Slashdot Mirror


Local News Anchor Feels Pain from Afar

In times when Clear Channel makes up "local news" reports from central studios and broadcasts them over radio stations around the country, it's worth asking the question: when does it cross the line into deception?

549 comments

  1. No Clear Channel stations mentioned in story... by LostCluster · · Score: 5, Informative

    WBZ Boston is owned by Infinity Radio, WTTK Boston is owned by Greater Media... it's not just ClearChannel, everybody's doing it.

    1. Re:No Clear Channel stations mentioned in story... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      it's not just ClearChannel, everybody's doing it.

      That doesn't mean it's ethical - or the right thing to do.

    2. Re:No Clear Channel stations mentioned in story... by Bryan+Gividen · · Score: 5, Funny

      Everybody's doing it. Which is why it is also okay to do drugs, jump of cliffs, and buy Windows XP.

    3. Re:No Clear Channel stations mentioned in story... by Threni · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      > Everybody's doing it. Which is why it is also okay to do drugs, j

      It's ok to do drugs because it's your choice, and nobody elses.

    4. Re:No Clear Channel stations mentioned in story... by operagost · · Score: 1

      No, which is why we have to make sure this doesn't turn into another "Clear Channel sux0r5" thread. The problem is questionable ethics in journalism.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    5. Re:No Clear Channel stations mentioned in story... by DAldredge · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      No. It should be your choice to do drugs AT YOUR HOME. Once you get behind the wheel/out in public and you endanger others the goverment should step in.

    6. Re:No Clear Channel stations mentioned in story... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is slashdot, where there are no ethics in making sure the submission summary is accurate with respect to the articles it links to.

    7. Re:No Clear Channel stations mentioned in story... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about Clear Channel and Inifity both sux0r5?

    8. Re:No Clear Channel stations mentioned in story... by Frisky070802 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      True, but the ethics here aren't that questionable. He never says he's in Boston, he only implies it. Hmm, maybe he and Bill Clinton took the same ethics class?

      NB: I'm a fan of Clinton in most respects, just not how he handled a certain affair. This isn't flamebait, only a joke :)

      --
      Mencken had it right. So glad that's old news.
    9. Re:No Clear Channel stations mentioned in story... by c1ay · · Score: 5, Funny

      Sure they are. Look at Darl McBride, not once has he informed us that he's reporting from the asylum. He still found a mountain of code, copied line by line from Unixware and he has the Linux developers trapped in their tanks retreating from the battle. What difference does it make where he says it from, he's still a nutcase either way.

      --

    10. Re:No Clear Channel stations mentioned in story... by Sivaram_Velauthapill · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      And how exactly is the "war" on drugs helping that?

      Sivaram Velauthapillai

      --
      Sivaram Velauthapillai
      Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places ;)
    11. Re:No Clear Channel stations mentioned in story... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do you mean WBZ's ethics, or Michael's?

    12. Re:No Clear Channel stations mentioned in story... by Bryan+Gividen · · Score: 1

      Very easy. If there's no drugs, there's no way people can use them and get behind the wheel of a car. Not saying its happening, but your logic that the war on drugs conceptually doesn't help, is flawed. If the war on drugs worked perfectly, no one would ever feel the consequences of drugs.

    13. Re:No Clear Channel stations mentioned in story... by Mod+Me+God · · Score: 1

      Also from the link:

      "He described his practice of traveling south for two weeks in the fall and two weeks each month in the winter as a perk he's earned."

      So he works on his 'holiday', good for him if he loves what he does and wants to beneft his listeners. If he lives there, so what, it's not like he's being nasty, like some.

      --
      --

      FreeNET user? Comfortable with the adverse selection?
    14. Re:No Clear Channel stations mentioned in story... by cmallinson · · Score: 1
      It should be your choice to do drugs AT YOUR HOME

      I would fully support that if it wasn't me that was going to have ot pay for your long term care in the future. You voluntarily excuse yourself from the health insurance / public assistance system, and sure, you do what you like.

    15. Re:No Clear Channel stations mentioned in story... by program21 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      And if there's no alcohol, then people can't get it and get behind the wheel of a car drunk...except that alcohol is legal, it's driving while intoxicated that's not. So why are drugs so different?

      --
      This has been a test. Had this been a real emergency, we would have fled in terror and you would not have been informed.
    16. Re:No Clear Channel stations mentioned in story... by squiggleslash · · Score: 1
      He asked how the "war on drugs" is helping that, not what the world would be if there were no drugs.

      There are plenty of drugs. The War on Drugs appears to be fairly irrelevent when it comes to the supply of drugs, it just ensures that there are more people in prison, that organized crime has a business to dominate where the product itself can kill, and that the drugs available are more dangerous than they'd be from regulated private companies.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    17. Re:No Clear Channel stations mentioned in story... by Uma+Thurman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If there were no people, there's no way people can use drugs and get behind the wheel of a car.

      So, kill all the people.

      --
      This is America, damnit. Speak Spanish!
    18. Re:No Clear Channel stations mentioned in story... by DAldredge · · Score: 1

      Please point out where I brought up the War on (some) Drugs.

      Thank You.

    19. Re:No Clear Channel stations mentioned in story... by Bryan+Gividen · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      Alright let's put this in order.
      Someone argues: How does the war on drugs stop second hand drug related deaths? (IE. Someone get's stoned and hits someone with a car.)
      I refute: The war on drugs SHOULD end those types of deaths. It is in place to stop drugs from being used. If no drugs are used, no drug-related deaths can occur.
      You argue: Well, alchohol is legal, just drinking while drunk isn't.
      I argue now: Thank you captain obvious. Drugs could be legal and have the same laws and alchohol, and it would have the same effect. However, that doesn't take away the fact that the illegalization of drugs ALSO stops those types of deaths.

      I leave by saying... and I wouldn't mind alchohol being completely illegal either.... ;-)

    20. Re:No Clear Channel stations mentioned in story... by squiggleslash · · Score: 3, Insightful
      I may be the only person, but I didn't read it as saying "This story is about ClearChannel deceiving us", I read it as "ClearChannel have lowed the boundaries by doing X, here's an example of someone doing Y".
      In times when Clear Channel makes up "local news" reports from central studios and broadcasts them over radio stations around the country, it's worth asking the question: when does it cross the line into deception?
      Eg:

      "We live in times where Clear Channel makes up "local news" reports from central studios. Tsk? Eh? What's the world coming to. Here's another example of radio dishonesty, makes you wonder doesn't it? Where does one draw the line? Huh? Where? Makes you think. Oh, if you're asking, I'll have anuvva Guinness. Cheers."

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    21. Re:No Clear Channel stations mentioned in story... by Bryan+Gividen · · Score: 1

      *sigh* And once again, I'm not arguing for the complete illegalization of drugs. I'm just saying, with their illegalization, drug related deaths are NOT a problem. (Which is why we have the war on drugs...) Whether I agree with the war on drugs or the legalization, doesn't matter. Just that there is a cause and effect. Without drugs, drug related deaths can't occur. Which, for the umpteenth time, is why we have the war on drugs.

      Do I agree with it? Doesn't matter.

    22. Re:No Clear Channel stations mentioned in story... by Obfiscator · · Score: 1
      I leave by saying... and I wouldn't mind alchohol being completely illegal either.... ;-)

      That's good. I may not completely agree with your stance, but at least you're not a hypocrite. I can respect that.

      --
      "Nothing shocks me. I'm a scientist." -Indiana Jones
    23. Re:No Clear Channel stations mentioned in story... by Bryan+Gividen · · Score: 1

      You didn't. The guy who replied to your thread did. I was arguing with him.

      Thank you.

    24. Re:No Clear Channel stations mentioned in story... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And here I thought that one of the things Clear Channel is most criticized for is doing away with local programming. They are all about cutting costs and creating uniformity.

      In fact, if you can give me one instance where Clear Channel has bothered to produce a faux-local news program from a central location, I'll eat my virtual hat.

    25. Re:No Clear Channel stations mentioned in story... by Threni · · Score: 1

      > Very easy. If there's no drugs, there's no way people can use them and get
      > behind the wheel of a car. Not saying its happening, but your logic that the war
      > on drugs conceptually doesn't help, is flawed. If the war on drugs worked
      > perfectly, no one would ever feel the consequences of drugs.

      Yes, but given that there's no way that the War On Drugs can ever be won, what with it being human nature to take drugs.

    26. Re:No Clear Channel stations mentioned in story... by revmoo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Very easy. If there's no drugs, there's no way people can use them and get behind the wheel of a car.

      Sure! And if there are no guns, no one will be shot and killed. And if there are no elections, we can't vote for the wrong person. And if we aren't allowed freedom of choice, then we can't make the wrong decisions.

      Great logic...

      --
      I would expect such blatant racism on Fark, but on Slashdot? Mods please ban this asshole.
    27. Re:No Clear Channel stations mentioned in story... by Bryan+Gividen · · Score: 1

      Holy crap. For you, and the thousand others who don't get... we don't make laws based on what's viable. Do we set the speed limit at 85 because we know that we can't stop people all the time? NO. Do we allow murder because we know we can't stop all of it? NO. The same follows for drugs. It is a law to state that is illegal. Therefore, it has consequences.

      Someone remind me to pick up my "Neoanarchism Safety Kit" before a /.er gets ellected president of the world.

      Well, we've decided we can prevent all crime, so we aren't going to try!

    28. Re:No Clear Channel stations mentioned in story... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The point is,

      It's bad to file news reports from elsewhere,

      but it's good to do your computer programming & administration from home,

      unless your home happens to be in India.

    29. Re:No Clear Channel stations mentioned in story... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Okay, so it's not a Clear Channel staion. However, Clear Channel's monoculture IS dangerous. I remember hearing a story about how there was once a train wreck that spilled some hazardous chemicals, but local authorities couldn't get in touch with anybody at the local radio stations to issue an alert because they were all automated Clear Channel stations with nobody manning the console on a Saturday night. Clear Channel has also used their monopoly power to stage pro war demonstrations in various major cities and, in Cleveland (I believe), they had a 'get rid of the homeless' event in which homeless people were given $10 and a bus ticket to the city limits.

    30. Re:No Clear Channel stations mentioned in story... by blincoln · · Score: 2, Interesting

      That is kind of a silly position. Should mountain-climbers, motorcyclists, and others whose hobbies involve higher-risk activities than using drugs also have to excuse themselves from public assistance? What about smokers and drinkers?

      I don't use any drugs other than alcohol (I even gave up caffeine about six months ago). However, most of the ones that are currently illegal are safe when used in a proper environment and unpolluted with poor manufacturing ingredients and whatever the street dealer decided to cut them with.

      Opiates and cocaine? They're safe enough to be used in hospitals (morphine is common, cocaine is used for certain types of surgery).

      Amphetamines? The Air Force feeds them to its pilots.

      Tryptamines (e.g. mushrooms, DMT)? No physical health issues at all, unless you eat so many mushrooms that your stomach bursts.

      The list goes on. Certain drugs have certain risks (particularly the ones with addictive properties, as well as the dissociative hallucinogens like PCP and ketamine which are dangerous and unpredictable), but almost all of them are less harmful to the body than alcohol and tobacco.

