Post latest national talk show host LIES- here
 

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

"misterfact" wrote in message
...
I'll post about 50 of them here in the next few weeks.

Why not now?

"David Eduardo" wrote in message
...

"misterfact" wrote in message
...
I'll post about 50 of them here in the next few weeks.

Why not now?



He's waiting for some station in his market to pick up Err America?

ab1

David Eduardo wrote:

"misterfact" wrote in message
...
I'll post about 50 of them here in the next few weeks.

Why not now?

I heard that some of Art Bell's callers may not actually have been
captured by aliens like they claim.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

"ab1" wrote in message ...
"David Eduardo" wrote in message
...

"misterfact" wrote in message
...
I'll post about 50 of them here in the next few weeks.

Why not now?



He's waiting for some station in his market to pick up Err America?

ab1

O.K. here we go:

l. "Styrofoam is bio-degradable" (Said by a national talk show host
in "rebuttal" to those who call for a ban on the use of styrofoam
packaging because the stuff ends up along the roadside and in peoples'
yards- mainly because the industry refuses to take meaningful steps to
promote recycling.) The host may have been paid for promoting the use
of styrofoam by lying about its properties.

2. "Dioxin is NOT a health hazzard!" (Yeh, sure! Neither is
breathing asbestos!)

3. In defense of S.U.Vs: "Detroit is now making fuel-efficient
S.U.V.s" (Yeh, sure! )

4. Just after the Rhode Island night club fire that killed all those
people-in reply to a caller: "Sir, that night club HAD MET ALL LOCAL
FIRE SAFETY CODES!"

5. "There is nothing that you or I eat that is on the endangered
species list!" (Yeh, sure- except Cutthroat trout, sturgeon, sockeye
salmon, key deer, oyster mussel and a few hundred others!)

6. "50% of our oil comes from Saudi Arabia." (The correct answer is
17%)

7. "Half the price you pay for a new car from Detroit goes to pay for
the health care plan of auto workers!" (yeh, sure!)

LOTS MORE TO COME. Talk radio is saturated with lies!

"Scott Dorsey" wrote in message
...
David Eduardo wrote:

"misterfact" wrote in message
...
I'll post about 50 of them here in the next few weeks.

Why not now?

I heard that some of Art Bell's callers may not actually have been
captured by aliens like they claim.

Gee, there goes my faith in mankind.

Actually, my most favorite line from the late President Ronald Reagan =

"Trees pollute."


"Michael Korman" wrote in message LOTS MORE TO
COME. Talk radio is saturated with lies!

"ab1" wrote in message ...
"David Eduardo" wrote in message
...

"misterfact" wrote in message
...
I'll post about 50 of them here in the next few weeks.

Why not now?



He's waiting for some station in his market to pick up Err America?

Despite your cuteness, in case you haven't read, some independent
interpretations of trends show that Franken is *beating* Limbaugh in
New York and in the Chicago market before AA was pulled by
Multi-Cultural, the audience doubled to a 2.0, which may not be much
compared to WLS but is still better than *either* sports talk station
in town and in the neighborhood of the mid-rank numbers NPR station
WBEZ gets.

It's too early to tell, but Air America may just succeed despite all
of their bumbling.

"Michael Korman" wrote in message
...

l. "Styrofoam is bio-degradable" (Said by a national talk show host
in "rebuttal" to those who call for a ban on the use of styrofoam
packaging because the stuff ends up along the roadside and in peoples'
yards- mainly because the industry refuses to take meaningful steps to
promote recycling.) The host may have been paid for promoting the use
of styrofoam by lying about its properties.

Or, he simply may be stupid or just uninformed. I have not seen much of a
styrofoam lobby out there.

2. "Dioxin is NOT a health hazzard!" (Yeh, sure! Neither is
breathing asbestos!)

Stupid. Talk hosts are hired for entertainment value, not knowledge (witness
Dr. Laura, a physiotherapist).

3. In defense of S.U.Vs: "Detroit is now making fuel-efficient
S.U.V.s" (Yeh, sure! )

They are. There are several hybrid SUVs in pre-production stages.

