Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#2
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
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!) Since you're so cock-sure this stuff is against the law, please give an exact citation of the laws you think these people are breaking. |
#3
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "Sid Schweiger" 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!) Since you're so cock-sure this stuff is against the law, please give an exact citation of the laws you think these people are breaking. It's not the FCC, but the Federal Trade Commission, which has jurisdiction. 15 USC Sec. 52. http://www.ftc.gov/temp/chapter_2.htm#Sec.%2052 The entire section is http://www.ftc.gov/temp/chapter_2.htm, as you might expect. Nonetheless, if claims made in radio advertising are deceptive or false, they are illegal, so to that that degree the writer is correct.. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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!- |
#4
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
It's not the FCC, but the Federal Trade Commission, which has jurisdiction.
15 USC Sec. 52. http://www.ftc.gov/temp/chapter_2.htm#Sec.%2052 I wasn't asking you, I was asking Mr. Know-It-All. PLEASE DON'T FEEL THE TROLLS!!!! |
#5
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "Sid Schweiger" wrote in message ... It's not the FCC, but the Federal Trade Commission, which has jurisdiction. 15 USC Sec. 52. http://www.ftc.gov/temp/chapter_2.htm#Sec.%2052 I wasn't asking you, I was asking Mr. Know-It-All. PLEASE DON'T FEEL THE TROLLS!!!! Excuse me, Sid, but as you've asked in a newsgroup, it seems to me that there's nothing which prevents me from responding. Further, troll or not, I think this guy has a respectable mission....the amount of quackery, deception and outright larceny which passes for legitimate advertising needs to be stopped, whether it's weight-loss pills, invention patent acquirers or FCC spectrum lottery shares (of course, where is the FTC with the new "Medicare discount" cards that are being advertised now?). The only trouble with FTC regs is that a complaint, or several, need be launched before they'll take action. Not that I would expect otherwise, since a more agressive effort would be prohibitively expensive, probably treads on free-speech guarantees, and still wouldn't make much of a difference. It's still up to the consumer to be at least a little cautious before plunking down money for a dubiously useful product or service. But I applaud anyone who would make an effort to collect (and, I would assume, act on) these abuses so as to make fraudulent and deceptive advertisers more likely to see the scrutiny of the FTC. -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- If there's nothing that offends you in your community, then you know you're not living in a free society. Kim Campbell - ex-Canadian Prime Minister - 2004 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- For direct replies, take out the contents between the hyphens. -Really!- |
#6
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Excuse me, Sid, but as you've asked in a newsgroup, it seems to me that
there's nothing which prevents me from responding. No, there isn't, but I wanted Mr. Know-It-All to defend his position. You didn't need to help him out. |
#7
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "Sid Schweiger" wrote in message ... Excuse me, Sid, but as you've asked in a newsgroup, it seems to me that there's nothing which prevents me from responding. No, there isn't, but I wanted Mr. Know-It-All to defend his position. You didn't need to help him out. Well, okay, but I thought the purpose of newsgroups were, among other goals, to help each other out. But I now see that the protestor is looking at programming which, depending on the pitch, isn't covered by FTC mandates....given what passes for entertainment programming these days, listeners are on their own to determine the efficacy or prudence in adopting practices or strategies heard on air (a hint, though.....it's worth every penny paid). -- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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!- |
#8
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "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. |
#9
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
"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! |
#10
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]() "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. |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
"On the Domestic Front" A Ham radio talk show that tells it like it is! | General | |||
Talk Show host Hal Turner calls for the kidnapping of Arizona's Governor | Broadcasting | |||
talk show guest listings(contact numbers) on net? | Broadcasting | |||
stuff for all hams | General | |||
Geller Media | Broadcasting |