      --
      "...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
    31. Re:No Clear Channel stations mentioned in story... by fenix+down · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Most illegal drugs were banned early on before the market solidified. As was demonstrated in the 20s, outlawing alcohol isn't feasable until other criminal fields are profitable enough that the new alcohol market doesn't destablize their power structure. That sort of thing causes a sort of runaway inflation for the mafia. Prostitution and gambling crash in relative value, so everybody is forced to move into alcohol distribution to maintain their power base, something the alcohol market simply can't bear. Hence all the shooting. Other drugs are unpredictable and spread-out enough that they aren't that distruptive, but either alcohol or tobacco would be too dangerous to outlaw, even today.

      Now quit asking questions that you already know the answer to.

    32. Re:No Clear Channel stations mentioned in story... by shepd · · Score: 1

      >Someone remind me to pick up my "Neoanarchism Safety Kit" before a /.er gets ellected president of the world.

      Sounds like a good deal! Better buy one up quickly. I hear that now the "Non-WASP Safety Kits" have sold out strangely in the US, the Neoanarchism Kits are being used as a temporary substitute!

      --
      If you could be told what you can see or read, then it follows that you could be told what to say or think - BoC
    33. Re:No Clear Channel stations mentioned in story... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's really a weird situation. In theory it should be far harder for me to get pot than beer, as I'm underage. But the reality is that it's not only easier, it's easier by a number of degrees. Hell, I don't even have to look for pot. In a situation right out of SOVIET RUSSIA, pot looks for ME! There's enough home growers of pot and mushrooms around here that many will just give you their overflow.

    34. Re:No Clear Channel stations mentioned in story... by squiggleslash · · Score: 1, Offtopic
      No, you've totally misunderstood what I said. Look, it's like this: The War on Drugs is ineffective. It's not working. Drugs are available. You write:
      I'm just saying, with their illegalization, drug related deaths are NOT a problem.
      No, with their illegalization, drugs related deaths are STILL a problem, indeed they're probably a much more major problem than they'd be if drugs were legal. You see, with their illegalization, drugs haven't disappeared. They haven't been removed from circulation. They've instead become more lethal and the people pushing them more desperate.

      Take a drug like heroin. Heroin is actually a fairly benign pain killer. it's addictive to about a third of the people who take it (compare that to tobacco!) and, by itself, unless taken in overly large quantities, it has little negative affect on the user. In Britain until 1970, the number of heroin addicts was counted in the hundreds. Doctors prescribed the drug to the addicts, limiting their quantities and with the drug supplied by legally accountable organizations. Organized crime didn't get a look in - there was no point in selling the drug to someone who could then go to a doctor and get it on the NHS. Deaths were practically non-existant.

      Illegalization, frankly, screwed that up. Nixon's War on Drugs was fought internationally and Britain signed up. Heroin was outlawed. So it became available to everyone! Suddenly organized crime had a captive market. Heroin was pushed by the same people who sold more popular drugs such as Cannabis, which also could only be obtained via illegal means. Crime syndicates had little or no accountability: one day they'd over-cut the drug to sell to more addicts (the poor reputation of heroin is in part because of this: the drug is frequently cut with stuff nobody in their right mind would want in their bodies), another they'd supply it raw to someone expecting it cut. Overdoses became common. More importantly, addicts became common. By the late nineties, Britain's heroin addicts reputedly hit six digits.

      Illegalization causes drugs related deaths. Drugs related deaths would be less frequent with their legalization, unless and until someone can come up with a way of removing drugs completely. NEVER confuse criminalizing something with getting rid of it.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    35. Re:No Clear Channel stations mentioned in story... by stevejsmith · · Score: 1

      Amphetamines? The Air Force feeds them to its pilots. Amphetamines? Millions of parents feed them to their kids. What did you think Ritalin and Adderall were?

    36. Re:No Clear Channel stations mentioned in story... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is /. when has accuracy mattered?

      You muust be new here!

    37. Re:No Clear Channel stations mentioned in story... by FreakWent · · Score: 1

      Having a greenie leftie pinko hippie perspective, I'd rather remove the cars and we can all wander around bombed and stoned on public transport.

    38. Re:No Clear Channel stations mentioned in story... by flewp · · Score: 2, Informative

      Read this research paper I wrote (I wrote it back in senior year of HS for an advanced writing class). You might find that it brings up some interesting points. It is geared to the legalization of marijuana as opposed to other drugs, but I think you could apply most of the points to drugs in general and why the drug war is a wasted effort.

      Drugs have been used in civilization since people first inhabited the lands. Peoples throughout the history of civilization have thrived and advanced, all the while using such drugs as marijuana, peyote, psychedelic mushrooms and DMT. This is contrary to the popular belief that all drugs are destructive in nature. Drugs were often integral parts of society. Often, members of native tribes, such as those found in the Southwestern United States and indigenous natives of South America used what are now illegal drugs for many things from diagnosing illness to going on a spiritual journey. The most popular drug of today's society is marijuana. Marijuana, a drug that cannot be classified in any one particular category such as hallucinogenic, stimulant, or depressant, creates an euphoric feeling in the user, often associated with increased appetite, and slurred thought processes and slower reactions. Marijuana has however, been classified as an evil and destructive drug and a dark part of society. Despite the myths that surround it, marijuana is a very safe and in many ways, helpful drug. Marijuana should be legalized in the United States for all purposes for those who are eighteen years old and older.

      Legalization of marijuana could reduce street crime. Marijuana may lead to harder drugs, which would increase street crime. However, legalized marijuana could reduce harder drug use as a legal substitute. Marijuana could potentially become a filter for harder drugs, as in Holland, where marijuana was decriminalized in 1976, the rate of cocaine and heroine use is much lower than in the United States (David Zeese, as cited in Medical). Before 1914, when most now illicit drugs were still legal, very little crime existed related to drug use (Torr, 94). Organized crime, black markets, and violence have all erupted as a result of drugs becoming criminalized (94). If marijuana were to become legal, it would reduce the use of hard drugs, which would, in turn, reduce the amount of drug related crime. In the 1920's and 1930's, alcohol was prohibited in the United States. Prohibition brought with it violence, corruption, and organized crime that is still with us today (96). Legalization would reduce drug-related violence, as drug pushers would be put out of their jobs, and thus there would be no need to fight for territory to sell their drugs. As stated by the Libertarian Party:
      Whenever there is a great demand for a product and government makes it illegal, a black market always appears to supply the demand. The price of the product rises dramatically and the opportunity for huge profits is obvious. The criminal gangs love the situation, making millions. They kill other drug dealers, along with innocent people caught in the crossfire, to protect their territory. They corrupt police and courts. Pushers sell adulterated dope and experimental drugs, causing injury and death. And because drugs are illegal, their victims have no recourse (Libertarian).

      Also, anyone with a drug record, even for marijuana, may not be able to get a decent job as a result of drug-free workplaces. People may even be denied affordable housing, due to drug-free housing (97). This prevents people from rehabilitating themselves, which could lead them to turn to crime.

      Police would be free to investigate other, more serious problems if marijuana were legalized. Instead of trying to find someone smoking marijuana in even controlled, safe environments, the police could be out looking for those who commit more serious crimes such as robbery, rape, and even murder. Freeing up the police's time would be just as effective as adding more police, but at a cheaper cost. Many people are incarcerate

      --
      WWJD.... for a Klondike bar?
    39. Re:No Clear Channel stations mentioned in story... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *sigh* I'm not arguing for or against drugs. I'm arguing the fact we have laws against them so that we will cut down on the amount of deaths caused by them.

      IN RESPONSE to your paper...
      -The idea that legalizing drugs cuts down on crime, is completely valid... but it doesn't hold its own in an argument. Why? Because if you make ANYTHING that was once illegal, legal it will cut down on crime. And vice-versa. If we made singing in public, it would increase the crime rate in America. The violence argument in the same paragraph is a semi-valid one, but if one is to assume they will be "out of a job," one is also to assume they'll look for a new job, one that pays as well with as easy hours as the first. Crime just gets shifted, it doesn't get lowered.

      -The wasted efforts of the courts and police officers. One is to say, "We should get rid of all civil suits that are less than 10,000 dollars too. They just tie up the court system while other bigger money cases need to be settled." Same idea, same bad idea. If we decriminalize things just because so many people do them, then we'll be in a sad place in America.
      -I have no arguments against medical marijuana.
      -Once again, just because they can't sell drugs, doesn't mean they won't do something illegal. The big drug cartel controllers will shift their whole focus, causing a domino effect down the ladder. That gangster who used to sell pot, is now selling stolen stereo systems or something else.

      Damn... I really wish I had chosen a different thing that "everyone does" to start this topic...

    40. Re:No Clear Channel stations mentioned in story... by router · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'm sure the news broadcaster industry will be up in arms when the radio networks outsource their broadcasts to India tho. Don't they see the handwriting on the wall?

      andy

    41. Re:No Clear Channel stations mentioned in story... by LostCluster · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actually, he says he's in Boston all of the time, and 100% of the time he says that he's telling the truth. He avoids using "here" phrase constructions when he's in Florida, but that's only four weeks out of the year. (The station likely chose the remote setup instead of giving him 4 extra weeks of vactation...)

    42. Re:No Clear Channel stations mentioned in story... by b-baggins · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Bull crap.

      These are addictive substances that will rot a society to death from the inside out.

      You want a case study? Try the following. These are excerpts from a Washington Times article Dated June 11, 2002, written by Robert E. Sullivan.

      It discusses the Miskito tribe in Nicaragua. A communal society of 25,000 that made the decision to enter the drug market when they found some cases of cocaine washed up their beaches. They then LEGALIZED the cocaine in their community, so all the asinine arguments about drug problems existing because the drugs are illegal do NOT apply. Read on to find out what life is now like in this cocaine users utopia.

      ==== ...It has since turned into the devil's own trap, killing young Miskito Indian men and damaging the Miskito culture perhaps beyond repair... ...Drugs and unprotected sex traditionally go together. A visiting doctor at a charity-sponsored clinic on Sandy Bay confirmed that the No. 1 problem he saw was sexually transmitted disease, such as AIDS.... ...Traditional Miskito houses didn't have window panes, leaving the rooms open to the breeze. There was no need to lock doors or windows because most property was held in common and thievery was relatively unknown. Robberies now plague the community.... ... [Mrs. Wilfred's] nephew, 25, a well-paid diver who spent all his previous month's salary on crack, came home naked after having sold his clothes.

      The nephew, who declined to give his name, said he was a "slave" to the drug, but blamed the police. When he was arrested, he said, the police asked where he obtained the drug. When he identified the crack house, "they went and just got their share of the drug" to sell themselves... ... The lobstermen die because they smoke crack before donning their oxygen tanks and diving. They say it helps their endurance. But police say the divers believe the oxygen helps with the high, and they make terrible mistakes under the drug's influence and die... ...a tall, lithe ex-boxer said he lost his electrician's job, his wife, his children and his home to the drug.... ...A 13-year-old Edwin Pereira, steals to feed his habit.
      ====

      This is the world legalized addictive drugs creates. I won't allow you to turn my world into this nightmare with your asinine, idiotic and completely self-centered legalize drugs propaganda.

      --
      You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
    43. Re:No Clear Channel stations mentioned in story... by atheken · · Score: 1

      I don't think the OP was implying it was ethical, I think they just wanted to correct the blurb on the story to point the finger at the right mega-corp.

