"misterfact" wrote in message
...
(misterfact) wrote in message
...
I'll post about 50 of them here in the next few weeks.

PLEASE DON'T!!


Well let's see. Enough theorizing! Heres another actual case:

A case from where, please--What's the source?

A county government jurisdiction proposed a law to ban the use of a
consumer product. This proposed ban made sense because according to
the product safety data sheet on the product- "continuous breathing of
the fumes can cause permanent liver and reproductive cell damage."

The talk show host called the proposed government ban "stupid". He
presented a false

How do you know the analysis was fake? Source, please?

chemical analysis of the product which "PROOVED"
that the product's fumes were NON-POISONOUS! It is quite obvious that
by lying about the health risks-

How do you know he was lying? Why is it obvious?

the host's intentions were to get the
public to apply pressure in getting that ban lifted- because the ban
had no health safety basis!

Well- let's see if that example gets any of your interest. Should we
have this talk show host investigated for receiving money from the
product's manufacturer- for promoting their product by lying about it.

What makes you think he was receiving money from the manufacturer?
Do you think he should be investigated because it's _possible_? I don't.


Or should we just sit by and twittle our thumbs and allow this kind of
broadcast fraud to continue?

That'd by my wish/

You certainly haven't presented the slightest but of evidence in the
specious example above to show that any fraud whatsoever has been committed.

Regards,

Don

Then there was WHDH....RKO...these were financial shenanigans, if I remember
correctly. So not a one lost a license based on "fitness".

The WHDH case stemmed from an improper contact between a representative of an
applicant for a TV license in Boston and an FCC commissioner (chronicled in
Sterling Quinlan's book "The Hundred Million Dollar Lunch"). In that case, the
licensee (the Boston Herald-Traveler newspaper) had been granted the license,
but at renewal time, by which time the ex-parte luncheon had come to light,
lost their "expectation" of renewal and was treated equally with other
applicants for the license. RKO-General lost their licenses (was permitted to
sell them instead of having them yanked by the FCC) for the felony bribery
conviction of their corporate parent, General Tire and Rubber Company (which
certainly qualifies as a "fitness" issue).

"Bob Haberkost" wrote in message
...

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.

In a sense, that proved the futility of putting program quotas on stations.
I recall many times when I did ascertainment or tried to get community
programs on the air, I would be told to bug off because the real community
leaders did not have time to talk to so many stations about "nonesense" or
to do so many radio shows.

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

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".)

Fitness has been used a few times, ususally when a licencee has been
convicted of a crime. The recent revocation of about 6 licences of a guy
from Terre Haute comes to mind.

"Sid Schweiger" wrote in message
...
Then there was WHDH....RKO...these were financial shenanigans, if I
remember
correctly. So not a one lost a license based on "fitness".

The WHDH case stemmed from an improper contact between a representative of
an
applicant for a TV license in Boston and an FCC commissioner (chronicled
in
Sterling Quinlan's book "The Hundred Million Dollar Lunch").

And that was in the general area that rendered RKO lacking the character
qualifications to hold a license. In other words, "fitness." Add the General
Tire dealings in Libya and Argentina, and you got the required divestiture
of the remaining RKO properties.

On 5 Jul 2004 15:37:35 GMT, pamthis (Sid Schweiger)
wrote:

RKO-General lost their licenses (was permitted to
sell them instead of having them yanked by the FCC) for the felony bribery
conviction of their corporate parent, General Tire and Rubber Company (which
certainly qualifies as a "fitness" issue).

However IIRC there was never allegation that the management of RKO
General had any participation in, or even knowledge of, the wrongdoing
of the corporate parent, nor was that wrongdoing in any way related to
broadcasting.

Mark Howell

I hardly think that a talk show host who continuously lies about facts- would
qualify as an entertainer. A broadcast "fraud" would better apply.

Your opinion.

I wasn't using the host as a reference. Since the airwaves are being used, I
have a right to expect they are being used fairly.

I love it when people invoke "rights," having no idea whatsoever whether those
rights actually exist. It must be some new thing, where just by claiming
"rights" they are magically manufactured out of thin air.

He was lying about a chemical analysis of the product which, if believed
without obtaining the safety data sheet- (and I have no doubt that his analysis
was believed by many listeners)- has no doubt caused some people to become sick
at the very least.

If there's "no doubt," then prove it. Right here. Post your proof for the
world to see.

