David Eduardo wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
David Eduardo wrote:
"D Peter Maus" wrote in message
...
David Eduardo wrote:
"dxAce" wrote in message
...
Have you EVER selected music in the US, and if so, have you ever
accepted
Payola?

Stop obfuscating!

I am a manager, not a music director. Your question is irrelevant.

Actually, it's not. That, with all you have said, here, you can't
simply say "yes" or "no" reveals a good deal. And that you now claim to
have once owned a record label as well as radio stations, the question
is quite relevant.
The record label was in Ecuador. Payola is only a legal concept and
proscribed in the US.
Also, in a previous thread, you've claimed you were NOT a manager,
Interesting discrepancy.

I am not a GM, and have not been since 1982.


Hmmm...Interesting...and still no answer.

Not totally unexpected.

I'm just messing with DXass. If I am not in a position to decide on new
music ads, there is no way I could have been even offered payola. So,
naturally, I have not received any.


That wasn't the question.

The question was, have you ever selected music at a radio station.



It's amazing how people think that programmers in major markets (the only
place paying to get a song played makes any sense to the record ducks) would
risk six-figure salaries for the small amounts record companies might offer.
Payola hurts ratings, jeopardizes jobs and is certainly more talked about
than done.

The fact that less than 10 people have been indicted for this crime in the
last 50 years says a lot.



Indictments are, like most legal concepts, narrowly defined. And are
only legal concepts. Not realities.

So is the term 'Payola.'

Elliot Spitzer built much of his legal reputation on the taking of
all the major broadcasters to task for Pay for Play, when he was AG of
New York. And extracted enormous tributes as settlement.

There were no indictments. And there were no illegalities. But he
pursued them, just the same. And won his tributes for it.

Nowhere was the term 'payola' used. But there WAS Pay for Play. Tidy.
Legal. With full disclosures. Grossly misrepresented to the public as
Payola. But it was Pay for Play.

CBS called them Audio End Caps. And we did them for a few days in
Chicago, until Rober Feder blew the entire concept out of proportion in
his column, and trashed the program as 'Payola.'

Perfectly legal. Open and above board. Pay for Play.

But not Payola.


Don't hide behind narrow legal definitions, and historic legal
subtleties to avoid answering the question. Otherwise, you just sound
like the shill you so vociferously deny you are.

As a member here once said, 'the Truth does not require debate tactics.'

I would add, that debate tactics only raise more questions.