"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. (Anyone who wishes take the
position that there is no statistical link between breathing 2nd hand
cigarette smoke and adverse health effects should take their data to
the American Lung Association and argue the point with them. Maybe the
ALA will consider ceasing their national ad campaign pointing out
those dangers)

Anyway- A national talk show host who continually tells his listeners
that "Secondhand smoke is not a health hazard!"- in my view and the
view of experts, is dispensing FALSE medical "information". Similarly,
if the same talk show host continually tells his listeners that
"Styrofoam is bio-degradable!"- he is dispensing false chemical
information regarding polystyrene foam.

It seems to me that there ought to reach a point where there is such
a preponderance of false medical and product claims- such an
OVERWHELMING APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY- that we ought to start asking
the question, for instance: "Is this host being paid by A cigarette
company (companies) to promote their product by lying about its health
effects? Does anyone have the guts to say,"It appears the King Has No
Clothes!" You certainly won't find anyone in the talk show business
who will bring this matter to his listeners' attention.
Styrofoam has been under attack by the public (because it litters our
landscape and the polystyrene industry has done little to promote
recycling)- many have proposed legislation to limit its use or require
the industry to recyle all its product: Is this host being paid by the
styrofoam industry to lie about its "bio-degradability"- thus to
promote the throw-a-way styrofoam packaging industry by getting the
public (and possible legislation)off its back?!

How about "Dioxin is not a health hazard!" What industry is paying
this host to spread environmental lies in an effort to encourage the
public to sabotage health studies on dioxins, clean-up efforts, etc?

If this talk show host is not being paid directly- under the table
payments for spreading these false claims- is he receiving advertising
contracts from subsidiary companies- who "appreciate his efforts" on
their behalf.

I am not going to name the talk show host that these specific
statements involve. This isn't limited to one host! You are all free
to hazard a guess. I will tell you that I have these and much more on
audiotape. The FCC knows all about this but refuses to act. The head
of the FCC investigation division, Norman Goldstein, told me on the
phone: "It appears that the host in question may be violating the law,
but we do not have the resources to investigate this matter!"

I will tell you that this FCC officer agreed that there is an
appearance of impropriety- but when I asked his if "resources" meant
the FUNDS to investigate or that his office just lacked the WILL to
investigate- he told me that he "did not want to discuss this any
further".

The fact is: when a talk show host lies- he or she is making an
attempt to inflame passions. He or she is attempting to gather
listeners by inflaming sensibilities. He or she knows that when a lie
is told, his listeners tell their friends, "Did you hear what talk
show host X said yesterday on his show? He said (blah, blah blah)" The
friend replies, "Really, I can't believe anyone would say that! I'm
going to start listening to his show and see if he really knows what
he is talking about!"
Right there is the dirty little secret talk show mechanism. You
gather more listeners and ad contracts - in other words you SELL your
talk show through THE LIE. There is no difference between selling your
talk show by lying- than an advertiser selling his manufactured
product by lying about its attributes. The first is a violation of FCC
law just as the second is a violation of FTC law.

Don't anyone tell us that there are not current and former employees
who are witnesses to statements in the inner offices of talk show
execs and hosts-showing this fraudulent INTENT to gain listenership-
and that they would have someting to contribute to an FCC
investigation into this matter.

The there is no difference between yelling "FIRE" in an auditorium
when there is no such fire and broadcasting on a radio station:
"Folks- from my studio I see there is a fire at the downtown
auditorium!" (also when there is no such fire)

Also- there is no difference between falsely broadcasting the
auditorium fire and knowingly broadcasting false medical "information"
which also has the potential to maim and/or kill. Even if it can not
be proven that the host's intent is to kill or maim-Certainly a talk
show host's REFUSAL TO CORRECT his false medical information lends to
an appearance of impropriety (knowingly disregarding the health of his
listeners- in the interest of promoting his radio show) This intent
needs to be investigated. This is NOT a FREE SPEECH issue!

"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!