    44. Re:No Clear Channel stations mentioned in story... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Neither Michael nor any of you guys bothered to read the story, or if you did, your reading comprehension sucks.

      The story nowhere mentions any Clear Channel stations. It nowhere mentions any "making up" of news stories. It simply talks about a radio guy who sometimes broadcasts from out of state without letting his audience know that he is out of town, and some other radio hosts who do let their audience know. In neither case do they "make up" anything.

      Michael, where is the evidence that Clear Channel "makes up" local news stories from a central location? If you have such evidence, you should have posted a link to a story backing up this claim of yours.

    45. Re:No Clear Channel stations mentioned in story... by BoogieChile · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The article says that he gets a break of two weeks each bitterly cold winter month in Florida, paid for by the studio. He broadcasts from Florida while he's there, probably because the studio doesn't want to spend the money seeing one of their employees out of action for half the month, half of every year.

      The other half of winter, presumably, he's down in Boston freezing his mucus membranes off with the rest of us. When he's saying he knows how bad five below zero is even before the wind chill is taken into account, he probably does know what he's talking about.

      He may even know more clearly than everybody who's stuck back in Boston, because he's able to actually get warm (like really warm, you know, so warm you don't even have a runny nose, and you can leave the beer in the fridge rather than in the cupboard so it's not too cold to drink.

      And then, every two weeks, he gets to leave those balmy, sunny shores and go back to grey skies, rain wind and slush and frozen snot hanging from your top lip. The horror of anticipation that hovers in the last inch of frosty air as you grit your teeth and prepare to drop your naked bum onto a FUCKING COLD toilet seat at six o'clock in the morning...He knows. He can empathise. That's all he may be doing. He doesn't want to tell everybody that he's down in sunny Florida, because then everybody's going to want to lynch him when he gets back at the end of the fortnight.

      Rant over. Need beer

      PS: It's 32 lovely sunny degrees celcius here, and I get to drink beer out of the freezer (-6c). See? You all hate me now :)

    46. Re:No Clear Channel stations mentioned in story... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      So b-baggins, how far should the prohibition of drugs go? We kick down the doors of the sick and dying who use marijuana for medical purposes everyday. Maybe we should have a MMS of 20+ years for drug possession (of any amount)? Maybe we should just execute them and get their evil genes out of the mix? Maybe just strip them of their citizenship and deport them.

      As prohibition is enforced, drug prices increase. The more they increase the more prohibitionist related violence occurs. Remember "the greater the risk, the greater reward". Some addicts would sell out their own mother to get the money to get high. No law against and no price too high it will turn the tide. Prohibition has never worked and never will.

      An experiment in Bern, Switzerland a few years ago showed something very interesting. The Govt sold pharmaceutical grade heroin to addicts for ~$5USD. They received counseling and a clean needle before they injected. What happenned? Property crimes dropped by 80%. Violent thefts also dropped by over 50%. Decrease the price and remove the criminal supply chain gets you great results.

      As for the marijuana claims, think about this: how many people do you know that went nuts from consuming cannabis, became violent from consuming cannabis or "moved on" to hard drugs solely because of it? I'm guessing the number is zero. Marijuana doesn't kill but marijuana prohibition does.

      I've sung this song too many times before. Read this. In the end you've been sold on the idea prohibition works by those who most profit from it, the Govt and LEOs. I'm sorry, but you are flat out wrong. I think you weren't trolling but truly believe what you said, which makes it all the sadder. Might I suggest reading Reason's view on drugs?

      Get the facts about marijuana and the true cost of prohibition.

    47. Re:No Clear Channel stations mentioned in story... by RdsArts · · Score: 1

      It makes me wonder why the other large media corps weren't "singled out" as well.

      We shouldn't just be looking at ClearChannel, but also Infinity Media and the others.

    48. Re:No Clear Channel stations mentioned in story... by Gerr · · Score: 1

      This story has got to be the stupidest story I've ever read. It matters not where the radio talent is. Even if that talent were a computer, talking about how "cold it was," I could care less where it was based.

      Many people in this world telecommute. Why should this guy be any different? Why should some news paper spend more than a word commenting on it and interviewing some "ethics experts."

      It must be a slow news day in Boston.

    49. Re:No Clear Channel stations mentioned in story... by madmancarman · · Score: 2, Funny
      Everybody's doing it. Which is why it is also okay to do drugs, jump of cliffs, and buy Windows XP.

      I think you've got the order wrong. First you buy XP, then you do drugs to counter the effects, and finally jump off a cliff to end it all.

      Wait... you'd have to be on drugs to buy Windows XP, so it must be: drugs -> XP -> cliff.

      ...unless your injuries from previously jumping off a cliff required that you take pain-killing drugs, and while reeling from their effects...

      It's all circular, really.

      --
      First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Gandhi
    50. Re:No Clear Channel stations mentioned in story... by Sivaram_Velauthapill · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      lol that's a lame argument. I'm surprised people fell for it... but not me :)

      You are using an argument that is a poor technique (kind of like ad hominem attacks, straw man attacks, non-sequitur, etc). You are attempting to refute an argument by picking some TINY point in the argument and proving that wrong. It's almost like the following argument:

      Person 1: Seatbelts are good for everyone. They save lives
      Person 2 (you :) ): No they aren't.
      Person 1: Yes they are
      Person 2: Nope.
      Person 1: Prove it
      Person 2: Babies wearing seat belts can kill them. Therefore, seat belts are bad. They should be aboslished
      Person 3 (me :) ): Well you are picking a tiny extreme point and arguing against it. That's a lame argument.

      People stoned and driving cars can kill people... but so can people who put paper bags on their heads and drive cars. Though dangerous in both cases, neither case warrants banning drugs or the paper bag :)

      Sivaram Velauthapillai

      --
      Sivaram Velauthapillai
      Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places ;)
    51. Re:No Clear Channel stations mentioned in story... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The weather is bad today...very very bad.
      *Indian Accent*

    52. Re:No Clear Channel stations mentioned in story... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If we are to look at this as a straight out logic argument, in the example you gave, the person you called me, would be correct. If you are trying to make a deductive statement (ie. Seatbelts are good for everyone) and I can find even ONE example where it is wrong, then your argument fails. If you're making an INDUCTIVE argument (ie. seatbelts are good for most people) then I would have to proove that most people would NOT benefit from a seatbelt. (Also, nice job throwing out a bunch of neat sounding names for types of fallacies, but my argument is NONE of those.)(And I might also point out, what you've done is detract from the argument by using a false analogy!)(Oh, last paranthesis this paragraph, I swear... non-sequitar isn't actually a fallacy so much as a problem with a premise, completely seperate from an invalid argument.)

      NOW! Onto your actual post... which itself is a Straw-Man argument. Taking my words, making it seem like I said one thing, but I didn't. I never said that someone stoned, driving, was a reason I believe drugs should be illegal. (Nor did I ever say that drugs should be illegal.) What I said, was that it is the reason the government has the law and also has the "war on drugs." I said, that logically, if you get rid of the drugs, you can't have drug related deaths. The government has decided that is an appropriate action. They then make the law and the war. Any arguing with that?

    53. Re:No Clear Channel stations mentioned in story... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As for the marijuana claims, think about this: how many people do you know that went nuts from consuming cannabis, became violent from consuming cannabis or "moved on" to hard drugs solely because of it? I'm guessing the number is zero. Marijuana doesn't kill but marijuana prohibition does.

      I don't know of anybody who went violent because of Marijuana, but I do know at least 3 people who moved on to harder drugs.

      I don't think we can purely say that it was marijuana that was responsible, it might equally be that they just went with the wrong people, the people who also sell marijuana. That kind of people usually also sell harder drugs.

      Who knows, if it was legal, it might have prevented them from trying harder drugs, but personally, I don't think so.

      I think that marijuana should stay banned. It might not turn people violent, but it sure affects them, no matter what potheads say.

    54. Re:No Clear Channel stations mentioned in story... by Threni · · Score: 2, Informative

      Alcohol? Tobacco? They're legal, and cause quite a few deaths every year. Whereas cannabis, lsd, cocaine etc are much less harmful. Most of the harm caused by drugs is due to their illegality (impossibility of enforcing quality standards, badly `cut` drugs, turf wars (with consequent deaths in cross-fires, mistaken identity), lifes wasted in prison, etc etc. Drugs are expensive because they are illegal - they'd be a fraction of their current cost if this were not the case.

      Sure, some bad things happen to some people who take drugs, but they're generally the same idiots who become alcoholics or gamblers, and would have happened whether drugs were legal or not, so basically you get those problems in addition to the extra problems caused by their illegality.

      I can see you've not really thought about any of this. Once again, you've proven that its the people who can't see that making drugs illegal is a bad thing who have a problem with reality.

    55. Re:No Clear Channel stations mentioned in story... by Threni · · Score: 1

      > However, that doesn't take away the fact that the illegalization of drugs ALSO
      > stops those types of deaths.

      Classic erroneous claim. Why would making drugs illegal stop their use? Do you have any evidence to support you ridiculous assertion?

    56. Re:No Clear Channel stations mentioned in story... by GimmeFuel · · Score: 1
      The wasted efforts of the courts and police officers. One is to say, "We should get rid of all civil suits that are less than 10,000 dollars too. They just tie up the court system while other bigger money cases need to be settled." Same idea, same bad idea.

      Civil suits are a bad analogy. Should people really be imprisoned for a nonviolent, consensual act in their own home, while thousands of murders, rapes, robberies etc go unsolved?

      The big drug cartel controllers will shift their whole focus, causing a domino effect down the ladder. That gangster who used to sell pot, is now selling stolen stereo systems or something else.

      Stolen stereo systems is a far smaller market than drugs. Also, the time and money spent fighting the drug war could then be reapplied to fighting and prosecuting true criminals, such as murderers, rapists, and thieves.

    57. Re:No Clear Channel stations mentioned in story... by erpbridge · · Score: 1

      Yup. That's about the time that listeners will TRY to hunt for an alternate station because they can barely understand the host.

      Only problem is, with the state of radio today, they'll probably run into the same content on 4 other channels that are part of the same network, and the other channels they actually find will have Indian announcers as well. The only one that won't will be the Country-Western channel, as I can't say I've met many Indians who listen to Country-Western.

      But, then again... there could be a huge following over there, who knows. (In Indian Accent) "Don't Tell My Heart, My Achy Breaky Heart..."

      Disclaimer: I mean no offense to those of you in India or of Indian descent. I have just had a couple bad experiences calling HP tech support to find a product, and run into someone with so thick an accent, it took 3 tries to understand what they just said. Not all Indians are like that, but I've had this horror story and have heard enough others.

    58. Re:No Clear Channel stations mentioned in story... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Everybody's doing it. Which is why it is also okay to do drugs, jump of cliffs, and buy Windows XP.

      I just bought my first Microsoft products yesterday since 1992: Windows XP Pro and Office 2003 Pro for $20 each from the university bookstore (yes, I know it's heavily subsidized by a campus-wide license agreement, but there's nothing I could do to stop that. I might as well take advantage of it since I've already paid for it in tuition). So, instead of Linux this new box is getting Windows XP Pro. Woop.

