"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!!!!!!!!!!!