This has been posted in this and other newsgroups for more times than anyone
can remember, but apparently you haven't bothered to read it even once: Talk
show hosts are entertainers. They are NOT sources of fact and were never meant
to be.

A person who comments on the news (wether a lawyer, garbage collector
or talk show host) is not being an ENTERTAINER- he is being- guess
what? RIGHT! A NEWS COMMENTATOR !

A song and dance man performing on stage or on the radio is called an
-guess what! RIGHT ! AN ENTERTAINER !

However IIRC there was never allegation that the management of RKO General had
any participation in, or even knowledge of, the wrongdoing of the corporate
parent, nor was that wrongdoing in any way related to broadcasting.

That is correct, but back then, character qualifications extended throughout
other branches of the same company, and IIRC that was why RKO-General was
allowed to sell the licenses rather than have them yanked.

"Don Forsling" wrote in message
...

I sort of recall revocations quite a number of years ago of all the
licenses
held by a guy named Don Burdon (Star Broadcasting?). Anyway, one of his
stations was in Omaha (KOIL) and he had several others. Anybody remember
what that was about? Rigging contests, maybe? Thanks.

WIFE-1310, Indianapolis, KBTR-710, Denver and KISN-910, Portland (Vancouver,
WA), OR. Plus KOIL-1290

He engaged in ex parte negotiations with a member of Congress. In simpler
terms, he gave a bribe. Unfit as a licensee, licenses revoked.

"David Eduardo" wrote in message
...

"Sid Schweiger" wrote in message
...

Then there was WHDH....RKO...these were financial shenanigans, if I
remember correctly. So not a one lost a license based on "fitness".

The WHDH case stemmed from an improper contact between a representative of
an applicant for a TV license in Boston and an FCC commissioner (chronicled
in Sterling Quinlan's book "The Hundred Million Dollar Lunch").

And that was in the general area that rendered RKO lacking the character
qualifications to hold a license. In other words, "fitness." Add the General
Tire dealings in Libya and Argentina, and you got the required divestiture
of the remaining RKO properties.

Okay, okay, so "fitness" relates to a number of qualities. I get you there. What I
was differentiating, though, was how a licensee could be "unfit" simply by airing
content not considered conventional or even valid....the other misfeasances, criminal
and otherwise, can certainly make a licensee unfit, but there are bigger issues with
those failures than simply giving a soapbox for goofs. Long ago (late 60s?
Certainly early 70s) the FCC made it abundantly clear (in the course of a station
sale and license transfer) that they would have no opinion on an expected format
change with the news owners (I think the station was classical, and its loss was
considered by its audience to be unacceptable).

Frankly, I still don't see what's so wrong with requiring a licensee to accomodate a
community's needs (after all, aside from that little condition, the station is free
to make as much money with the license as it can) but this clearly will never happen
here so long as the First Amendment is considered to encompass in toto the operation
of a broadcast outlet. It's free speech we're guaranteed, and until broadcasters
give out airtime for free, that's not free speech.
---------------------------------------
Nothin' ain't worth nothin' if it ain't free.
---------------------------------------
For direct replies, take out the contents between the hyphens. -Really!-

First proove to us that you are an expert at analizing chemical data.

Wrong. It's YOU making assertions that someone is lying. It's up to YOU to
prove it. It's not up to me to prove anything.

Second- you appear to be disputing the FACT that styrofoam is not
bio-degradeable. This leads me to believe that you are unqualified to accept
chemical facts when they stare you in the face.

Wrong again. Show me where I disputed your so-called "fact" (which you have
yet to prove).

You also appear to be disputing the FACT that many dioxins are poisonous.

Yet another assertion without proof.

If you want the facts- it appears to me that the first order of business would
be for you to hear the TAPES which document the lies.

Wrong yet again. Tapes, by themselves, document only what someone said. They
don't document lies OR facts. YOU say they're lies...so YOU have to prove it.

Get a group together of 100 or more people-(hopefully a few with chemical and
toxicological expertise)- interested in hearing the tapes and it will be worth
my time toplay them for you- free of charge.

Gee, that's a nice little evasion you've got going there. You'll only play the
tapes for 100 people.

BZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZT! Sorry, but thanks for playing. Trolls are ineligible to
win, but tell him about his consolation prizes, Don Pardo...

A person who comments on the news (wether a lawyer, garbage collector or talk
show host) is not being an ENTERTAINER- he is being- guess what? RIGHT! A NEWS
COMMENTATOR !

