RadioBanter - Talk show host LIE concerning asbestos

RadioBanter (https://www.radiobanter.com/)

- Broadcasting (https://www.radiobanter.com/broadcasting/)

- - Talk show host LIE concerning asbestos (https://www.radiobanter.com/broadcasting/28793-talk-show-host-lie-concerning-asbestos.html)

Talk show host LIE concerning asbestos

Another LIE from one of the fabricators in the radio talk show
industry:

"There are two types of asbestos: one is potentially lethal and one
is as harmless as a Cheez Doodle... The Cheez Doodle variety of
asbestos is known as chrysotile. It accounts for 95% of the asbestos
used in the United States. And it is utterly, totally harmless"

Fact: Experts disagree over how serious a health risk is posed by
chrysotile asbestos found in buildings. But there is no debate over
the fact that chrysotile asbestos- has killed thousands of asbestos
workers by giving them lung cancer and pulmonary fibrosis
(asbestosis). There is no word from the EPA about the possibile
toxicity of Cheez Doodles.

Question: why would a national talk show host lie about chrysotile
asbestos? Was (is) this host being paid by the asbestos industry for
trying to encourage his listeners to pressure their representatives in
Congress to lay off the asbestos industry with further regulation-
through the use of THE LIE?!

There is a continuing appearance of impropriety- i.e FCC law-breaking
by radio talk show host(s) who are promoting consumer products through
the use of THE LIE !

On 16 Jul 2004 16:27:14 GMT, misterfact ("misterfact") writes:
misterfact I can not PROOVE that FCC crimes are happening.

Can you cite which law it is that you think is being broken,
and provide any evidence whatsoever? Alternatively, can
you tell us what you are smoking?

Quoth Rich Wood in :

I can't remember the last time I heard an oil company spot in a
radio talk show.

Shell Oil institutional ads have been all over Air America.

--
"I am afeard there are few die well that die in a battle; for how can they
charitably dispose of anything when blood is their argument? Now, if these
men do not die well, it will be a black matter for the King that led them
to it; who to disobey were against all proportion of subjection." - W.S.

Rich Wood wrote:

There aren't even pharmacutical companies advertising the drugs
Limbaugh uses.

Yeah, but that would be kind of bad form....sort of like an airline
commercial after a news item about a plane crash....

Not only is he defending their use, he's contributing
significantly to their bottom line. Still, no ad budget for his show.
That sounds pretty unappreciative on the part of the companies.

My guess is that they don't want to be seen as advocating *illegal*
use of their products by anyone, even as a "joke".

Rich Wood wrote:

There aren't even pharmacutical companies advertising the drugs
Limbaugh uses. Not only is he defending their use, he's contributing
significantly to their bottom line. Still, no ad budget for his show.
That sounds pretty unappreciative on the part of the companies.

I can just hear the ad now, in Rush's pompous stentorian tones:

"Ask your doctor about Oxy-contin. Then ask your maid..."

On 19 Jul 2004 02:55:01 GMT, Tom Betz wrote:

I can't remember the last time I heard an oil company spot in a
radio talk show.

Shell Oil institutional ads have been all over Air America.

Then my bet is the local affiliate is running news network inventory
in Air America's shows in the local positions.

Air America doesn't have the critical mass necessary to command a buy
from a company like Shell. In addition, a liberal slant isn't
something a giant oil corporation generally seeks.

The last time something like this surfaced it turned out that WLIB was
airing a schedule and it either was carried by Air America or the
complainants were listening to WLIB's, not the network's spots.

Rich

"Tom Betz" wrote in message
...
Quoth Rich Wood in :

I can't remember the last time I heard an oil company spot in a
radio talk show.

Shell Oil institutional ads have been all over Air America.

Shell's CEO (much to the distress of the other world oil concerns) recently made a
statement that the world needs to get off of the carbon (e.g. oil and other fossil
fuels) economy, and fast! This, to my mind, makes them far more progressive than
anyone else out there (although BP is making some noise that might indicate they're
moving into other energy markets, as well).

