"misterfact" wrote in message
...

Please do. And post links, preferably in this dimension, not the parallel
one you are living in.

O.K. Mr. Apologist;

I'm sure you will correct me if wrong- if a MANUFACTURER
mis-represents its product through false broadcast advertising- the
FTC is supposed to investigate. If a RADIO D.J. takes money
under-the-table to promote a song (payola) by whatever means (playing
it all the time, etc.) this comes under the FCC.

The original payola convictions were on IRS tax fraud.

Payola refers to playing a song without management consent and knowledge.

Likewise, if a RADIO
TALK SHOW HOST takes money under the table to falsely promote a song,
service or any product- this is also under FCC jurisdiction.

That is plugola. If it can be proven, it is an FCC violation only if there
was personal gain in exchange for promoting something unknown to management.
If management does know, then it is, by definition, not plugola.

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

"The Commission has stated on several occassions that deliberate
falsification or distortion of news or information is patenntly
inconsistent with the public interest. However, in light of the
sensitive First Amendment values that are involved, an inquiry will
not be made of a station unless we receive extrinsic evidence of
deliberate distortion or falsification--for example, statements from
insiders or those who have direct personal knowledge that facts were
deliberately falsified. In this way, the Commission does not become a
national arbiter of the "truth" of what is broadcast over the
airwaves, nor does it judge the wisdom or accuracy of what is
broadcast.

This would fall under "fitness as a licencee" if the station is not being
operated in the public interest.

In the "absence of substantial extrinsic evidence or documents that
on their face reflect deliberate distortion" the Commission does not
deem it useful or appropriate to investigate charges of distortion or
the broadcast of false information."

Now what else can you make of that other than:

I make of it: the FCC just said to you, "kiss off."

1. The affirmative is true, i.e. :In the PRESENCE of substantial
extrinsic information which reflects deliberate distortion- the
commission WILL make an inquiry!"

Which, by inference, you did not present.

2. If the FCC becomes suspicious that broadcast laws are being
violated- here is a crime investigating agency that does not go out
and investigate their suspicions- rather, by their own admission- they
sit in their offices by the phone- waiting for some "insider" to
CONTACT THEM! Can you believe that "UNLESS WE RECEIVE STATEMENTS FROM
INSIDERS- we will not take acton!"

The FCC does not monitor programming. All complaints of a non-technical
nature must be inititated by members of the public.

And, in case you did not notice when the sent you the "f--k off" letter,
they would demand huge proof to enter into a character qualifications issue.
False advertising is not even in their jurisdiction... and trying to prove
the difference between "point of view" and "intentional lying" in news is
next to impossible.

Example from outside the US: in 1967, Time reported on a coup attempt in
Ecuador. The described violent street demonstrations, police and military
brutality and such. I was part of a reporting team, and we reported minimal
demonstrations, non-violent stand-offs with a few rocks thrown, and the use
of a watter cannon to disperse. Perhaps the Time reporter form Iowa really
thought that was violent; others, with more of a world view, thought it
tame. Who lied? Who, simply, saw it from their own perspective?

Funny how playing a song over and over- inflames the public and FCC
takes action on payola to D.J.s- but cntinually lying about products
raises no red flags!

Payola is, in fact, a violation of sponsorship identification rules. Giving
an opinion different from yours about Styrofoam is just that... opinion.
Opinions are free in the USA.