4. Just after the Rhode Island night club fire that killed all those
people-in reply to a caller: "Sir, that night club HAD MET ALL LOCAL
FIRE SAFETY CODES!"

As to the building, apparently they had. The issue was with the pyrotecnics
of the band.

5. "There is nothing that you or I eat that is on the endangered
species list!" (Yeh, sure- except Cutthroat trout, sturgeon, sockeye
salmon, key deer, oyster mussel and a few hundred others!)

None of which have I eaten, now or ever. "You and I" could easily mean that
very few of us dine on sturtgeoun, venison, etc.

6. "50% of our oil comes from Saudi Arabia." (The correct answer is
17%)

Stupidity, not necessarily a lie. Most of the US' oil comes form domestic
sources, Canada, and Latin America.

7. "Half the price you pay for a new car from Detroit goes to pay for
the health care plan of auto workers!" (yeh, sure!)

Wrong, but not that far off. A huge percentage goes to fund pensions and
health care for present and past workers.

LOTS MORE TO COME. Talk radio is saturated with lies!

Or, simply, stupid hosts engaged in discussions on subjects they are not
fully informed on.

You are making too much out of small issues.

David Eduardo wrote:
"Michael Korman" wrote in message
...

4. Just after the Rhode Island night club fire that killed all those
people-in reply to a caller: "Sir, that night club HAD MET ALL LOCAL
FIRE SAFETY CODES!"

As to the building, apparently they had. The issue was with the pyrotecnics
of the band.

Actually, there were fire code violations. The most important of these
was that the stage walls had been lined with flammable packing foam as
a cheap form of sound insulation. Definitely against fire code; problem
is, the local fire inspector didn't notice it on the last inspection he
did there.

To bring this marginally back on topic... Among the many parties
being sued is a radio station which gave away tickets to the show.
(Never underestimate the ability of lawyers to go fishing after the
deepest pockets they can find...)

-Shawn Mamros
E-mail to: mamros -at- mit dot edu

Despite your cuteness, in case you haven't read, some independent
interpretations of trends show that Franken is *beating* Limbaugh in
New York and in the Chicago market before AA was pulled by
Multi-Cultural, the audience doubled to a 2.0, which may not be much
compared to WLS but is still better than *either* sports talk station
in town and in the neighborhood of the mid-rank numbers NPR station
WBEZ gets.

The only "independent interpretation of trends" that matter are those
that are accepted by ad agencies, especially in the network business.

To my knowledge, there are none, especially ones that break out
hour-by-hour figures.

Rich

In article , Greg and Joan wrote:
Actually, my most favorite line from the late President Ronald Reagan =

"Trees pollute."

I believe it was from James Watt, and it was "Trees cause pollution too."
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

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.

"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.

"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!-

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!!!!

"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!-

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.

"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!-

"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!

"misterfact" wrote in message
...
"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!

Gosh, the FBI and the CIA must by in a bidding war for your services during
these trying times of security risks. You could tell them who is a terrorist
and who isn't.

Or, more simply, you engage in the same hyperbola you accuse others of.

"misterfact" wrote in message
...
"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!

Well good for you. How about giving everyone else that same opportunity?

"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.

In one of the most recent missives on this topic,
misterfact wrote:

O.K. Mr. Apologist;

This is just a reminder: let's try to keep it (relatively) civil. No one
has said anything yet that would be cause for concern. I just don't
want this thread to descend into unending name-calling and finger-
pointing, and it definitely has the potential to head in that direction.

Cheers,

Ye Olde Newsgroupe Moderator

--
JustThe.net Internet & New Media Services, http://JustThe.net/
Steven J. Sobol, Geek In Charge / 888.480.4NET (4638) /
PGP Key available from your friendly local key server (0xE3AE35ED)
Apple Valley, California Nothing scares me anymore. I have three kids.

epson wrote in message ...
(misterfact) wrote in
:

"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!



Maybe not, you seem to have an opinion that styrofoam is not
biodegradeable.
Take a cup, bury it in your backyard in moist soil, dig it up in 2 years,
it will be gone... it biodegraded. Should we now have you arrested or
fined for misinformation?
v

Sir:
To put it mildly- you're full of crap. According to the Chemical
Marketing Reporter "Styrofoam is non-biodegradable PLASTIC." The
magazine is put out by EXPERTS in the plastic industy.