    59. Re:No Clear Channel stations mentioned in story... by squiggleslash · · Score: 1
      your reading comprehension sucks.
      Wow... just wow...

      Why don't you try reading my message again and try to work out what it means. Pay particular attention to the fact I'm arguing that I believed Michael did not mean to imply that the article was about ClearChannel.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    60. Re:No Clear Channel stations mentioned in story... by Shadow99_1 · · Score: 1

      This is why no intelligent person uses a drug called 'crack'... I see no good reason why anyone would ever want to use that kind of drug as all it's effects are negative... So it's no suprise their results were bad.

      I still don't favor legalized drugs myself, but of all the drugs you could pick that would be the worst....

      --
      we are all invisible unless we choose otherwise
    61. Re:No Clear Channel stations mentioned in story... by DLR · · Score: 1

      Ok, so he telecommutes. What's the big deal?

      It seems to me that if you're going to worry about journalistic ethics you have a lot of bigger fish to fry than this guy. Start with the entier leftist media and their biased reporting, then get back to me on journalistic ethics when you have that sorted out.

      --
      "Like fire and fusion, government is a dangerous servant and a terrible master."~RAH
    62. Re:No Clear Channel stations mentioned in story... by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      if you make ANYTHING that was once illegal, legal it will cut down on crime.

      Okay, how's this: legalize pot and most other drugs, decriminalize the rest. The soft stuff is available at the drug store, same as tobacco, and the hard stuff is available at a drug clinic, where you use it in a controlled environment. This cuts down on crimes such as posession of marijuana (of course), but also frees space in prisons for violent offenders, and cuts down on the crime rate by eliminating the reason Heroin and cocaine cost up to $500/day. The $1.8B that the DEA uses (cite) can be cut substantially, as all we need to di is extend the FDa to regulate pot, cocaine and other drugs, local cops spend less money on the property crimes that funded peoples' drug habits.

      As a nice side effect, watch the murder rate drop, as drug dealers no longer have as much to fight over. Sure, some people never change, but we can probably retrain some of the dealers to work at the DMV or something.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    63. Re:No Clear Channel stations mentioned in story... by monkeyfinger · · Score: 1
      Brian Givden -
      "Everybody's doing it. Which is why it is also okay to do drugs, jump of cliffs, and buy Windows XP."

      Threni -
      "It's ok to do drugs because it's your choice, and nobody elses."

      Both of these posts use the word "drugs". Neither of them specify whether the drugs in question were illegal or addictive, yet you start talking about "addictive substances that will rot a society to death from the inside out". Asprin is a "drug" that "everybody's doing" but I'm pretty sure it isn't addictive and I don't think it's rotting society to death from the inside out. Ok, I'm being facetious, but you need to be careful about making blanket statements if you are to be taken seriously.

      I'm not saying I completely agree with Threni's post either. People can do what they want with their own bodies, but not if they are harming others in the process. Far too many (but not all) heroin users have to commit crimes to pay for their habits.

      Drugs isn't a simple black and white issue, every drug should be considered on a seperate basis.

    64. Re:No Clear Channel stations mentioned in story... by Sivaram_Velauthapill · · Score: 1

      First of all the weak arguments (straw man attack, etc) was just an example. I wasn't trying to say yours was that. All I was saying is that yours would fit into similar categories.

      What I said, was that it is the reason the government has the law and also has the "war on drugs." I said, that logically, if you get rid of the drugs, you can't have drug related deaths. The government has decided that is an appropriate action. They then make the law and the war. Any arguing with that?

      If THAT is your point, your point is almost irrelevant. You are simply making an observation and not supporting any position. Your statement is pretty much a tautology.

      Sivaram Velauthapillai

      --
      Sivaram Velauthapillai
      Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places ;)
    65. Re:No Clear Channel stations mentioned in story... by iamanatom · · Score: 1

      Buy Windows XP?! Sir, this time you go too far! Seriously though, is it really possible to buy Windows XP? I thought you just happened to get it when you buy a new computer, deliberately hose it for a laugh before formatting and installing *nix of choice and 'acquire it from the internet' if you ever want a laugh in the future.

      --
      "This is crazy, you realise we could all go to jail for this?" - my manager, somewhere I used to work.
    66. Re:No Clear Channel stations mentioned in story... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because all laws are made in theory. If people follow a law, we will be better off. Therefore, people will follow the law. I don't state that it will ACTUALLY do have the effect, it is the theoretical effect. (Otherwise, why make a law at all?)

    67. Re:No Clear Channel stations mentioned in story... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You pass a law because you believe it will have some effect. Clearly, making (some) drugs illegal has caused more problems than it solved, which is why things are now changing in most progressive parts of the world.

    68. Re:No Clear Channel stations mentioned in story... by Snaller · · Score: 1

      Except Windows XP.

      --
      If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
    69. Re:No Clear Channel stations mentioned in story... by phorm · · Score: 1

      Nono. You do the drugs, which somehow leads you up to buying windows XP. Then when you realize what's done, you jump off a cliff.

      I'm not sure that jumping off a cliff is the right thing for XP purchasers... I wouldn't have too much a problem with it should certain companies which made said product decide to jump en masse off a cliff.

  2. An Excellent Example by MissMarvel · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is an excellent example of how easy it is to dupe the public into believing something that is not entirely factual. It also drives home the importance of our taking what we hear on radio/TV and what we read in the newspapers with a very big grain of salt.

    1. Re:An Excellent Example by conradp · · Score: 5, Insightful
      This is an excellent example of how easy it is to dupe the public into believing something that is not entirely factual. It also drives home the importance of our taking what we hear on radio/TV and what we read in the newspapers with a very big grain of salt.

      Exactly. Sort of like making the audience that believe that they're about to read an article about Clear Channel making up facts for local news broadcasts, only to find a link to an article about some guy who likes to vacation in Florida for a few weeks a year.

      --
      "To be absolutely certain about something, one must know everything or nothing about it." -- Olin Miller
    2. Re:An Excellent Example by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean like the moon landing? And probably the Mars mission too?

    3. Re:An Excellent Example by glesga_kiss · · Score: 5, Insightful
      This is an excellent example of how easy it is to dupe the public into believing something that is not entirely factual.

      Bollocks. Has anyone posting here actually read the article? (stupid question).

      The guy is tele-commuting!, that's about all this story is. For two weeks per month in the winter, and two weeks over the summer, he works from home.

      How may people here do the exact same thing? What would be a better /. story would be "technology advances make it possible to record professional TV shows at home" or something along the lines of how this is done.

      And where is this grand deception? He made a "brrr it's cold remark", while he was in warmer climbs? That's it? Fuck me, call the A-Team!! Frankly, I'm more worried that the news networks feel it's neccessary to put bullshit fluff like that on the news in the first place.

      He's a news anchor. He turns up, looks "nice", reads someone elses story in a news-caster voice. That's all they do and it's hardly a secret. We know they aren't pounding the streets for stories themselves.

    4. Re:An Excellent Example by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here's my prediction: Since you pointed out Michael's (obvious) idiocy and got modded to 5 for it, your comment will probably get bitchslapped after around 24 hours so it won't get archived at 5. Also, expect to see a reduction (or removal) of karma points and possibly the ability to mod at all for the rest of your account's life.

      Slashdot: Where Our Bias Is The Correct Bias

    5. Re:An Excellent Example by catbutt · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So what if Dan Rather, instead of travelling to the middle of a hurricane to report live, just used a blue screen and a wind machine, and had someone off screen throw a tree branch or two at him? Is that ok too?

    6. Re:An Excellent Example by antiMStroll · · Score: 1

      Was your post meant as an example of the grandparent's principle?

    7. Re:An Excellent Example by Sivaram_Velauthapill · · Score: 4, Interesting

      No one has a problem with people tele-commuting. But people DO have a problem when you LIE. That is exactly what this guy did. I don't care where you are. But if you say you are this or that, and you are not, then I DO care. Why does he have to lie? Why is he lying? Well, the answer is pretty simple. He is trying to manipulate people. If he is lying about such a little thing, maybe he is lying about all sorts of other things. You just don't know--and that's the point! He lost ALL his CREDIBILITY with that lie. I don't know who this guy is and I don't care about the weather. BUT can *I* be sure that he isn't going to lie and say that a medicine is safe because he took it (when in fact he didn't)? Or when he says that you cannot be charged for speeding less than 10km/h over the speed limit (when in fact he may be wrong)?

      It's just unfortunate that you still give him the credibility that you do. I think it would be better if you became a little more sceptical. No wonder the majority of people fall for politician's lies. If people didn't fall for it, politics would be 100x better.

      Sivaram Velauthapillai

      --
      Sivaram Velauthapillai
      Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places ;)
    8. Re:An Excellent Example by antiMStroll · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Nice simplifiction, valid only for cubical drones who communicate to hundreds of thousands daily. If telecommuting isn't an issue why not be up front about it on air? Why dissemble? The story is about deception, not telecommuting.

    9. Re:An Excellent Example by Gojira+Shipi-Taro · · Score: 5, Funny

      Only if they hit him with the tree branch ;)

      --
      "Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked."; ~ Donald J. Trump
    10. Re:An Excellent Example by cryptor3 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Only if he's talking to Drew Carey and he has to guess where he is. And then only if he gets a thousand points for doing it.

    11. Re:An Excellent Example by LostCluster · · Score: 3, Informative

      When was the last time Dan Rather traveled to be in a hurricane? He used to do that years ago, but now, he sits at his nice calm anchordesk in NYC, and introduces some kid who's actually in the storm area.

    12. Re:An Excellent Example by alphaseven · · Score: 4, Informative
      So what if Dan Rather, instead of travelling to the middle of a hurricane to report live, just used a blue screen and a wind machine, and had someone off screen throw a tree branch or two at him? Is that ok too?

      Cokie Roberts tried something similar (putting on a coat and reporting in front of a blue sceen of Capitol Hill) years ago and got reprimanded for it. I think she may have made a remark about the weather there too. If she got reprimanded I think the radio reporter should too.

      And funny you should mention Dan Rather, he got in a controversy too for reporting in front of a digitaly altered Times Sqaure, link.

    13. Re:An Excellent Example by Artifakt · · Score: 1

      "We" don't know they aren't gathering news themselves. These same studios present these same people describing themselves as reporters, or claiming to be "on the beat", or they make various statements that could mislead reasonable people who don't spend a lot of time digging into the facts. Look at Heraldo Rivera - how many times has he been described as a reporter when he's functioning as a newscaster? Just starting with a phrase such as "Tonight's report from location X", and cutting to a feed from location X, proclaims that the people shown are reporting. Is it really all that obvious to the average viewer that the person "reporting" is not a reporter, in the sense most people mean that word?
      If it's hardly a secret I'd be interested in seeing what happens when you call the studio and ask about what person X's job actually involves? Does person X actually gather any of the information they presented? Will the studios give you an honest and open answer? If not, it's a secret, just not a very airtight one. But then, if it fools even 50% or so of the people, it's good enough for the circumstances. I don't know for sure how open and forthright they would be. You or I could probably test our local news that way, but unless a thousand other people do too, it's just anecdotal evidence.
      I tried to ask this sort of question once. I called the local news station asking whether they really owned the radar they kept calling "Our Live Doppeler Radar", or were they just paying for a feed from the airport or something. It's just one anecdote, but for what it's worth, the answers were not very forthcoming.

