"David Eduardo" wrote in message ...
"misterfact" wrote in message
...
I'm
talking about those who continually commit FCC broadcast law
violations. (Like lying about consumer products for personal profit
and dispensing false medical "information" , thus making people sick
or even die!)

What FCC "laws" would they be violating, please.

Well- for instance: The adverse health effects of secondhand
cigarette smoke have been well-documented. (Anyone who wishes take the
position that there is no statistical link between breathing 2nd hand
cigarette smoke and adverse health effects should take their data to
the American Lung Association and argue the point with them. Maybe the
ALA will consider ceasing their national ad campaign pointing out
those dangers)

Anyway- A national talk show host who continually tells his listeners
that "Secondhand smoke is not a health hazard!"- in my view and the
view of experts, is dispensing FALSE medical "information". Similarly,
if the same talk show host continually tells his listeners that
"Styrofoam is bio-degradable!"- he is dispensing false chemical
information regarding polystyrene foam.

It seems to me that there ought to reach a point where there is such
a preponderance of false medical and product claims- such an
OVERWHELMING APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY- that we ought to start asking
the question, for instance: "Is this host being paid by A cigarette
company (companies) to promote their product by lying about its health
effects? Does anyone have the guts to say,"It appears the King Has No
Clothes!" You certainly won't find anyone in the talk show business
who will bring this matter to his listeners' attention.
Styrofoam has been under attack by the public (because it litters our
landscape and the polystyrene industry has done little to promote
recycling)- many have proposed legislation to limit its use or require
the industry to recyle all its product: Is this host being paid by the
styrofoam industry to lie about its "bio-degradability"- thus to
promote the throw-a-way styrofoam packaging industry by getting the
public (and possible legislation)off its back?!

How about "Dioxin is not a health hazard!" What industry is paying
this host to spread environmental lies in an effort to encourage the
public to sabotage health studies on dioxins, clean-up efforts, etc?

If this talk show host is not being paid directly- under the table
payments for spreading these false claims- is he receiving advertising
contracts from subsidiary companies- who "appreciate his efforts" on
their behalf.

I am not going to name the talk show host that these specific
statements involve. This isn't limited to one host! You are all free
to hazard a guess. I will tell you that I have these and much more on
audiotape. The FCC knows all about this but refuses to act. The head
of the FCC investigation division, Norman Goldstein, told me on the
phone: "It appears that the host in question may be violating the law,
but we do not have the resources to investigate this matter!"

I will tell you that this FCC officer agreed that there is an
appearance of impropriety- but when I asked his if "resources" meant
the FUNDS to investigate or that his office just lacked the WILL to
investigate- he told me that he "did not want to discuss this any
further".

The fact is: when a talk show host lies- he or she is making an
attempt to inflame passions. He or she is attempting to gather
listeners by inflaming sensibilities. He or she knows that when a lie
is told, his listeners tell their friends, "Did you hear what talk
show host X said yesterday on his show? He said (blah, blah blah)" The
friend replies, "Really, I can't believe anyone would say that! I'm
going to start listening to his show and see if he really knows what
he is talking about!"
Right there is the dirty little secret talk show mechanism. You
gather more listeners and ad contracts - in other words you SELL your
talk show through THE LIE. There is no difference between selling your
talk show by lying- than an advertiser selling his manufactured
product by lying about its attributes. The first is a violation of FCC
law just as the second is a violation of FTC law.

Don't anyone tell us that there are not current and former employees
who are witnesses to statements in the inner offices of talk show
execs and hosts-showing this fraudulent INTENT to gain listenership-
and that they would have someting to contribute to an FCC
investigation into this matter.

The there is no difference between yelling "FIRE" in an auditorium
when there is no such fire and broadcasting on a radio station:
"Folks- from my studio I see there is a fire at the downtown
auditorium!" (also when there is no such fire)

Also- there is no difference between falsely broadcasting the
auditorium fire and knowingly broadcasting false medical "information"
which also has the potential to maim and/or kill. Even if it can not
be proven that the host's intent is to kill or maim-Certainly a talk
show host's REFUSAL TO CORRECT his false medical information lends to
an appearance of impropriety (knowingly disregarding the health of his
listeners- in the interest of promoting his radio show) This intent
needs to be investigated. This is NOT a FREE SPEECH issue!