You can keep saying that until you're blue in the face, but that doesn't make
you correct...and it only shows your lack of understanding of the broadcast
business.

"misterfact" wrote in message
...
pamthis (Sid Schweiger) wrote in message
...
I hardly think that a talk show host who continuously lies about facts-
would
qualify as an entertainer. A broadcast "fraud" would better apply.

Your opinion.

I wasn't using the host as a reference. Since the airwaves are being
used, I
have a right to expect they are being used fairly.

I love it when people invoke "rights," having no idea whatsoever whether
those
rights actually exist. It must be some new thing, where just by claiming
"rights" they are magically manufactured out of thin air.

He was lying about a chemical analysis of the product which, if believed
without obtaining the safety data sheet- (and I have no doubt that his
analysis
was believed by many listeners)- has no doubt caused some people to
become sick
at the very least.

If there's "no doubt," then prove it. Right here. Post your proof for
the
world to see.


The proof was sent to the FCC. They have done nothing about it.

Since they have no jurisdiction, that seems logical.

First proove to us that you are an expert at analizing chemical data.

I'll bet even "experts" differ on issues.

Second- you appear to be disputing the FACT that styrofoam is not
bio-degradeable. This leads me to believe that you are unqualified to
accept chemical facts when they stare you in the face.

What is this? A styrofoam fetish?

You also appear
to be disputing the FACT that many dioxins are poisonous. If you want
the facts- it appears to me that the first order of business would be
for you to hear the TAPES which document the lies. Get a group
together of 100 or more people-(hopefully a few with chemical and
toxicological expertise)- interested in hearing the tapes and it will
be worth my time toplay them for you- free of charge.

Stop barking. There are no raccoons in this particular tree.

"misterfact" wrote in message
...

This has been posted in this and other newsgroups for more times than
anyone
can remember, but apparently you haven't bothered to read it even once:
Talk
show hosts are entertainers. They are NOT sources of fact and were
never meant
to be.

A person who comments on the news (wether a lawyer, garbage collector
or talk show host) is not being an ENTERTAINER- he is being- guess
what? RIGHT! A NEWS COMMENTATOR !

But a person who chats about social and political issues is chatting... a
form of entertainment.

A song and dance man performing on stage or on the radio is called an
-guess what! RIGHT ! AN ENTERTAINER !

Rush Limbaugh, in the 1988 R&R Talk Radio Seminar in Washington, stated he
was first and foremost an entertainer. Talk shows are listened to for their
entertainment value. News shows are listened to for their informational
value.

Paraphrasing a Spanish saying, "you can't get pears from an elm tree."

"misterfact" wrote in message
...

This has been posted in this and other newsgroups for more times than
anyone
can remember, but apparently you haven't bothered to read it even
once: Talk
show hosts are entertainers. They are NOT sources of fact and were
never meant
to be.

A person who comments on the news (wether a lawyer, garbage collector
or talk show host) is not being an ENTERTAINER- he is being- guess
what? RIGHT! A NEWS COMMENTATOR !

A person commenting on the news is - guess what? RIGHT! He's NOT A
REPORTER! The commentary is an OPINION!

The play-by-play announcer provides tha facts of what happened in the game.
The color COMMENTATOR gives his opinion of the game and/or player.

"misterfact" wrote in message
...

This has been posted in this and other newsgroups for more times than anyone
can remember, but apparently you haven't bothered to read it even once: Talk
show hosts are entertainers. They are NOT sources of fact and were never meant
to be.

A person who comments on the news (wether a lawyer, garbage collector
or talk show host) is not being an ENTERTAINER- he is being- guess
what? RIGHT! A NEWS COMMENTATOR !

Sorry, but there you're wrong (as the FCC has defined it, anyway.) Limbaugh et.al.
are entertainers, as the programming they provide is entertainment programming which
is not subject to the more demanding tests of a newscast. Further, even though they
comment on current affairs (another facet of journalism) as entertainers they are
still not held accountable for facts, differing opinions or, for that matter, pretty
much anything else.

A song and dance man performing on stage or on the radio is called an
-guess what! RIGHT ! AN ENTERTAINER !

Right.....so now you can understand that your crusade is without merit. The FCC has
bigger fish to fry. Try getting this kind of programming re-classified, and restore
the Fairness Doctrine to its previous role in providing a broad sampling of opinion
on the broadcast media. Then you might have a case.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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!-

"Paul Jensen" wrote in message ...
"misterfact" wrote in message
...

