(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

"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.

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

Well let's see. Enough theorizing! Heres another actual case:
A county government jurisdiction proposed a law to ban the use of a
consumer product. This proposed ban made sense because according to
the product safety data sheet on the product- "continuous breathing of
the fumes can cause permanent liver and reproductive cell damage."

The talk show host called the proposed government ban "stupid". He
presented a false chemical analysis of the product which "PROOVED"
that the product's fumes were NON-POISONOUS! It is quite obvious that
by lying about the health risks-the host's intentions were to get the
public to apply pressure in getting that ban lifted- because the ban
had no health safety basis!

Well- let's see if that example gets any of your interest. Should we
have this talk show host investigated for receiving money from the
product's manufacturer- for promoting their product by lying about it.
Or should we just sit by and twittle our thumbs and allow this kind of
broadcast fraud to continue?

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!-