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 12 Jul 2004 05:06:06 GMT, (misterfact) wrote:

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?!

It's a nice scenario but way off base. Most talk show hosts are
neo-conseervatives who feel any government regulation is bad. One has
even argued against the views of scientists concerning global warming.

One is science, the other is political opinion and ignorance. The
problem is that the talk hosts have a bigger platform than the
scientists.

As for your contention that they're violating FCC rules, please
document which rules they're breaking. Unless you can prove they're
taking money from corporations, there's no regulation governing
inaccuracy by opinion.

Rich

Rich Wood wrote in message ...
On 12 Jul 2004 05:06:06 GMT, (misterfact) wrote:

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?!

It's a nice scenario but way off base. Most talk show hosts are
neo-conseervatives who feel any government regulation is bad. One has
even argued against the views of scientists concerning global warming.

One is science, the other is political opinion and ignorance. The
problem is that the talk hosts have a bigger platform than the
scientists.

As for your contention that they're violating FCC rules, please
document which rules they're breaking. Unless you can prove they're
taking money from corporations, there's no regulation governing
inaccuracy by opinion.

Rich

I can not PROOVE that FCC crimes are happening. Just as with ANY crime
(abduction, embezzlement, etc.) the overwhelming APPEARANCE of a crime
is enough to initiate an INVESTIGATION by the proper agency. If the
books show money missing from a business or government account- an
investigation is started. If a talk show host continually lies about
consumer products and at the same time- reaps in ad contracts for
those products or a subsidiary product- an investigation should be
made (interviewing insiders for instance) as to the INTENT of the
DECEPTIONS.

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?

On 16 Jul 2004 16:27:14 GMT, (misterfact) wrote:

I can not PROOVE that FCC crimes are happening. Just as with ANY crime
(abduction, embezzlement, etc.) the overwhelming APPEARANCE of a crime
is enough to initiate an INVESTIGATION by the proper agency. If the
books show money missing from a business or government account- an
investigation is started. If a talk show host continually lies about
consumer products and at the same time- reaps in ad contracts for
those products or a subsidiary product- an investigation should be
made (interviewing insiders for instance) as to the INTENT of the
DECEPTIONS.

OK. Listen to those "lies" and tell me which advertiser is running a
schedule that might have resulted from the inaccurate opinions. Most
major advertisers shy away from controversial talk. That's why you'll
hear the Conservative Digest, Hooked on Phonics, Oreck Vacuum Cleaners
and similar accounts. They're heavy network advertisers. I can't
remember the last time I heard an oil company spot in a radio talk
show.

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.

Rich

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 in message ...
On 16 Jul 2004 16:27:14 GMT, (misterfact) wrote:

I can not PROOVE that FCC crimes are happening. Just as with ANY crime
(abduction, embezzlement, etc.) the overwhelming APPEARANCE of a crime
is enough to initiate an INVESTIGATION by the proper agency. If the
books show money missing from a business or government account- an
investigation is started. If a talk show host continually lies about
consumer products and at the same time- reaps in ad contracts for
those products or a subsidiary product- an investigation should be
made (interviewing insiders for instance) as to the INTENT of the
DECEPTIONS.

OK. Listen to those "lies" and tell me which advertiser is running a
schedule that might have resulted from the inaccurate opinions. Most
major advertisers shy away from controversial talk. That's why you'll
hear the Conservative Digest, Hooked on Phonics, Oreck Vacuum Cleaners
and similar accounts. They're heavy network advertisers. I can't
remember the last time I heard an oil company spot in a radio talk
show.

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.

Rich


How sweet you are to the broadcast liars! Knowingly lying and
refusing to correct mis-information- is now called "in-accurate
opinions". In fact- ANYONE who has a history of lying about the facts-
has simply just been giving his or her SINCERE IN-ACCURATE PERSONAL
OPINION! ( I guess Clinton gave his sincere personal opinion when he
said "I didn't have sex with that woman!"

I think my previous quote from the FCC ought to end this whole
"discussion".

"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).

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

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