I've seen styrofoam cups burried for 15 years- and there still
intact! I'de be happy if you took me to court and sued me for
misinformation because I guarantee I would countersue for your
frivilous clam- and I would WIN!

Your statement on styrofoam forever puts you on the idiot list.
Better think before you speak next time.

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.

On 2 Jul 2004 21:49:30 GMT, misterfact ("misterfact") writes:
misterfact I've seen styrofoam cups burried for 15 years- and there still

I think perhaps he was just hoping that you wouldn't come back here
for 15 years. But the point is, people are free to say pretty much
whatever they want, regardless of how true you happen to judge it to be.
In the USA, we have found that putting up with everyone's random crap
is the more effective approach to fostering the responsibility of people
to think for themselves, and for the promulgation of truth.

Have you noticed that people are not seeking your help in your crusade?
That even those who would seem to agree with your notions of censorship
will actually disagree with you on the matter of the facts?
Perhaps you should consider why might be, and also task yourself with
uncovering the truth about the symptoms and causes of psychiatric
disorders involving egomania, messiah complex, and paranoia.
Then get yourself some help and eventually feel better.

"David Eduardo" wrote in message
...

"misterfact" wrote in message
...

O.K. Mr. Apologist;

First of all, David, I thought this was a low blow. I know that you're generally
supportive of the broadcast industry, but for Mr Fact to call you this is
unwarranted, and he should retract it.
[i]
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.

If management, through stupidity or just plain greed, in the case of an otherwise
popular host, allows stupid stuff to be aired and doesn't question why the host is
saying stupid things, and in the process turns a blind eye to the issues being
promoted so as not to uncover plugola, shouldn't management still be held responsible
for failure to exersize reasonable diligence?

I know I had a "public affairs" show killed that we ran on WTAE years ago. The
agency who provided, for free, the half-hour program (which aired in the middle of
the night on Sunday, in order to meet minimum public affairs hours in the days when
such minimums were still in force) was something like the National Coal Producers'
Association. Routinely this program would extol the virtues of burning "King Coal"
(often slamming other energy sources), an advocacy which I felt was too one-sided,
and obviously so considering the source of the program. After a few listens, the
continuity/public affairs director agreed with me and pulled the show. What we got
in its place, though, was even more boring. Well, at least no one was listening.

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.

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


It's worth noting, though, how often this particular reason has been used to refuse
renewal of a licensee. I'd guess zero (Red Lion was fairness doctrine violations, as
I recall, as was Media, PA...I've forgotten the calls for these....WGCL and WXUR?
But the Fairness Doctrine is gutted, now...there isn't a station on-air who would be
liable for it, as it's so easily sidestepped by calling it entertainment programming.
Then there was WHDH....RKO...these were financial shenanigans, if I remember
correctly. So not a one lost a license based on "fitness".)

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."

On that, I have to agree with you completely. The FCC (when they're awake) has a lot
more serious things on their plate than having to wade into a potentially
never-ending legal proceding, filled with lots of opinion, he-said/she-said and other
soft disagreements, that I'd prefer the money be spent on the issues which actually
have some relationship with mass media policy. Don't forget...there are still a
number of people who are fooled when a station does an April Fool hoax. Who's fault
is it that people lack the necessary tools to make their own determination? One
should never believe anything heard or seen unless it's verified from other,
preferably non-media, sources. And if they're not doing their homework, then oh,
well. But at the same time, one has to hope these people don't vote. It may be a
privilege, but there are responsibilities that few people actually accept, and in
that regard I can see where Mr Fact is coming from.

Speaking of stupidity, by the way....I think you said that you can't legislate
against stupidity. Oh, but what a better world it would be if you could? Again, the
FCC has abrogated that opportunity by eliminating news and public affairs minimums
(yes, I'm aware of the irony that WTAE ran their PA stuff when no one was listening)
but people would be much better informed if, on occasion, they stumbled on a real
newscast once in a while!
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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!-