"misterfact" wrote in message ... "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..... (Snip, snip, snip). The FCC has no rules (the only "law" the FCC has is called "administrative law" unless I am sorely mistaken) against this. The FCC basically has rules about technical operation, and the programming "rules" concern indecency, station IDs, etc. There is just about nothing on content other than indecency. Other government agencies, ranging from local to Federal, have jurisdiction on the areas you are mentioning, but not the FCC. And a lot of what you mention is what, in English, we call "opinion." If a talk host wants to state he or she does not believe in the "trumped up figures about second hand smoke" they are well within their constitutionally _protected_ rights to disagree. Many people disagree with creationism or evolutionism, despite either Biblical or scientific "proof" and such disagreement is protected. I can go on the air and state my belief that the Earth is flat, and that it is only our societal perception that it is round that makes it so. It's, in this case, my opinion. You are basically chasing windmills. And they are the windmills you constructed based on your belief system. Fortunately, we live in a free society, and we don't have to agree with you. |
"David Eduardo" wrote in message ...
"misterfact" wrote in message ... "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..... (Snip, snip, snip). The FCC has no rules (the only "law" the FCC has is called "administrative law" unless I am sorely mistaken) against this. The FCC basically has rules about technical operation, and the programming "rules" concern indecency, station IDs, etc. There is just about nothing on content other than indecency. Other government agencies, ranging from local to Federal, have jurisdiction on the areas you are mentioning, but not the FCC. And a lot of what you mention is what, in English, we call "opinion." If a talk host wants to state he or she does not believe in the "trumped up figures about second hand smoke" they are well within their constitutionally _protected_ rights to disagree. Many people disagree with creationism or evolutionism, despite either Biblical or scientific "proof" and such disagreement is protected. I can go on the air and state my belief that the Earth is flat, and that it is only our societal perception that it is round that makes it so. It's, in this case, my opinion. You are basically chasing windmills. And they are the windmills you constructed based on your belief system. Fortunately, we live in a free society, and we don't have to agree with you. If you were to broadcast that the "earth is flat" and were so persuasive as to use the argument to sell products in an under-developed country- I'de say you were a crook- and ought to be prosecuted. Of course- it appears you will stand by your "argument" that the statement is your legal opinion. Give me a break. What I am saying has noting to do with the opinions of an idiot. I highly doubt that "styrofoam is bio-degradable" passes a personal opinion. It may be the personal opinion of an idiot. However- the talk show host I am quoting appears not to be an idiot. In fact- millions of people who have heard him believe that he is not an idiot! His numerous lies concerning consumer products tend to indicate that something else is at work. That something else is the distinct possibility that he is lining his bank account by promoting consumer products by lying about them. I'm not sure why you would dismiss a pattern of intententional medical, chemical,consumer product.. LIES- as personal opinion. Most people who witness continuous lies- label the person a pathological liar or a liar who appears to have something to hide. I wonder if talk show hosts are just something special in your mind and simply just ought to be left alone and always given the benefit of the doubt.-i.e. EVERYTHING they say, is by definintion- an opinion! Give me a break! "The FCC has no rules (the only "law" the FCC has is called "administrative law" unless I am sorely mistaken) against this. The FCC basically has rules about technical operation, and the programming "rules" concern indecency, station IDs, etc. There is just about nothing on content other than indecency. Other government agencies, ranging from local to Federal, have jurisdiction on the areas you are mentioning, but not the FCC." You are certainly wrong on that point. Falsification of the news by intent is illegal. It says so on the FCC website. It says that "when the FCC receives extrinsic information from witness(es) that INTENTIONAL falsification of news events or product promotion occurs for any reason (i.e. personal gain, subjective views, etc)- THE FCC WILL TAKE ACTION !" I have highlighted the WILL TAKE ACTION- because that is in their literature. I will go to their website and post it here in the next few days. |
"David Eduardo" wrote in message ... "misterfact" wrote in message ... "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..... (Snip, snip, snip). The FCC has no rules (the only "law" the FCC has is called "administrative law" unless I am sorely mistaken) against this. The FCC basically has rules about technical operation, and the programming "rules" concern indecency, station IDs, etc. There is just about nothing on content other than indecency. Other government agencies, ranging from local to Federal, have jurisdiction on the areas you are mentioning, but not the FCC. And a lot of what you mention is what, in English, we call "opinion." If a talk host wants to state he or she does not believe in the "trumped up figures about second hand smoke" they are well within their constitutionally _protected_ rights to disagree. Many people disagree with creationism or evolutionism, despite either Biblical or scientific "proof" and such disagreement is protected. But the point he's making is that these hosts *may be* (and I stress that I'm only repeating his allegation) on the payroll for the firms being represented positively (or said firm's competitors unfavorably). And that's still covered under payola prohibitions, which last I looked, is still on the books (even though Clear Channel et.al. have figured out a way around that one). -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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!- |
And a lot of what you mention is what, in English, we call "opinion."