This has been posted in this and other newsgroups for more times than
anyone
can remember, but apparently you haven't bothered to read it even
once: Talk
show hosts are entertainers. They are NOT sources of fact and were
never meant
to be.

A person who comments on the news (wether a lawyer, garbage collector
or talk show host) is not being an ENTERTAINER- he is being- guess
what? RIGHT! A NEWS COMMENTATOR !

A person commenting on the news is - guess what? RIGHT! He's NOT A
REPORTER! The commentary is an OPINION!

A person who says he is reading a news report verbatum right off the
wire service is a NEWS REPORTER

A person who says he is reading a news report verbatum right off the
wire service and inserts LIES in the report- is......

(FILL IN THE BLANK)

The play-by-play announcer provides tha facts of what happened in the game.
The color COMMENTATOR gives his opinion of the game and/or player.

"Bob Haberkost" wrote in message ...
Okay, okay, so "fitness" relates to a number of qualities. I get you there. What I
was differentiating, though, was how a licensee could be "unfit" simply by airing
content not considered conventional or even valid....the other misfeasances, criminal
and otherwise, can certainly make a licensee unfit, but there are bigger issues with
those failures than simply giving a soapbox for goofs. Long ago (late 60s?
Certainly early 70s) the FCC made it abundantly clear (in the course of a station
sale and license transfer) that they would have no opinion on an expected format
change with the news owners (I think the station was classical, and its loss was
considered by its audience to be unacceptable).

That was WEFM in Chicago, generally considered the world's first
commercial FM station and a longtime home for classical music. Zenith
Radio decided that they didn't need to run the station as a loss
leader to promote sales of FM radios and sold it to General Cinema,
who then announced that they were going to flip it to Top 40. Even
though there were two other FM signals programming full-time classical
music in Chicago at the time, because a "Citizen's Committee to Save
WFMT" had forced the Tribune Co. to sell that classical station to
WTTW, the public TV station in town, after 'FMT's founder had sold it
to the Tribune, the same people decided to fight WEFM's format switch
with a "Citizen's Committee to Save WEFM." They got a court
injunction in spring 1972 that stopped the format change the night
before it was going to happen--with an air staff hired, billboards out
on the street, ads in the weekend papers and the record library all
packed to be shipped to WNIB, the *other* classical music station in
town.

Soon afterwards, the FCC then washed its hands of judgments on radio
format changes. It still took General Cinema five years to flip the
station, after making agreements to donate programming and materials
to both WNIB and NPR station WBEZ. The flip to Top 40 finally
occurred in early 1978. Like WDHF/WMET a few years earlier, the
station got some teen audiences, but they were unable to take the mass
audience away from WLS and the station flipped to the Schulke II MOR
format at the end of 1980. In 1982, General Cinema sold WEFM to
Greater Media, who flipped the format to country and the call letters
to WUSN-"US99." It's still country and still US99 today, although
Infinity has owned the station for the last decade.

WBEZ dropped its few hours of classical music programming after the
death in the early 80s of Dick Noble, the former WEFM morning drive
man who switched to 'BEZ as part of the format change agreement (and
was moved out of morning drive to 9 a.m.-to-noon when NPR's "Morning
Edition" premiered in 1979). Noble's show was the main classical
programming on the station, which was (and is) primarily talk and
jazz. WNIB, the last ma-and-pa FM in Chicago, was sold to Bonneville
in 2001 for a lot of money and is now the successful classic hits
WDRV--"The Drive." WFMT, still owned by WTTW, is now Chicago's only
commercial classical music station.

"David Eduardo" wrote in message ...
"misterfact" wrote in message
...

This has been posted in this and other newsgroups for more times than
anyone
can remember, but apparently you haven't bothered to read it even once:
Talk
show hosts are entertainers. They are NOT sources of fact and were
never meant
to be.

A person who comments on the news (wether a lawyer, garbage collector
or talk show host) is not being an ENTERTAINER- he is being- guess
what? RIGHT! A NEWS COMMENTATOR !

But a person who chats about social and political issues is chatting... a
form of entertainment.

How about a talk show host who reads a news story from a news
service posting and inserts his own LIES in the story- and passes it
off as having been read verbatum? HuM?

A song and dance man performing on stage or on the radio is called an
-guess what! RIGHT ! AN ENTERTAINER !