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
    14. Re:An Excellent Example by Ryan+Amos · · Score: 1

      Yeah, except if you read the article, it says the guy only does that 4 weeks out of the year. The rest of the year he's actually in Boston. He's also a "personality," he's been on the air for like 30 years, so it's basically a "working vacation." The guy probably gets his weather and news off the internet when he's in the studio as well, so I don't see how this is really any different. So long as ClearChannel doesn't take this too far and replace all the local shows with ones hosted in Des Moines or something, we'll be fine.

    15. Re:An Excellent Example by IOOOOOI · · Score: 1
      http://www.illegal-art.org/video/

      Look at the second video on this page, Spin, by Brian Springer. This video is about an hour long and is all about how news is canned and commoditized. It features raw feeds captured by the filmmaker from his satellite dish. Some very interesting and sometimes funny moments of Bush Sr., Larry King and Pat Robertson, and others, caught on camera when they thought the cameras were off.

    16. Re:An Excellent Example by -tji · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Exactly.. All we have here is an older guy who got tired of the cold winters in the NorthEast. The station was nice enough, or valued him highly enough, to work with him and allow him to broadcast remotely.

      This is not the same as the other trend of local stations outsourcing their news to same generic centralized national news network.. Eliminating any local/personal perspective and using the radio equivalent of USA Today to save a few bucks.

      The fact that they hide this from their listeners is a bit questionable. But, it's not a big deal. The guy is a long time Bostonian, doing news specifically for Boston.. Do you also insist that he is the guy out investigating the stories on the streets? Is it disingenuous that someone else does the legwork, and the DJ reads the story as if HE figured it all out?

    17. Re:An Excellent Example by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's Geraldo, you fsckstick

    18. Re:An Excellent Example by Idarubicin · · Score: 2, Interesting
      The guy is tele-commuting!, that's about all this story is. For two weeks per month in the winter, and two weeks over the summer, he works from home.

      Yes, I did read the article. Why did his station choose to conceal the fact that he was telecommuting? They could even have made some news out of it, for goodness' sake--their own live newscasts from their man-on-the-scene in Florida. Might add a bit of spice to their otherwise dull and drab weather reports. Heck, he could just have avoided making any comments about being cold. What's wrong with the weather guy just reading the damn weather report, without added inane chatter?

      But no, they chose to hide it, and deliberately misled their audience. Sure, in an absolute sense it's not really a big thing, but where should you draw the line? If he had been claiming to be on location in Baghdad, would it then be okay to be outraged?

      If a radio station, or any other news outlet, wants to be considered trustworthy, then they must avoid even a hint of deception. It's not appropriate for them to mislead their audience as long as they only mislead about things that they think aren't important.

      --
      ~Idarubicin
    19. Re:An Excellent Example by stefanlasiewski · · Score: 1

      It also drives home the importance of our taking what we hear on radio/TV and what we read in the newspapers with a very big grain of salt.

      It also drives home the importance of listening to and supporting your local radio and TV stations.

      --
      "Can of worms? The can is open... the worms are everywhere."
    20. Re:An Excellent Example by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most interesting. And if you deny JS popups, go

      here.

    21. Re:An Excellent Example by Condor7 · · Score: 1



      ...an article about some guy who likes to vacation in Florida for a few weeks a year.

      The article is about a guy who likes to work from Florida 2 weeks out of every month in the winter. Not the same thing.

    22. Re:An Excellent Example by Echnin · · Score: 1

      Well, if you count "two weeks in the Fall and two weeks every month in the winter" as four weeks, well... Yah. But that's really 8 weeks. Just nitpicking.

      --
      Lalala
    23. Re:An Excellent Example by placeclicker · · Score: 1
      This is an excellent example of how easy it is to dupe the public into believing something that is not entirely factual. It also drives home the importance of our taking what we hear on radio/TV and what we read in the newspapers with a very big grain of salt.
      But not the internet?
      --

      Browse at -1, because trolls are often the most creative part of /.
    24. Re:An Excellent Example by jht · · Score: 1

      As a 'BZ' listener, I can tell you that Gary LaPierre isn't the first person they've had do this. Ever since David Brudnoy (their evening talk show host) had his first severe bout with AIDS back in the mid-'90s, they've had him working his show from a home studio they built him in his Back Bay condo. The WBZ studio is out in Allston, along the river next to Harvard's stadium. When Brudnoy was essentially unable to leave home during his recovery, having the home studio let him continue broadcasting.

      Some guests would work with him from the WBZ studio, some would go to his condo instead for the show. You couldn't tell which was which. David's going through some more health issues right now (a bout with a rare and nasty form of skin cancer), so he hasn't been on the air much lately, but if he recovers he'll go back to working from home like before.

      As for Gary LaPierre, he's a radio newscaster who's been around in Boston practically forever. As long as he's reading the stories, it really doesn't matter one whit to me where he is physically - he's still the voice I'm used to on the local news station. If he's earned it, more power to him. I wish I could work from Florida right now!

      --
      -- Josh Turiel
      "2. Do not eat iPod Shuffle."
    25. Re:An Excellent Example by rustycage · · Score: 2, Funny

      That brings up an important question I had. Is the TV weatherman actually hovering horizontally over the continental United States during the forecast or is the weather report just more "Hollywood Magic"? Makes you wonder...

      --
      No Sig For You
    26. Re:An Excellent Example by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That would be totally, utterly AWESOME.

      I'd totally watch it.

    27. Re:An Excellent Example by LostCluster · · Score: 2, Informative

      Cokie Roberts tried something similar (putting on a coat and reporting in front of a blue sceen of Capitol Hill) years ago and got reprimanded for it. I think she may have made a remark about the weather there too. If she got reprimanded I think the radio reporter should too.
      The difference here is that Cokie didn't tell the bosses what she was doing in advance, Gary's remote setup was promised to him as a perk in his contract. He agreed to anchor from Florida a few weeks a year instead of insisting on having those weeks completely off.

      And funny you should mention Dan Rather, he got in a controversy too for reporting in front of a digitaly altered Times Sqaure, link.
      That wasn't Dan's decision, that was the network. The situation was the New Year's celebrations between 1999 and 2000, and Dan's anchor position overlooked times square, but had the famous Jumbotron in plain view. The CBS bosses didn't like that... because NBC controls the programming on that screen, and there's a nice big NBC logo on top of that screen. The network was afraid that NBC would have the opportunity to flash whatever message they wanted on that screen during CBS live programming, and they were going to run the risk of accidently promoting NBC programs. Therefore, the digital alteration created an animated CBS News sign that covered up the Jumbotron...

    28. Re:An Excellent Example by gcalvin · · Score: 1

      If he's tired of living in Boston, he should probably give up reporting Boston local news, and leave the job to somebody who likes Boston and lives in Boston. I wonder why the other radio stations in Boston aren't making a big deal about this. Maybe because they're doing it too? Or at least want to keep their options open?

    29. Re:An Excellent Example by babbage · · Score: 1

      Well, this is WBZ radio we're talking about, so the way the guy looks isn't relevant to his job, but that's an aside. He made marks that, while not dishonest, did misrepresent the truth, and in various ways has done so for two years now.

      By way of comparison, ABC news got in similar trouble a couple of years ago when it was revealed that one of their White House reporters was filing reports not from the White House lawn, as these news broadcasts typically do, but while standing in front of a studio newsroom's blue screen, in front of which a photo of the White House was digitally painted. This was seen as a breach of journalistic integrity, for reasons I can understand if not entirely accept -- after all, television newscasters often report from studios with an obviously phony city skyline is used for a backdrop, and the integrity of this is never questioned. The White House lawn situation, on the other hand, was seen as crossing a line, by suggesting that the reporter was on the scene, and perhaps had just stepped outside for a quick photo shoot with the freshest first hand information, while the news desks with their fake backdrops are obviously studios.

      With radio, it's a different & interesting case though. By way of comparison, Boston's other main news radio station, WBUR, has sent their call-in news talk show The Connection to Baghdad for two weeks, where host Dick Gordon interviewed locals about the Iraq war and it's aftermath. It probably would have been possible, and cheaper & safer, to do these shows from WBUR's Boston University studios, and for all most listeners would know, maybe they did stay at home. I don't think these shows were actually faked, but the point is, with radio you have to take their word for it.

      Then again, as ABC's White House lawn scandal showed, you have to take their word for it with television too, and they're not always honest. Yay, digital revolution... :-/

      Anyway, with the "Connection Goes To Baghdad" series, I see that as a cool story of how tele-commuting is making journalism better. This WBZ story, on the other hand, isn't showing how technology is elevating journalism -- it's allowing them to hide what's really going on with their staff. Now while I don't think there's anything that bad with what Gary LaPierre is doing, the fact that WBZ felt it was unnecessary to present this information to the public isn't encouraging.

      It's fairly well known that one of WBZ's other personalities, David Brudnoy, has had to report from home at various points over the years due to poor health -- the guy has been HIV+ for years, and now he's also dealing with cancer. Brudnoy is very popular, and I don't think anyone begrudges him from working from home. But then, he's honest about it, and that's the key difference. Likewise, one of the FM talk radio hosts, Jay Severin, does his Boston show from New York -- but again, his station is honest about it, so there's no big deal. Again, this isn't how the LaPierre situation has been handled.

      So, you're right that the capability to telecommute is an interesting and useful thing for broadcast journalism, but being up front about it is ethically critical -- especially considering that the public knows how easy it is to misrepresent the truth with modern technology, so we depend on broadcasters to be up front about what they're doing. In cases where a station admits what they're doing, the public will probably accept this without blinking an eye. On the other hand, if a station gets caught out with a deception, as here, then it becomes an issue for that station's credibility. I'm sure that WBZ will overcome this -- they have an excellent reputation, and this isn't enough to change that -- I hope that they and other broadcasters will be more forthcoming in the future.

    30. Re:An Excellent Example by gfxguy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Hi again.

      How exactly did he lie? In other words, what exactly did he say that was false? Like he said, defending himself, he never claimed he was there, he just never said he wasn't.

      Lie by omission? Isn't that a little tenuous?

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    31. Re:An Excellent Example by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, it's like 1.3 fucking GB. It can't be worth 4.5 hours of downloading.

    32. Re:An Excellent Example by catbutt · · Score: 1

      He said "When do we get a break?" An honest way of saying it would be "when do you get a break?". Maybe not a lie per se, but I'd say the word "we" makes it pretty explicitly pretending to be there.

    33. Re:An Excellent Example by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
      Cokie Roberts tried something similar (putting on a coat and reporting in front of a blue sceen

      Bill Gates also reported in front of a blue screen, once.

      Sorry; couldn't resist :)

    34. Re:An Excellent Example by IOOOOOI · · Score: 1

      It only took me 20 minutes.

    35. Re:An Excellent Example by Moofie · · Score: 1

      If their audience feels the way you do, then why does he mislead them?

      I'll tell you why. Because lots of his audience would NOT feel the way you do.