"Mr Fact" seems to have a problem understanding the difference between an opinion and a fact. Also seems he's never heard of the 1st amendment. Sounds like he thinks government should protect the stupid. Freedom comes with a price, and that includes being responsible for decisions we make, including decisions on what to believe. |
"misterfact" wrote in message ... If you were to broadcast that the "earth is flat" and were so persuasive as to use the argument to sell products in an under-developed country- I'de say you were a crook- and ought to be prosecuted. Of course- it appears you will stand by your "argument" that the statement is your legal opinion. Give me a break. What I am saying has noting to do with the opinions of an idiot. We are not talking about an underdeveloped country. Please don't build a straw man here. We are talking about regulation of what might be broadcast on the radio in the US. The FCC has no jurisdiction outside the US, and you specifically addressed violations of "FCC laws (sic)" in your post. The fact remains that the FCC has no jurisdiction over any of this. From the FCC: The FCC and Freedom of Speech. The First Amendment and federal law generally prohibit us from censoring broadcast material and from interfering with freedom of expression in broadcasting. Individual radio and TV stations are responsible for selecting everything they broadcast and for determining how they can best serve their communities. Stations are responsible for choosing their entertainment programming, as well as their programs concerning local issues, news, public affairs, religion, sports events, and other subjects. They also decide how their programs (including call-in shows) will be conducted and whether to edit or reschedule material for broadcasting. We do not substitute our judgment for that of the station, and we do not advise stations on artistic standards, format, grammar, or the quality of their programming. This also applies to a station's commercials, with the exception of commercials for political candidates during an election (which we discuss later in this manual). As Bob mentioned, there is the possibility that someone is receiving, unknown to station management, compensation for expressing certain views. This is the crime of plugola, which has to do with violating sponsorship ID rules, not the content of the message. However, a point of view, whatever it is, is allowed. If a "Flatworldite" wants to do a show, and someone puts he/she/it on, they can rant all they want. Their rant is protected. If the position or a paid ad breaks a law, it is not the FCC's jurisdiction. Other entities are responsible. I highly doubt that "styrofoam is bio-degradable" passes a personal opinion. It may be the personal opinion of an idiot. However- the talk show host I am quoting appears not to be an idiot. This statement is just stupid. If I had a dollar for everything stupid I have heard and read, I would have retired. There is no law against stupidity, or a substantial portion of the population would be in jail, be ex-convicts or stand awaiting trial, including myself. In fact- millions of people who have heard him believe that he is not an idiot! So? Again, "stupid" is not a crime. His numerous lies concerning consumer products tend to indicate that something else is at work. How do you know he is lying? He may just be ill-informed as well as stupid. As far as I know, there is no styrofoam lobby trying to soborn talk hosts into lying about coffee cups. That something else is the distinct possibility that he is lining his bank account by promoting consumer products by lying about them. If this is true, and the station does not know about the compensation, there is a violation of plugola rules. If the statements were purposely and maliciously made despite contrary knowledge of fact, then there is a truth in advertising related issue. The FCC does not deal with the latter. From the Commission: False or Misleading Advertising. The Federal Trade Commission has primary responsibility for determining whether an advertisement is false or deceptive and for taking action against the sponsor. Also, the Food and Drug Administration has primary responsibility for the safety of food and drug products. You should contact these agencies regarding advertisements that you believe may be false or misleading. I'm not sure why you would dismiss a pattern of intententional medical, chemical,consumer product.. LIES- as personal opinion. Because in the USA, there is a presumption of innocence. If there is illegal activity, then the appropriate authorities should intervene. Otherwise, listeners will discover the show is full of inacuracies, and not listen. Most people who witness continuous lies- label the person a pathological liar or a liar who appears to have something to hide. I wonder if talk show hosts are just something special in your mind and simply just ought to be left alone and always given the benefit of the doubt.