Rush Limbaugh, in the 1988 R&R Talk Radio Seminar in Washington, stated he
was first and foremost an entertainer. Talk shows are listened to for their
entertainment value. News shows are listened to for their informational
value.

Paraphrasing a Spanish saying, "you can't get pears from an elm tree."

Who ever brought up the name "Limbaugh" in all this? Why would you
immediately mention Rush Limbaugh regarding this topic of falsifying
the news? Limbaugh is hardly an expert at labeling himself. Sorry-
when ANYONE professes to be reading facts (wether from a news service
or from a medical journal)- and inserts his own LIES and then tells us
"I'm reading this verbatum"- YOU may label that "entertainment" but I
think most of us label it something else.

p.s. Are you Rush Limbaugh posing as David Eduardo?

"misterfact" wrote in message
...
"David Eduardo" wrote in message news:cchg2n$4d8

But a person who chats about social and political issues is chatting... a
form of entertainment.

How about a talk show host who reads a news story from a news
service posting and inserts his own LIES in the story- and passes it
off as having been read verbatum? HuM?

How do you know that? The news services the media get are often not the same
content as what you can get for free online. And a news commentator can,
legitimately, insert comments as they read a story. An analogy would be a
movie commentator who inserts comments between movie clips.

Rush Limbaugh, in the 1988 R&R Talk Radio Seminar in Washington, stated
he
was first and foremost an entertainer. Talk shows are listened to for
their
entertainment value. News shows are listened to for their informational
value.

Paraphrasing a Spanish saying, "you can't get pears from an elm tree."

Who ever brought up the name "Limbaugh" in all this? Why would you
immediately mention Rush Limbaugh regarding this topic of falsifying
the news?

I brought up Limbaugh because he made the statement I wanted to cite. If
Mickey Mouse had made it, I would credit the rhodent instead. The point was
to show that even the most listened to host is aware that talk shows based
on commentary are entertainment.

Limbaugh is hardly an expert at labeling himself.

And out of the millions who listen to him, you are the only one perceptive
enough to spot a lie? Or maybe the other 19,999,999 people realize he is
commenting, engaging in hyperbole, making fun of things, and generally
trying to entertain.

Sorry-
when ANYONE professes to be reading facts (wether from a news service
or from a medical journal)- and inserts his own LIES and then tells us
"I'm reading this verbatum"- YOU may label that "entertainment" but I
think most of us label it something else.

You label it your way. You are playing salmon in this argument, and doing
some serious swimming upstream against the current.

p.s. Are you Rush Limbaugh posing as David Eduardo?

No, I Am The Walrus.

"misterfact" wrote in message
...

A person who comments on the news (wether a lawyer, garbage collector
or talk show host) is not being an ENTERTAINER- he is being- guess
what? RIGHT! A NEWS COMMENTATOR !

A person commenting on the news is - guess what? RIGHT! He's NOT A
REPORTER! The commentary is an OPINION!

A person who says he is reading a news report verbatum right off the
wire service is a NEWS REPORTER

uh....no he's not. If he reads a news item, then comments on it, he is not
a reporter, but a commentator. Commenting on the news item he just read.
Now if someone does this, you've heard the news story and you've heard the
opinion. You can decide. Oh wait - you want to decide for everyone else
what they hear. Maybe you could try China. Or Cuba.

"Paul Jensen" wrote in message ...
"misterfact" wrote in message
...

If you think that the statements, "Styrofoam is bio-degradable" or
"nicotene is not addictive" or "Dioxin is not a health hazard" are
just someone's subjective opinion- fine! Most of us out here,
(including chemists)consider the statements LIES or the opinions of
an idiot.I am here just to expose all the liars and idiots who host
radio talk shows today. I am simply dis-crediting them.

No, you're trying to use the power of government (FCC) to take away first
amendment rights of talk show hosts. That is a far cry from "I am here just
to expose all the liars..." You came into this forum flaunting your letter
to the FCC with some sort of expectation that they should be some sort of
truth police. You don't need to try and revise what you said here earlier.
You came into a broadcaster's group and tried to tell them the FCC should
penalize talkers you feel are liars. What kind of response did you really
expect? Nobody needs you, or the FCC, to determine for them what the truth
is.
I don't think that yelling "fire" in an auditorium is a first
ammendment right. Neither do I believe that broadcasting a fire
warning when none exists, on a radio station - is a first ammendment
right. I guess you do!