meddler is overstated and he would preserve the Journal's independence if his bid to buy Dow Jones is successful.

Stern, a Page 6 freelancer, was suspended last year amid allegations he tried to shake down billionaire Ronald Burkle in exchange for favorable coverage. He no longer works for the paper.

Spiegelman, who also worked for Page Six, was fired in 2004 _ a point noted by Allen in his response to the charges.

"Spiegelman's claims are a tissue of lies concocted by an embittered former employee I fired," the editor said in Friday's paper. "His untruths are so outrageous, they would be laughable if they were not so offensive."

Stern, speaking Saturday, said he had witnessed some of what Spiegelman alleges, including Allan's regular visits to Scores and orders "that came down from the top" about sparing certain public figures from bad publicity.

"They're not telling the whole truth," Stern said.

Copyright 2007 AP News




Gossip Columnist Acknowledges Page Six Payola


NY Post Columnist Acknowledges Freebies for




May 18, 2007

Richard Johnson, editor of Page Six and one of the most powerful gossip columnists in the media world, has admitted in today's New York Post to accepting a cash payment from New York restaurateur Nello Balan. Balan has been regularly mentioned in Page Six, the famed and widely read gossip page of the Post.

The Post reported that Jared Paul Stern, a former freelance writer for the newspaper, is threatening to sue the paper and sent a four-page litany of alleged ethical and legal violations by the gossip column. The Post reported that Stern's allegations by another Post staffer and self-proclaimed disgruntled employee, Ian Spiegelman, would be part of Stern's threatened lawsuit. A copy of the statement was obtained by ABC News' Law & Justice Unit. (Click HERE to read).

The document alleges that "accepting freebies, graft and other factors was not only condoned by the company, but encouraged as a way to decrease the newspaper's out-of-pocket expenses."

Friday's Page Six published those allegations, along with a point by point rebuttal in what observers call the longest Page Six article in history.

The one allegation Page Six admitted to was that of a $1,000 cash Christmas gift in 1997 from restaurateur Balan to Johnson. The Post's editor in chief admits the bribe was unethical.

"Richard Johnson made a grave mistake in accepting cash from Nello Balan," editor in chief Col Allan said Thursday, as quoted by the Post.

"[Johnson] was reprimanded, and policies were adopted that render such ethical lapses completely unacceptable."

Balan was featured in Page Six as recently as last week, when a May 12 item referred to him as a "restaurateur to the stars."

Neither Johnson nor Balan immediately returned calls for comment.

The allegations seem to have struck a nerve at the Post. Some of Johnson's normally chatty friends in the gossip circle declined to comment. But when Lloyd Grove, a former gossip columnist with the New York Daily News, was asked if he was surprised to hear about the cash transfer, he said, "It certainly doesn't look good."

Grove, who is currently a magazine writer, added: "In my experience, [this is ]pretty darn unique. Cash money pocketed for items -- that's just not done. It's hard to avoid getting the odd bottle of wine or the cheese basket, fruit basket. In New York everything is much looser, but not so loose that you could take money from people."

So how often do gossip columnists receive goodies and meals?

"It's a fairly frequent's just part of doing business," said Grove. "I don't feel ethically tainted because I've eaten something. Reporters all the time go to lunches and events. They often eat for free."

Stern himself was the subject of accusations that he tried to extort money from supermarket magnate Ron Burkle in exchange for favorable coverage. Federal law enforcement officials told ABC News last summer that they were looking into those allegations but they did not result in any criminal charges.

Spiegelman's statement seems to open a window onto the shadowy world of the gossip industry. In one of his claims, Speigelman suggests that favoritism factored into the newspaper's political coverage. News Corp., the parent company of the Post, is owned by conservative media mogul Rupert Murdoch.

The statement also alleges that "politicians such as Hillary Clinton and others in a position to grant Murdoch and News Corp. valuable concessions and favors were similarly [provided] in print&those who opposed him were punished by unflattering or detrimental coverage as a matter of course." From his statement it is unclear when the alleged favoritism took place. Friday's Page Six called that and other allegations "fantasy&smears and lies."

Spiegelman is most famous for reportedly trying to pick a fight with a then-46-year-old part-time publicist Doug Dechert last summer, apparently over a young woman, at a book party last year for author Toby Young. For that incident and for his general tough-guy public behavior and words, Spiegelman has been mercilessly mocked in postings on gossip Web sites like

He seems all too willing to play along with his own bad press.

"The reporters at the Post are good people, they're good reporters,'' he told Howard Stern on Stern's radio show last summer. "The people who manage the Post are a bunch of scared little girls with no spines. If you're a VP at News Corp., you're a spineless little Julie." He reportedly sent a note filled with similar sentiments to Allan last year.

It is unclear when or whether Stern will file his lawsuit against the Post.