-i.e. EVERYTHING they say, is by definintion- an opinion! Give me a break! Again, I ask: what FCC "law" was broken? "The FCC has no rules (the only "law" the FCC has is called "administrative law" unless I am sorely mistaken) against this. The FCC basically has rules about technical operation, and the programming "rules" concern indecency, station IDs, etc. There is just about nothing on content other than indecency. Other government agencies, ranging from local to Federal, have jurisdiction on the areas you are mentioning, but not the FCC." You are certainly wrong on that point. Falsification of the news by intent is illegal. From "The Public and Broadcasting" Broadcast Journalism. Under the First Amendment and the Communications Act, the FCC cannot tell stations how to select material for news programs, and we cannot prohibit the broadcasting of an opinion on any subject. We also do not review anyone's qualifications to gather, edit, announce, or comment on the news; these decisions are the station's responsibility. Criticism, Ridicule, and Humor Concerning Individuals, Groups, and Institutions. The First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech protects programming that stereotypes or otherwise offends people with regard to their religion, race, national background, gender, or other characteristics. It also protects broadcasts that criticize or ridicule established customs and institutions, including the government and its officials. If there is to be genuine free speech, people must be free to say things that the majority may abhor, not only things that the majority finds tolerable or congenial. The FCC prohibits haoxes. It does not regulate news reliability. It says so on the FCC website. It says that "when the FCC receives extrinsic information from witness(es) that INTENTIONAL falsification of news events or product promotion occurs for any reason (i.e. personal gain, subjective views, etc)- THE FCC WILL TAKE ACTION !" Please cite, especially about product promotion. The FCC actually states that false advertising is NOT their domain. I have highlighted the WILL TAKE ACTION- because that is in their literature. I doubt it. I will go to their website and post it here in the next few days. Please do. And post links, preferably in this dimension, not the parallel one you are living in. |
In article ,
Paul Jensen wrote: And a lot of what you mention is what, in English, we call "opinion." "Mr Fact" seems to have a problem understanding the difference between an opinion and a fact. Also seems he's never heard of the 1st amendment. Sounds like he thinks government should protect the stupid. Freedom comes with a price, and that includes being responsible for decisions we make, including decisions on what to believe. If Jesse Helms can get up in front of the whole world on C-SPAN and tell them that tobacco prevents lung disease because it fills the lungs with carbon monoxide that kills bacteria, I don't see why anyone should be punished for making far lesser statements on mere AM daytimers. --scott -- "C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis." |
David Eduardo wrote:
This statement is just stupid. If I had a dollar for everything stupid I have heard and read, I would have retired. There is no law against stupidity, or a substantial portion of the population would be in jail, be ex-convicts or stand awaiting trial, including myself. And you can't legislate truth either, if for no other reason than you'd then have to jail all the legislators. -Shawn Mamros E-mail to: mamros -at- mit dot edu |
(Lots of snipping)
-- "misterfact" wrote in message ... You are certainly wrong on that point. Falsification of the news by intent is illegal. It says so on the FCC website. It says that "when the FCC receives extrinsic information from witness(es) that INTENTIONAL falsification of news events or product promotion occurs for any reason (i.e. personal gain, subjective views, etc)- THE FCC WILL TAKE ACTION !" I have highlighted the WILL TAKE ACTION- because that is in their literature. I will go to their website and post it here in the next few days. Well, good luck to you. I'm very interested in seeing what the FCC has to say, if anything, about lying. But, if I understand your so-far-undocumented claim, if I go on the air and give a weather forecast wherein the National Weather Service says that the high temperature today will be 85 degrees and I intentionally say, read "lie" (just for the hell of it) that it's going to hit 90, I or the station (if a listener complains to the FCC or enough of them do--begging the question of how the heck they'd know I lied!) would be subject to action by the FCC. I would have, in this instance intentionally falsified _news_--weather news. What if, when reading a news story that states that the governor will speak in the city park at 8:30 PM on a particular night, and just for the hell of it (intentionally) I tell the listeners that he's speaking at 9PM and a lot of folks, as a result, miss the speech. Those folks complain to the FCC that the station or yours truly gave out the wrong time for the speech. Liable to an FCC sanction? Give us a break. By the way, there's a hell of a big difference between a _news event_ and the news--a difference that might make a difference in how you present your argument--you seem to use the terms as though their meanings are identical. They're not. Think about it. Now, back in the old days, a station with a record for doing stuff like what's described above could result in--ah, the heck with the old days. The whole subject is goofy, and I'm ashamed of myself for wasting so much of my time on it--and your time, too, for that matter. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Don Forsling "Iowa--Gateway to Those Big Rectangular States" |
"Paul Jensen" wrote in message ...
And a lot of what you mention is what, in English, we call "opinion." "Mr Fact" seems to have a problem understanding the difference between an opinion and a fact. Also seems he's never heard of the 1st amendment. Sounds like he thinks government should protect the stupid. Freedom comes with a price, and that includes being responsible for decisions we make, including decisions on what to believe. With a little investigation- we can all make this determination. Unfortunately we can not all takr the time to do the research into what is safe and what kills. I recognize a liar when hear one! |
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:39 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com