      Let the man do his show from the Moon, I don't care. But when he implies that he's in Boston and he's not, he is no longer trustworthy in my opinion.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    36. Re:An Excellent Example by Sivaram_Velauthapill · · Score: 1

      It's not exactly a blatant lie but it is definitely misleading. The other post above makes note of this but to repeat, he said "Would you believe it's 5 below zero right now?" He also said "The only thing worse than the actual temperature right now is having the wind chill factored in." Those two comments IMPLY that the temperature around HIM is -5.

      I consider those comments misleading. Perhaps you understood them better than me. But a person like me treats his comments as if he were talking about HIS surroundings. It's kind of like me saying 'I am so glad not to be stuck in traffic in San Francisco'. This comment, although not a lie, is highly misleading. I am not in San Francisco and in fact have never been there in my whole life. It's just wrong for me to say that--and the same applies to the issue at hand.

      Don't get me wrong. I support working from home. Or working from far away. I support such activities and would prefer if corporations implement them. However, I don't think people should be saying something that is misleading.

      Sivaram Velauthapillai

      --
      Sivaram Velauthapillai
      Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places ;)
    37. Re:An Excellent Example by dacarr · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Insightful, but whether he is telecommuting is not relevant in this case. Frankly, if I want to hear somebody complain about how farcking cold it is where they are in Boston, they really should be in Boston.

      --
      This sig no verb.
    38. Re:An Excellent Example by mindriot · · Score: 1
      This is an excellent example of how easy it is to dupe the public...

      Hey, what does Slashdot have to do with this?

      :)

    39. Re:An Excellent Example by mindriot · · Score: 1

      Withholding important facts is just another way of lying.

      Sivaram_Velauthapill's post is quite excellent. The point is, of course no one should really care if that moderator takes some weeks of vacation and telecommutes. But why not be honest about it? What did he have to hide? OK, it wouldn't sound so good if he said "Brr, it's so cold in Boston... thank God I'm in Florida right now... haha, you losers!" But I think now that people found out another way, it sounds even worse. And he's lost quite some credibility there.

      Saying honestly that he's not there where he seems to be is one bit of information that I think the public should have a right to know. And it wouldn't have been such a big deal. I mean, it's not like he reports from Florida all year (that would change the case a bit).

    40. Re:An Excellent Example by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      Nice simplifiction, valid only for cubical drones who communicate to hundreds of thousands daily.

      Sorry, we only have the spherical kind over here.

      If telecommuting isn't an issue why not be up front about it on air?

      Who cares? When I go to Outback, I don't ask where the steak is from, why do I care if some guy is in Florida 2 weeks at a time in the winter?

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    41. Re:An Excellent Example by leviramsey · · Score: 1

      It's radio, dumb-ass. He doesn't have to look nice; he could show up at the studio (when he's commuting) in jeans and a T-shirt and no one would give a shit. He could have been broadcasting in the nude from his house and no one would give a shit.

    42. Re:An Excellent Example by Snaller · · Score: 1

      Except, he didn't lie. And most don't really give a damn. It would be something entirely else if he had said that he tried a medicine and it was great, and he hasn't. Of course who cares if some anchor endorses a medicine - Darwin prize candidates no doubt.

      --
      If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
    43. Re:An Excellent Example by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bollocks. Has anyone posting here actually read the article? (stupid question).

      The guy is tele-commuting!, that's about all this story is.


      Bullshit. I'd wager a large amount of money that most people in Boston thought that this guy WAS in Boston, and that most people in Boston don't want to hear a guy from Florida talking about Boston to Bostonians.

      I'd also wager that the station wanted to keep it as quiet as possible in order to maintain listenership. They aren't stupid, just money-grubbing.

    44. Re:An Excellent Example by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The guy is in Florida, talking to Bostonians about things that are happening today in Boston.

      Many listeners in Boston will not want to hear someone telling them about what's going on in Boston, while hanging out some 800+ miles away from Boston.

      Great, he's telecommuting. Great, his management was aware of it. I'm just waiting for the moment when he talks about Boston in the "distant" sense. "Boy, I hear it's really cold up in Boston today!"

      Will that result in a loss of listenership? Yep. Why? Because people want someone who really lives in Boston to talk to them. You really can't be in Florida and make any kind of comment about what it's like to be in Boston today.

      He's a bullshitter, and so is his management. Let us hope his management gets fired for such a bone-head move.

    45. Re:An Excellent Example by 4of12 · · Score: 1

      Quite right.

      There's a difference between

      1. Exactly what it is a speaker says.
      2. The misconceptions that the audience believes.

      A timely example might be expressions by President Bush on the one hand and that many Americans believe Saddam Hussein was responsible for what happened on Sept 11, 2001.

      IOW, if I buy a used car because the salesman said things that made me feel good about my purchase, bad about not purchasing and later I found out the car was a lemon, then whose responsibility was it?

      --
      "Provided by the management for your protection."
    46. Re:An Excellent Example by gfxguy · · Score: 1

      I don't really disagree... unless I read it here, I'd have just assumed that he was there (in Boston, was it?). However, he never said he was there, and in this case I don't really see how it could possibly matter.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
    47. Re:An Excellent Example by gfxguy · · Score: 1

      Withholding important facts is just another way of lying.

      And what fact did this guy leave out that was so important? It's as important to the people of Boston where the newsman is as it is to me where CNN and Fox news are being broadcast from... NONE.

      --
      Stupid sexy Flanders.
  3. hard to believe anything by jest3r · · Score: 1

    just like when they pretend to have a "live" interview with a sports celebrity - but the answers were pre-recorded hours in advance. or when the presidents "live" broadcast starts to skip ..

    these days its hard to believe anything you see on tv.

    1. Re:hard to believe anything by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Turn off your tv. They're not "watching you" with it, as the conspiranoids rant, because, they have a much more efficient system already. One where everyone lives in this proverbial "screen" which "they" set out. With this system they don't have to watch you, because, no one talks to each other anyway. People can only hyper-talk to their hyper-friends about the hyper-events they "live" through on tv. No one can really talk, so no one has to "watch".

    2. Re:hard to believe anything by kfg · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Of course this process can also be intentionally manipulated for comedic effect:

      John Cameron Swasey: Laybird, I understand you are a great student of history. Tell me, what were the first words the Indians spoke to the Pilgrims as they landed on our shores.

      Ladybird Johnson: Welcome to the LBJ Ranch!

      That's one's always been one of my favorites.

      Of course in retrospect some of these early comedic manipulations of live interviews can take on a sad irony.

      JCS: Bobby, it's rumored that your brother Ted is going to run for president. How do you feel about that?

      Bobby Kennedy: Well, if he wants to join me where I'm going, I'd be glad to have him along.

      That was pretty funny circa 1965.

      I remember sitting in front of a little B&W television all day watching reporters talk about the assasination attempt and the, ultimately futile, attempts to save Mr. Kennedey's life.

      There were reporters sitting in the studio talking to reporters outside the hospital where the surgery was taking place. I always knew which were which. There was never some guy standing in front of a blue screen in the studio while a picture of the hospital was added behind him to simulate on the spot reporting.

      Maybe I'm just turning into an old fart, but yes, I think that sort of thing is when you start going too far, even if you haven't "lied." It is still an intentional deception.

      Knock it off.

      KFG

    3. Re:hard to believe anything by babbage · · Score: 1

      I took a journalism class in school, for which one of the main photographers for the local daily paper gave us a talk about typical newspaper photojournalism.

      My favorite anecdote, by far, was that newspaper sports photographers pretty much always shot all their photos during the first five or ten minutes of the game, then ran over to Wal-Mart to have the film developed. They wouldn't have prints made though, just negatives -- the paper's publishing system could scan in the raw negatives & correct the colors before going to print.

      In any case, the important part was just to come back with some quick, dramatic results, and to do so in time to get something to the printing presses in time for the next day's run. It didn't matter if it was a photo of the big game winning goal / run / touchdown / etc, because it's not like people that watched the game the night before are going to compare that footage to the photo in the next day's sports section. In other words, sports photojournalism is always a lie, and always has been.

      Interestingly, in spite of the risk of tampering with the images, digital photography may have actually corrected this problem, because not having to waste time developing the photos gives photographers another hour or so to get shots of the event. If the reporter can upload photos remotely, that buys them even more time: they can just dial up the newspaper from their laptop's cell phone modem and basically work right until the paper goes to the presses.

  4. nothing new by trmj · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Clearchannel has been doing this for years. They even have a hand pick^H^H^H^H counted localized top 10 songs lists with the guy's voice from TRL.

    They call it "enhanced broadcasting technology." I call it decieving people into spending more money on the artificially "popular" music.

    --
    Work sucked, until it became unemployment, when it became slightly more tolerable. -Tet
    1. Re:nothing new by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, hand counted... counted based on the money they have recieved to play the song from the independent promoters... so I guess when you think about it, there really are votes, but it isn't the listeners that do it.

      But God bless that payola. They play the crappy music so that the stations that I actually listen to don't have to.

    2. Re:nothing new by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      heey i wouldn't rag on carson daly that much. sure, he's a massive tool, but he DID bang christina aguliera.

    3. Re:nothing new by oddfox · · Score: 1

      So did Fred Durst, not much of an accomplishment if you ask me. :)

      --
      "We invented personal computing." - Bill Gates
    4. Re:nothing new by Frisky070802 · · Score: 1

      This must be why the article on /. mentioned Clearchannel even though the article was quite different. Links to both in the original would have helped.

      --
      Mencken had it right. So glad that's old news.
  5. Whether he is technically dishonest or not... by r.jimenezz · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ...it must not be funny for Boston area residents that listen to him every morning. People tend to develop sort of an emotional linkage with their routine, and a news anchor is definitely part of the daily routine for many. I usually listen to music instead of live radio when I commute, but I know I'd be pissed off if it were me listening.

    --
    The revolution will not be televised.
    1. Re:Whether he is technically dishonest or not... by hc00jw · · Score: 1

      You mean less pissed off than:

      "Hi, it's Gary LaPierre here, reporting from Florida, where it's 50 degrees! Hope you like it back there in boston...."

      I think this is a little white lie so people don't get upset!. ;-P

    2. Re:Whether he is technically dishonest or not... by LostCluster · · Score: 1

      I've got to say, sitting here in the Boston media market, I've only seen this story reported nationally. The Boston Globe published the article that started this thread, but it wasn't anywhere near the front page. From that, it got mentions hre on /. and on MSNBC... seems like there's more national interest while us locals know that Gary's always been smart...

  6. what?? by Dreadlord · · Score: 3, Funny

    a /. story with only one link?
    Hasn't hell frozen over yet? :)

    --
    The IT section color scheme sucks.
    1. Re:what?? by prockcore · · Score: 5, Funny

      Hasn't hell frozen over yet? :)

      Yes it has. I'm reporting live from hell, and I can tell you that it's might cold out there! Brr!

    2. Re:what?? by _xeno_ · · Score: 1

      Apparently it has frozen over, but even if it hasn't, the article seems to suggest that Boston has. :)

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
    3. Re:what?? by Patrik_AKA_RedX · · Score: 1
      Hasn't hell frozen over yet? :)
      No it hasn't! Else I would now be having hot, steaming recreational reproductive activities with 6 blonds, 4 brunettes and 3 redheads. Hey, they all promised me they would sleep with me when hell froze over.
    4. Re:what?? by Dreadlord · · Score: 1

      Hasn't hell frozen over yet? :)

      Yes it has. I'm reporting live from hell, and I can tell you that it's might cold out there! Brr!


      but still no signs of a Duke Nukem Forever release.

