I scrounged for a bit of info on the Fox front and from what I found, it sounds as if the network won a court case against a whistle-blower (Jane Akre). I mostly skimmed the article but apparently the courts, through the verdict, indirectly gave them the right to falsify information. That said, it sounds as if Jane approached the matter incorrectly. I'm honestly way too tired to make sense of the whole matter.
The crux of the case is to whether Jane Akre actually was
a whistle-blower or not (the court found not).
Basic story is this; Akre and her then husband Steve Wilson worked for WTVT, a Fox owned and operated channel based in Florida. They intended to run a story about Monsanto and a milk additive it was using. WTVT declined to run the report following a letter to the president of the Fox News Channel talking about the damage the report could cause. Fox didn't renew Akre and Wilson's contracts the following year but did later run a similar report on Monsanto, albeit one that included more positive coverage for the company then the originally intended pieces.
The pair sued WTVT on the basis that they were whistleblowers and that they had been dismissed for attempting to resist Monsanto's attempts to distort the story and instructions from senior figures to broadcast "demonstrably inaccurate and dishonest versions of the story". The Jury threw out all of the claims but one by Akre, classifying her as a whistle-blower and giving her compensation.
WTVT appealed... and that's where the "Fox can lie" meme came from. WTVT argued that the FCC's policy against falsification didn't constitute a "law, rule, or regulation" and as such the requirements for the Florida whistleblower law
weren't satisfied. Those who opposed Fox jumped on this and argued it was them attempting to say they could legally lie. It isn't. It's what's known as a "threshold matter", essentially going "even if X occurred, X doesn't constitute a legal wrong doing". If someone accuses me of murder y killing someone with a tire iron it is a perfect defence to point out that the supposed victim is still alive (and thus I cannot fall within the definition of murder) without also having to deal with the factual side of things (whether I hit them with a tire iron). The court agreed with WTVT.
It's a situation where people over egg the pudding. Fox may not have stood up in court and argued that they were lying but were legally entitled to lie but it still reflects incredibly badly on them; they essentially buried a story because it would negatively impact on a large corporation, removed the people who put together the story and then eventually released a far less critical piece. That's shoddy, most would say corrupt, journalism. But the fact that everyone runs with the incorrect "Fox argued it can lie!" angle, often forgetting the facts behind it, robs it of power.