Ok. Because as far as I can tell Fox's* argument was that firing a reporter for accusing them of running a false report did not infringe the whistleblower statute, not because they aren't news, but because the whistleblower statute does not cover the FCC's false news provision. (they also never admit to having run false news, just that even if they had, they would still have the right to fire someone for saying they did). I haven't found a good source saying they ever said they aren't news, but most rumours saying they did point back to that case.
It's a fucked-up ruling, I think. But the standard reporting of "Fox argues that it has the right to lie!" is inaccurate.
*actually a Fox affiliate, to be precise.