      --
      The IT section color scheme sucks.
    5. Re:what?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      in soviet russia you freeze over hell

      1)hell freezes over
      2)???
      3)PROFIT!

      i work for a VERY large fortune 500 company and you just have to consider the facts, hell is dying

      does hell run linux?

      looks like hell really did freeze over, there webserver anyways, its giving me 404s

      imagine a beowulf cluster of dragons in hell

      i bet i get to hell before ipv6 is adopted!

      --
      Swallow and chew
      Eat you alive
      All of us food that hasn't died
      And the light says

    6. Re:what?? by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      ... a /. story with only one link? Hasn't hell frozen over yet? :)

      No, but the fat lady is singing her ass off.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    7. Re:what?? by metalligoth · · Score: 1

      You mean here?

    8. Re:what?? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You forgot to mention Natalie Portman & hot grits...

  7. Radio Contests by stealie72 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The "local" DJs on most small town radio stations are "voice tracking" from bigger cities, but acting like they're broadcasting from downtown.

    So I don't think they'd have any problems decieving you where you local television personality is broadcasting from. And I'm not sure it is a problem. I've lived all over, from Youngstown, OH to Boston to Los Angeles, and it doesn't matter where you are, because the local news always sucks.

    As a side note, CC has gotten into some trouble with consolidated contests on radio, where they make it seem like your local station is giving away a million dollars, when in reality, it's every station they own giving away the million dollars, so when you call in, you're competing with a whole country worth of callers.

    --
    I don't have an anger problem, I have an idiot problem
    1. Re:Radio Contests by stealie72 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Whoops, I missed the fact that they were talking about WBZ radio, and not WBZ television. There's two of them.

      Based on that, this isn't even a news story. This was a much bigger deal IIRC a year or so ago when a bunch of rural midwestern stations didn't mention tornados coming through town, because not a one of them had a local broadcast on, and might not have even had a human at the station.

      --
      I don't have an anger problem, I have an idiot problem
    2. Re:Radio Contests by LostCluster · · Score: 1

      Yeah, Clear Channel can "cross the line" when Jane from Houston who actually wins the contest gets reported as Jane from Orlando on another station. I don't quite understand why they bother to do that... what's wrong with saying that the "Kiss-FM Radio Network" is what's actually giving away the million...

    3. Re:Radio Contests by antiMStroll · · Score: 1
      So I don't think they'd have any problems decieving you where you local television personality is broadcasting from. .... I've lived all over, from Youngstown, OH to Boston to Los Angeles, and it doesn't matter where you are, because the local news always sucks.

      Cause, meet effect. The reason local coverage sucks is those reporting don't live there, know, or perhaps have ever visited the community. And yes, I am in radio and assemble remote voice tracking systems.

    4. Re:Radio Contests by jred · · Score: 1

      Most of the local TV reporters on our local stations (Memphis) live locally. My gf knows a lot of them. As for radio, I don't know if *all* of them are local, but the "big" ones are. I really don't care where the 3am jocks live. (Now that I think about it, I think I've noticed that the evening jocks on the local CC rock station are syndicated.)

      The local TV news still sucks. Radio is marginally better.

      --

      jred
      I'm not a mechanic but I play one in my garage...
  8. Well they lie about everything else... by Caeda · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Weapons of Mass destruction? Nada... Step up the warining level every few months? Sure? Biological Attacks warranting duct tape and plastic sales? Nope... Recent bombings and terrorist attacks other than our own government? Still nothing.. With headlines like these, does it really matter if the newsanchors arent where they say they are? Not like anyone was expecting this "honesty" from them to begin with...

    --
    ~~ Please keep your arms, legs, and outright stupidity inside the ride at all times. Thank You ~~
    1. Re:Well they lie about everything else... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...... Clear channel owns and operates radio stations... they play music and have some people do talk radio... radio... you're a fucking dope, ya know that? Jesus christ, you guys on the left and your fucking tin foil hats are funny.

    2. Re:Well they lie about everything else... by Sivaram_Velauthapill · · Score: 1

      It is better to be on the left and wear a tin foil hat than to live in a cave all their life. Tin foil hats haven't hurt anybody but the conservatives living in caves only start seeing black and white after they live in darkness for so long ;)

      Sivaram Velauthapillai

      --
      Sivaram Velauthapillai
      Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places ;)
  9. Great family guy moment... by shiafu · · Score: 5, Funny
    Tom Tucker: In other news, an accident caused the Quahog cable television transmitter to be knocked out, which will prevent broadcasting to the entire city. Actually, no can hear this, so it doesn't really matter what I say. I'm the lord Jesus Christ. I think I'm going to get drunk and beat up some hookers. How about you, Diane?

    Diane Simmons: Well, Tom, I just plain don't like black people.

    Director: Uh, guys, we're still on in Boston.

    1. Re:Great family guy moment... by tipsymonkey · · Score: 1

      isn't it "beat up some midgets"?

    2. Re:Great family guy moment... by pergamon · · Score: 1

      Yes, you are correct.

    3. Re:Great family guy moment... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which makes him a winner.

  10. the meat of the article is towards the end by ChipMonk · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "When he's talking about how cold it is, that's not news, it's entertainment. It's cosmetic," Harrison added.

    That sounds like a lot of so-called "news organizations." Their #1 purpose is to entertain, lest they lose a large chunk of their audience. Actual news content is secondary.

    "It's no more a lie than putting makeup on a TV anchor to make them look younger. The main thing is that his information does not deceive the public."

    One more step in virtualizing the whole world. How soon can we have virtual war, where nobody dies?

    1. Re:the meat of the article is towards the end by bazarodin · · Score: 1

      What the heck do you mean? You can't find any problems with the _actual factual news_ so you have to go after the chatter part of the broadcast? Come on, who _cares_?!?!

    2. Re:the meat of the article is towards the end by iminplaya · · Score: 1

      "How soon can we have virtual war, where nobody dies?"

      Fine with me...

      --
      What?
    3. Re:the meat of the article is towards the end by Frisky070802 · · Score: 1
      You've watched one too many episodes of Star Trek.

      OK, sorry, that's where there's a virtual war and people just get selected by computer to be a victim and be executed.

      --
      Mencken had it right. So glad that's old news.
    4. Re:the meat of the article is towards the end by Sivaram_Velauthapill · · Score: 4, Insightful

      One more step in virtualizing the whole world. How soon can we have virtual war, where nobody dies?

      Well, if you go with the US media, the Iraqi war is pretty much a virtual war. Sure, you hear about some death here and there but it is all virtual. No one has seen any video of a dead person. No one has seen blood. No one has seen victims without legs, arms, loved ones. No one has seen the soldiers that are crippled for life. It's pretty virtual it seems...

      :(

      Sivaram Velauthapillai

      --
      Sivaram Velauthapillai
      Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places ;)
    5. Re:the meat of the article is towards the end by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One more step in virtualizing the whole world. How soon can we have virtual war, where nobody dies?

      The answer is, of course, as soon as we have a virtual world, where nobody lives. Take the good with the bad and shut the fuck up, already. Life is only worth living because of the mixture. Fuck you and your nonsensical utopian dreams.

    6. Re:the meat of the article is towards the end by John+Courtland · · Score: 1

      Not to shoot that down, but, of all things, Fox News reported on some Operation Enduring Lies (er Freedom?) veterans who have already come back missing legs and arms who are pretty much permanently disabled from what they used to do, are getting fucked over hard by the gov't. I saw at least a number of videos with some very crippled soldiers.

      --
      Slashdot is proof that Sturgeon's Law applies to mankind.
    7. Re:the meat of the article is towards the end by ces · · Score: 1

      One more step in virtualizing the whole world. How soon can we have virtual war, where nobody dies?

      Wag The Dog anyone?

      Of course I doubt that the media just making shit up would really supprise anyone. People of all political stripes who pay much attention already think they do that.

      --
      Happy Fun Ball is for external use only.
    8. Re:the meat of the article is towards the end by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hoo boy. "Slashdot poster feels war is bad. Film at eleven."

      Everybody knows war is bad, man. Everybody knows that people die in war, and that those who die leave survivors behind.

      That doesn't change the fact that sometimes war is the only option remaining, or the least horrible option from a set of several horrible options.

      What good would come from broadcasting graphic video of blood and guts? Other than to serve your obvious prurient interest, of course.

    9. Re:the meat of the article is towards the end by sysadmn · · Score: 1
      How soon can we have virtual war, where nobody dies?
      Stardate 9257 or something like that. Then a starship comes, ignores the Prime Directive, and screws the whole deal up.
      --
      Envy my 5 digit Slashdot User ID!
    10. Re:the meat of the article is towards the end by MagFox · · Score: 1
      Kills from an Apache.


      Commentary on same.


      Cheers.

    11. Re:the meat of the article is towards the end by Lord+Ender · · Score: 1

      People will see crippled soldiers when they come home in large numbers. Don't worry about the news. If this conflict actually becomes serious, and people's neighbor's kids wind up dead, there will be an outcry to end it quickly. Right now, 500 americans have died. Nobody from my community. It is a problem that will correct itself if it gets out of hand.

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    12. Re:the meat of the article is towards the end by Sivaram_Velauthapill · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure if you are making a neutral observation, or if you are hoping for that. If the former, ignore the rest of my message.... No offense but that is such a selfish view. You are not respecting life. To you, numbers matter. To me they don't. Even one life is valuable to me. Already the fact that 500 deaths (plus 20,000 Iraqis) is apparently not important. How many more are you willing to take? 50,000?

      What if NO ONE dies in your community? Does that mean that the war should continue?

      Sivaram Velauthapillai

      --
      Sivaram Velauthapillai
      Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places ;)
    13. Re:the meat of the article is towards the end by Sivaram_Velauthapill · · Score: 1

      "Slashdot poster feels war is bad. Film at eleven."

      heh... If you want some anti-war films, watch Platoon, All Quiet on the Western Front, The Thin Red Line, Gallipoli, The Deer Hunter, or Born on the 4th of July. Of course, you can also check out the classic anti-war documentary Hearts & Minds... If you are a conservative, you should probably stay away from these films though. They could be bad for your health ;) ...

      Everybody knows war is bad, man. Everybody knows that people die in war, and that those who die leave survivors behind.

      What the hell is that supposed to mean? Yes people die but so what? Maybe I'm just a bleeding heart liberal...my heart is too soft I guess...

      That doesn't change the fact that sometimes war is the only option remaining, or the least horrible option from a set of several horrible options.

      What are the options that are even worse than war? War is generally considered to be the WORST option. There isn't any that are worse. I'm not sure what you have in mind... In any case, the Iraqi war is hardly the last remaining option. Of course, if you are an imperialist or addicted to oil, it may be. But otherwise, it is a bogus war.

      What good would come from broadcasting graphic video of blood and guts? Other than to serve your obvious prurient interest, of course.

      Had to look up the word prurient. You might be misusing the word--not sure. Based on the dictionary definition, it seems to be only applied in the context of lust. Anyway...

