"David Eduardo" wrote in message
...

"misterfact" wrote in message
...

O.K. Mr. Apologist;

First of all, David, I thought this was a low blow. I know that you're generally
supportive of the broadcast industry, but for Mr Fact to call you this is
unwarranted, and he should retract it.
[i]
if a RADIO TALK SHOW HOST takes money under the table
to falsely promote a song, service or any product- this is also
under FCC jurisdiction.

That is plugola. If it can be proven, it is an FCC violation only if there
was personal gain in exchange for promoting something unknown to management.
If management does know, then it is, by definition, not plugola.

If management, through stupidity or just plain greed, in the case of an otherwise
popular host, allows stupid stuff to be aired and doesn't question why the host is
saying stupid things, and in the process turns a blind eye to the issues being
promoted so as not to uncover plugola, shouldn't management still be held responsible
for failure to exersize reasonable diligence?

I know I had a "public affairs" show killed that we ran on WTAE years ago. The
agency who provided, for free, the half-hour program (which aired in the middle of
the night on Sunday, in order to meet minimum public affairs hours in the days when
such minimums were still in force) was something like the National Coal Producers'
Association. Routinely this program would extol the virtues of burning "King Coal"
(often slamming other energy sources), an advocacy which I felt was too one-sided,
and obviously so considering the source of the program. After a few listens, the
continuity/public affairs director agreed with me and pulled the show. What we got
in its place, though, was even more boring. Well, at least no one was listening.

Here's the FCC's letter to me from Norman Goldstein; Complaints and
Investigation Branch; Enforcement Div; Mass Media bureau of the FCC:

"The Commission has stated on several occassions that deliberate
falsification or distortion of news or information is patenntly
inconsistent with the public interest.

This would fall under "fitness as a licencee" if the station is not being
operated in the public interest.


It's worth noting, though, how often this particular reason has been used to refuse
renewal of a licensee. I'd guess zero (Red Lion was fairness doctrine violations, as
I recall, as was Media, PA...I've forgotten the calls for these....WGCL and WXUR?
But the Fairness Doctrine is gutted, now...there isn't a station on-air who would be
liable for it, as it's so easily sidestepped by calling it entertainment programming.
Then there was WHDH....RKO...these were financial shenanigans, if I remember
correctly. So not a one lost a license based on "fitness".)

In the "absence of substantial extrinsic evidence or documents that
on their face reflect deliberate distortion" the Commission does not
deem it useful or appropriate to investigate charges of distortion or
the broadcast of false information."

Now what else can you make of that other than:

I make of it: the FCC just said to you, "kiss off."

On that, I have to agree with you completely. The FCC (when they're awake) has a lot
more serious things on their plate than having to wade into a potentially
never-ending legal proceding, filled with lots of opinion, he-said/she-said and other
soft disagreements, that I'd prefer the money be spent on the issues which actually
have some relationship with mass media policy. Don't forget...there are still a
number of people who are fooled when a station does an April Fool hoax. Who's fault
is it that people lack the necessary tools to make their own determination? One
should never believe anything heard or seen unless it's verified from other,
preferably non-media, sources. And if they're not doing their homework, then oh,
well. But at the same time, one has to hope these people don't vote. It may be a
privilege, but there are responsibilities that few people actually accept, and in
that regard I can see where Mr Fact is coming from.

Speaking of stupidity, by the way....I think you said that you can't legislate
against stupidity. Oh, but what a better world it would be if you could? Again, the
FCC has abrogated that opportunity by eliminating news and public affairs minimums
(yes, I'm aware of the irony that WTAE ran their PA stuff when no one was listening)
but people would be much better informed if, on occasion, they stumbled on a real
newscast once in a while!
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
There must always be the appearance of lawfulness....especially when the law's being
broken.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
For direct replies, take out the contents between the hyphens. -Really!-