"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!-

"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.

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 ...
I'll post about 50 of them here in the next few weeks.

Well let's see. Enough theorizing! Heres another actual case:
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 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-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.
Or should we just sit by and twittle our thumbs and allow this kind of
broadcast fraud to continue?

Anyone who uses a talk show host as a reference of any sort of fact has more
than just a few screws loose.

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.

"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

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.

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

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...

"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.