So speaking to other progressives on outlets like Air America isn't so big a
surprise....they may even want to hear more about what Shell has to say.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
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!-

"misterfact" wrote in message
...
"Knowingly falsifying the news or knowingly spreading falsehoods on
the air IS A VIOLATION OF THE PUBLIC TRUST" The FCC will not take any
action UNLESS it receives evidence of intent to fabricate from
extrinsic sources (insiders with personal knowledge of such intent to
deceive).

I'd take this so-called "quote from the FCC" more seriously if your could
document the source, i.e., CITE an reference document rather that
identifying it as a "quote from the FCC." A real "quote from the FCC" has
to be one that can be found exactly in the words in which you present it
here in a FCC document from which it's been taken word-for-word. Anything
else is, at best, a paraphrase and is not likely to be totally accurate.

For one thing, the language is very unlike that of the FCC. I doubt if the
FCC in any official document ever used the terminology "knowingly spreading
falsehoods" or "insiders." You're free to prove me wrong, but you won't
have done that unless you provide citations directly to FCC documents.

Your thesis has been so well shot down by so many knowledgeable people in
this group that you'd be well-advised to give up on it. Several people here
who have extensive knowledge of broadcast law have scorned your take on the
matter of lying. They've been justified in doing that. It might be best
that you quit while you're behind.

So get it straight! The FCC CAN take action against liars on the
radio.

As a _general_ thesis, the above statement, is simply ludicrous. It is far,
far, far too broad. How many times to you have to be told. Give it up.

"Don Forsling" wrote in message ...
"misterfact" wrote in message
...
"Knowingly falsifying the news or knowingly spreading falsehoods on
the air IS A VIOLATION OF THE PUBLIC TRUST" The FCC will not take any
action UNLESS it receives evidence of intent to fabricate from
extrinsic sources (insiders with personal knowledge of such intent to
deceive).

I'd take this so-called "quote from the FCC" more seriously if your could
document the source, i.e., CITE an reference document rather that
identifying it as a "quote from the FCC." A real "quote from the FCC" has
to be one that can be found exactly in the words in which you present it
here in a FCC document from which it's been taken word-for-word. Anything
else is, at best, a paraphrase and is not likely to be totally accurate.

For one thing, the language is very unlike that of the FCC. I doubt if the
FCC in any official document ever used the terminology "knowingly spreading
falsehoods" or "insiders." You're free to prove me wrong, but you won't
have done that unless you provide citations directly to FCC documents.

Your thesis has been so well shot down by so many knowledgeable people in
this group that you'd be well-advised to give up on it. Several people here
who have extensive knowledge of broadcast law have scorned your take on the
matter of lying. They've been justified in doing that. It might be best
that you quit while you're behind.

So get it straight! The FCC CAN take action against liars on the
radio.

As a _general_ thesis, the above statement, is simply ludicrous. It is far,
far, far too broad. How many times to you have to be told. Give it up.

Here we go again! I posted this elsewhere on this message board.

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.

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 inv
Signed, Norman Goldstein- FCC Mass Media
Bureau

Now what else can you make of that other than:

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

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!"

Funny how playing a song over and over- inflames the public and FCC
takes action on payola to D.J.s because of public clamour- but
continually lying about products
raises no red flags at the FCC because, I guess, they don't get enough
complaints!

The FCC says that falsification of the news is "Inconsistant with
the public interest!"

They also say that "They WILL take action (make an inquiry of a
station)if they receive information from extrinsic sources that can
substantiate intentional falsification or distortion."

If falsification of the news, or medical facts, or product
information on the air is against the public interest- will you please
give me the name of the agency or person who looks out for the public
interest in this matter of broadcast fraud and to whom I should play
my tapes?

On 19 Jul 2004 16:16:33 GMT, "Bob Haberkost"
wrote:

So speaking to other progressives on outlets like Air America isn't so big a
surprise....they may even want to hear more about what Shell has to say.

I seriously doubt Shell would find Air America's tiny audience of much
value in "spreading the word". It has a lot of growing to do before
it'll show up on any ad agency's radar.

Rich

will you please give me the name of the agency or person who looks out for the
public interest in this matter of broadcast fraud and to whom I should play my
tapes?

How many different ways and by how many different people do you have to be
told? PLAY THEM FOR YOURSELF...NO ONE ELSE IS LISTENING!!!!!!!!!!!