May 21, 2007


The Media Equation

Page Six Covers Itself, a Bit





If you were a member of the Bancroft family in the midst of deciding whether to sell Dow Jones & Company to Rupert Murdoch, reading Fridays New York Post might have made you choke on your bagel.

Page Six ran an extraordinarily long item at around 680 words, its the gossip column equivalent of Remembrance of Things Past describing an affidavit from Ian Spiegelman, a former writer for Page Six who was fired three years ago.

Mr. Spiegelman alleged, among other things, that his old boss at Page Six, Richard Johnson, accepted money from a restaurateur after friendly coverage and enjoyed a $50,000 bachelor party in Mexico thrown for him by Joe Francis, who brought the world the Girls Gone Wild videos.

Mr. Spiegelman also alleged that Col Allan, The Posts pit-bull editor in chief, accepted some free hospitality at the local strip club Scores. (Whew: at The New York Times, our idea of living on the edge is a second trip to the afternoon coffee cart.)

The affidavit also renewed allegations that Post coverage has been manipulated to protect the business interests of its owner. An item on a Chinese diplomat was spiked, according to the affidavit, which further alleged that Page Six went easy on the Clintons after they had reached a truce with Mr. Murdoch.

Nobody likes waking up and seeing their name plastered all over Page Six, but for Mr. Murdoch, the much chattered-about item is remarkably ill-timed. He is in the midst of a public makeover from ruthless mogul to reverent steward of the news because he wants to buy The Wall Street Journal. So while theres fun to be had with the allegations of payoffs and lap dances, it should be pointed out that the papers alleged behavior raises serious implications for Mr. Murdochs plans to buy The Journal.

But theres plenty of time for that later.

Mr. Spiegelmans allegations surfaced because Jared Paul Stern, another former reporter for Page Six, is seeking a settlement with The Post, which had suspended him after it was alleged that he tried to blackmail the grocery magnate Ronald W. Burkle. (Federal prosecutors declined to charge Mr. Stern). As part of the settlement negotiations, Mr. Stern sent along Mr. Spiegelmans affidavit.

In some legal circles that would be known as setting the gun on the table. But then The Post reached across the table, grabbed the gun and promptly shot itself right between the eyes.

Under a herald of trumpets, Lies & Smears Aimed at Post, the newspaper then made some stunning admissions. The Post acknowledged that Mr. Johnson did accept money from a restaurant in 1997, $1,000 was used to pay for a big day of drinking by the staff.

The big party for Mr. Johnson held by a sex-entertainment entrepreneur was wanly defended by a spokesman, who said Mr. Johnson had paid for his own flight. The item also quoted Mr. Allan saying that, while he had gone to Scores, his behavior had been beyond reproach (which somehow defeats the point).

More important, the allegations that coverage in The Post was finessed to the advantage of the papers owner were not denied beyond a blanket characterization of the affidavit as a tissue of lies from a disgruntled ex-employee.

The Post had been in negotiations with Mr. Sterns lawyer, Larry Klayman, about the possibility of a settlement, and it became clear they were not going to meet Mr. Sterns terms, which included some kind of return for him to the paper. Mr. Allan, Gary L. Ginsberg, a high-ranking official at the News Corporation, and Howard J. Rubenstein, a longtime spokesman for the paper, decided that the affidavit would inevitably show up somewhere and decided to pull the trigger themselves.

There is some logic to The Posts decision.

The Post wanted to break their own story so their denial would not be relegated to the last paragraph of a story in some other newspaper where all they would get to say is, We didnt do it. Mr. Rubenstein said. They wanted to portray what they claim are false accusations well, mostly false and control the context in which they appeared.

Just as likely, Mr. Allan, a ferociously competitive journalist, could not stand to have such a grand scoop appear elsewhere, especially in The Daily News, which has giddily covered every step of the imbroglio thus far.

We thought it was appropriate to read the charges in their totality and reach the appropriate conclusions, Mr. Allan said.

But one of the conclusions might be that the attentions of Mr. Johnson, an important franchise for The Post, can be bought, or at least rented.

Well, if I were to hire only people that had never made a mistake, I would be working in an empty room, Mr. Allan said, pointed out that Mr. Johnson had been reprimanded, whatever that means.

Mr. Allan also made clear that he was not about to sign off on any kind of arrangement that suggested he had endorsed kickbacks as a way of life at the newspaper or personally received favors, sexual or otherwise, allegations he flatly denies.

It may be entirely predictable that The Post would want to break the news first, but theres something paradoxical here as well. In an effort to blunt charges that newspaper coverage is slanted to defend Mr. Murdochs business interests, The Post used its signature column to do exactly that. The item was a weird act of journalistic jujitsu, even in the greasy, payback-rich environment of New York media gossip.

They say that there is no culture of vindictiveness or no culture of using the paper to business ends, said Mr. Spiegelman. But then again, that is exactly what they did on Friday.

Heres the part where the story walks back to Mr. Murdoch. Everything is a misdemeanor in the context of gossip world, but at a certain point, the conduct of Page Six begins to reflect on its newspaper host and its corporate owner.

It has been written here and elsewhere that Mr. Murdoch will eventually crack the Bancroft familys hold on Dow Jones. And if an owner were of a mind to use control of media to advance his own interests, that company would be a pretty nifty item to have in the tool belt.

Sure, when most people read the item on Friday, they probably just shrugged and said, Its The New York Post. Whaddaya expect? What would they say if it appeared in The Wall Street Journal?



May 23, 2010

Duchess of York Stung in Influence-Peddling



LONDON Sarah Ferguson, the Duchess of York and the queens former daughter-in-law, has been in many mortifying positions in her many years in the public eye. But the latest one may have surpassed even the occasion in 1992 when a tabloid newspaper published photographs of her sunbathing topless while having her feet kissed by a Texas businessman (who was not her husband).

On Sunday, The News of the World, a tabloid, reported that the duchess had accepted $40,000 in cash and a promise of about $717,000 more from a rich businessman (really a reporter in disguise) in return for pledging to introduce him to Prince Andrew, her former husband and Queen Elizabeths second son.

If you want to meet him in your business, look after me and hell look after you, the paper quoted her as saying in reference to Andrew, the Duke of York. I can open any door you want.

In a statement, the duchess said: I very deeply regret the situation and the embarrassment caused. It is true that my financial situation is under stress. However, that is no excuse for a serious lapse in judgment and I am very sorry that this has happened. She did not say whether she planned to return the $40,000.

A statement from Buckingham Palace said, The Duke of York categorically denies any knowledge of any meeting or conversation between the Duchess of York and the News of the World journalist.

The News of the World, owned by Rupert Murdochs News Corporation, is best known for using elaborate undercover ruses, or huge payments to sources or both to expose sexual scandals involving public figures like sports stars and politicians.

In 2008, it covertly filmed Max Mosley, then president of the International Automobile Federation, being spanked during a session with several prostitutes wearing prison guard costumes. (It had to pay about $86,000 to Mr. Mosley when a judge found no merit in its claim that the session had n**i overtones.)

In 2006, the papers royal reporter was jailed for four months after being found guilty of hacking into the cellphone messages of people working for members of the royal family.

In the latest episode, The News of the World set up a complicated sting in which a reporter took the duchess to dinner at a London dining club, and then escorted her back to his apartment, where he placed $40,000 in $20 bills on a table in front of her.

A video accompanying the article shows the two negotiating terms. The reporter agrees to wire 500,000 into her British bank account, after which, Sarah promises, she will introduce him to Andrew, who serves as a quasi-official trade envoy for Britain.

Then you open up all the channels, whatever you need, whatever you want, she is shown saying, and then you meet Andrew and thats fine.

The video shows Sarah picking up and carrying off a computer case that purportedly contained the $40,000. But Sarah stresses that her ex-husband, whom she divorced in 1996 and with whom she has remained friends, cannot accept money because he is the prince of England.

He ever, ever, never, ever, ever he never does accept a penny for anything, she says. He does not and will not he is completely whiter than white.

Since her divorce, the duchess has written childrens books, worked as a spokeswoman for Weight Watchers and produced movies, among other things.

The News of the World quoted her as saying that she gets 15,000, or about $21,500, a year in her divorce settlement.

I have not got a bean to my name, she is quoted as saying. Im a taxpayer, a British taxpayer, and I left the royal family for freedom, and in freedom it means I am bereft. Im hopeless.

This report was posted on Ripoff Report on 06/13/2010 10:09 AM and is a permanent record located here: The posting time indicated is Arizona local time. Arizona does not observe daylight savings so the post time may be Mountain or Pacific depending on the time of year. Ripoff Report has an exclusive license to this report. It may not be copied without the written permission of Ripoff Report. READ: Foreign websites steal our content

Search for additional reports

If you would like to see more Rip-off Reports on this company/individual, search here:

Report & Rebuttal
Respond to this report!
What's this?
Also a victim?
What's this?
Repair Your Reputation!
What's this?

Updates & Rebuttals


#1 Author of original report

Update On Randy Travis And Fox News


POSTED: Sunday, August 01, 2010

Randy Travis is a reporter for Fox News Atlanta.  A film is now being produced about him with interviews from people that he has interviewed for television.  In the film ten people have given testimony about the character and reliability of his reporting which is very similar to what people are saying about Fox News.

I urge everyone to see the Reliable Sources program broadcast on CNN on July 25, 2010 about Fox News.  There is a movement by the New York Times, the Washington Post and others to have their license revoked.  You must see this program.  They devoted a half an hour on it.  Now you will understand Randy Travis.

Respond to this report!
What's this?
Featured Reports

Advertisers above have met our
strict standards for business conduct.

What do hackers,
questionable attorneys and
fake court orders have in common?
...Dishonest Reputation Management Investigates Reputation Repair
Free speech rights compromised

Segment Now