      Broadcasting graphic video will show the TRUE nature of war. Many warmongers (who happen to be centrists and moderates) do not have a clue about war. They grow up in an environment without facing the pain of war. Showing the reality will educate them about war. You can argue that they will become resistant or that they can already watch some documentaries. But I disagree. I don't think people will EVER become immune to pain and suffering. Seeing blood makes you feel uneasy--regardless of how often you have seen it. As for people renting documentaries on their own, automatically the conservatives won't do that since film is thought to be driven by liberals. Others won't do it either because it is a waste of time for them (just like how reading the instruction manual for a computer is a waste of time). So overall, I support showing reality. The countless clueless moderates and centrists will actually learn something about life.

      Sivaram Velauthapillai

      --
      Sivaram Velauthapillai
      Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places ;)
    14. Re:the meat of the article is towards the end by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      What are the options that are even worse than war? War is generally considered to be the WORST option. There isn't any that are worse. I'm not sure what you have in mind... In any case, the Iraqi war is hardly the last remaining option. Of course, if you are an imperialist or addicted to oil, it may be. But otherwise, it is a bogus war.

      Well, for one, there's the option of a bigger war, with even more death, gloom and destruction. Had Chamberlain crossed the Channel in 1938 with a wing of heavy bombers behind him there might never have been a World War II. Given the caliber of leader the many nations seem to end up with, sometimes armed conflict (or at least the real threat of such conflict) is the ONLY option. The reality is that the world is highly unstable, economically and politically, and has become dramatically more so since the collapse of the Soviet Empire. Saddam Hussein is only latest in a long line of tin-plated small-penised ex-gangster dictators (North Korea's Kim Jong II comes to mind) and these people are self-serving beyond belief and not particularly rational. Force, and and the credible threat of force, are often the only options available when dealing with them.

      Throwing about terms like "imperialist" and "addicted to oil" serve no purpose. The United States has proven to be far LESS "imperialistic" than any previous superpower (Britain and Russia come to mind as recent examples of true imperialists.) The entire industrialized world is "addicted to oil" for the simple reason that it has considerable value as a source of power and industrial, medical and commercial products. Much of the non-industrialized world is trying very hard to emulate our addiction: the fact that the United States got hooked first is hardly an indictment. On the other hand, keep in mind that a bunch of jacked-up Middle Eastern gangsters called "OPEC" deliberately and with malice aforethought artificially inflated the price of oil as a weapon of economic warefare. That is a dangerous game to play: if you are a drug dealer and you screw over a customer with the power to step on you like a bug you are asking for trouble. The United States intervened twice in recent years, made every effort to reduce casualties among non-combatants, and made no attempt to extend our "Empire." Contrast this to the approach taken by my previous examples: during their Imperial phase either would have simply annexed Iraq, taken over the oil fields and been done with it.

      WE are dependent (unfortunately) upon foreign oil. WE are willing to pay far, far more than it is worth by ANY reasonable measure, and STILL our economy is repeatedly threatened by these thugs. People can bitch about our Middle East involvement as being "just about oil", but that oil happens to involve the lives and livelihoods of hundreds of millions of people, people whose interests our government is mandated to protect.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    15. Re:the meat of the article is towards the end by Lord+Ender · · Score: 1

      All I meant to say was that the concert about the media not reporting on personal tragedies enough is not that big a problem, because people will eventually find out about it anyway in the event that the war gets really out of hand. Your criticizm of the media points to a problem, but it is a small problem.

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    16. Re:the meat of the article is towards the end by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you want some anti-war films...

      In other news, the same Slashdot poster also failed today to understand a basic metaphor.

      Yes people die but so what?

      Basically, yeah. Sometimes the choices are to go to war, resulting in the deaths of X and Y dollars in property damage or to eschew war resulting in the deaths of Z, where Z is significantly larger than X.

      People die. That's life. Our role here is to try to make life good for as many people as possible as much of the time as possible. Sometimes that means war.

      Maybe I'm just a bleeding heart liberal...my heart is too soft I guess...

      I know you're trying to be ironic, but you've hit the nail right on the head. You are a "bleeding-heart liberal," and that's a bad thing. Your heart is too soft, and that's also a bad thing.

      Remember: people who abjure violence are able to do so only to the extent that others are willing to commit violence on their behalf.

      What are the options that are even worse than war?

      A limited war is not as bad as total war. A war of liberation is not as bad as continued life under tyranny. A war against terrorism is not as bad as terrorism itself.

      I could go on and on. I'm sure you get the picture.

      In any case, the Iraqi war is hardly the last remaining option.

      The alternative was what? Status quo? We already know that the status quo was far worse than the war, so what other choices were there? Diplomacy? Twelve years of abject and, indeed, humiliating failure for the United Nations. What else?

      Broadcasting graphic video will show the TRUE nature of war.

      Everybody knows the true nature of war. It's bad. People die, mostly soldiers but also some civilians. What else do you want? The only other possible purposes for showing blood and guts could be (1) to serve the prurient interest, or (2) to sicken the populace and weaken their political will. Option (2) is traditionally known as "sedition," friend, so take care.

      Admit it, you jerk: you want people to be sick to their stomachs so they lose their willingness to fight a just and proper war. You want nothing more than for the west to SURRENDER to the onslaught of barbarianism coming out of the Islamic fringe.

      You sicken me far more than blood and guts.

    17. Re:the meat of the article is towards the end by Sivaram_Velauthapill · · Score: 1

      Well, for one, there's the option of a bigger war, with even more death, gloom and destruction.

      There is no such thing as a bigger war. The reason is because you can only make that observation afterwards, rendering the whole thing meaningless. For instance, many imperialists and capitalists (like Ayn Rand) called for the invasion of USSR circa 60's. Their argument was that the war would be smaller at that time than if it occurred later. Just like the modern neoconvative pre-emptive preventive war doctrine, you cannot prove it. In hindsight, if USA invaded USSR it would have been even worse than if it did not (since USSR collapsed). But if USSR did not collapse would it have been better? You just don't know.

      Your argument of preventing bigger war is the same. When senior US government officials were considering the "Ayn Rand" argument that USA should invade every single Communist country, they were debating that. Fortunately, many did not take the "war-preventing" solution.

      As far as preventing WWII, I don't see how you can say that. It was countries like USA and Britain that supported fascism in the first place. Fascism was thought to be less of an evil than Communism (a view still held by many Americans) and that's what happened. I mean, there was even an Olympics, a world event, during Hitler's regime. You couldn't have stopped WWII (unless you go way back to the 20's or thereabouts). As far as I'm concerned, Germany was going to be Communist or fascist. Countries like Britain chose to support fascism (mostly because they didn't care about Jews and others (there was so much rampant anti-Semiticism at that time)). If Germany did not become fascist, it would have become Communist. On top of all that, if you did intervene in the early years, you would be anti-democratic (kind of like how the US government is in Iraq right now with their plan to ignore democracy and go with a hand-picked "caucus"). So, democrats (not to be confused with the party) certainly wouldn't have supported intervention in German politics at that time.

      The United States has proven to be far LESS "imperialistic" than any previous superpower (Britain and Russia come to mind as recent examples of true imperialists.)

      I am against imperialism--period. You clearly support it. To me, it doesn't matter if you are in top 10 empires or the bottom 10, it's all the same. I am against it on ideological grounds. Britain WAS worse than USA. However, I would put USA and USSR as the same (it's not clear to me if you are referring ot USSR when you say Russia, or Russia at some earlier period). Also, it seems you do not understand the difference between modern imperialism and the past. Because of human progress and the establishment of universal human rights, imperialists are more limited. Nowadays, you only invade countries as a last resort. Your goal is always to establish proxy or client states and spread your military bases all over. USA certainly fits this bill (so did USSR). Also, modern day imperialism has more restrictions. For instance, you cannot take over a country and annex it. No one will recognize that. Therefore, you have to convert countries into proxies and clients. Examples of proxy state of USA is Panama and Kuwait; examples of client states of USA are Saudi Arabia and Colombia.

      Also, what's the point of comparing to other imperialists of the past? I mean, one can pick Rome and say no country has been worse than Rome in the last 250 years and therefore, all modern regimes are good. Hardly a convincing argument--unless you just want to avoid being placed the #1 worst empire. You can always pick someone out there who is worse than you and start claiming that you are not bad at all.

      Contrast this to the approach taken by my previous examples: during their Imperial phase either would have simply annexed Iraq, taken over the oil fields and been done with it.

      It is almost impossible to do that due to the establishment of the UN, internationa

      --
      Sivaram Velauthapillai
      Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places ;)
    18. Re:the meat of the article is towards the end by ebuck · · Score: 1

      Having a cousin that just came back from the Iraq conflict sans use of an arm, I'd say your statement is in poor taste.

      It's easy to believe that nothing happens in these far off, remote conflicts, but in reality there are real people going over there doing things that likely could get them killed (even if the enemy is not present)

      I can vouch that while over in the Desert Storm conflict, the news back home seemed really strange to me (standing in the arena). Truth is, it's mostly wrong, or exaggerated, or fabricated, or seen from a point of view that is more concerned with ratings than reality. Read the news from several different sources (as unrealted as possible) and you'll start to get an idea of what's happening.

      Good luck, you'll need it.

  11. Who submitted the dealie? by mOoZik · · Score: 1

    Who submitted the dealie?

  12. News For Nerds???!!! by Pave+Low · · Score: 0, Interesting
    This story is so not what slashdot normally posts.

    Is the only reason it's posted is because it's about big, evil "megacorps", and gives Michael a reason to injert Clear Channel into this?

    Someone explain how this story is relevant to anybody other than Michael and his agenda.

    --
    SIG:Slashdot: indymedia for nerds.
    1. Re:News For Nerds???!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I remember a day when nerds hated large corporations pulling immoral tricks like this. Then the dot com boom came and for some people here it's all about getting rich and who cares about the moral cost.

    2. Re:News For Nerds???!!! by randyest · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Well, I don't find this particularly compelling either, but it is sort of interesting. It's about how media companies can use technology (affordable studios in the homes of remote "journalists" and newsreaders) to (arguably) mislead listeners and viewers.

      Used to be that you actually had to be in the studio, or you'd have to phone in a report, which would sound distinctly different (read: crappy) than the in-studio hosts, so they'd pretty much fess up that this was a remote phone-in update right away. Now they can have anyone anywhere with very low lag and almost identical quality.

      So, obviously, the fun for the discussion is to think about and discuss (1) what ways this is happening that we don't really know about, (2) what possible future advances will allow, and (3) where we draw the line between "using technology to give better reporting" and "utter fraud". It's interesting in that sense, at least to me.

      For example, if they start using really advanced blue-screen technology and CGI to replace the typical reporter-outside-during-the-hurricane with a fake version of one dry and safe in the studio, but it looks perfectly realistic, and he says "I'm standing out at the pier now Bill, and I tell you the winds and rain are out of control . . . . just amazing!", etc. is it OK? Technically, if they have a screen behind him showing the raw footage they'll morph him into later in post-production, they're technically not lying. But to me, they are lying "technically" when they go that far. It's wrong, but I'm not sure how to stop it (other than people turning the channel), and I definitely don't want too much gummint regulation going on here. So, see, as a seed for thought (if you've got fertile ground ready -- perhaps not) this is pretty decent fodder on a slow news day.

      But in this case, no one actually said the guy was freezing his ass off in Boston, but the quotes I read definitely implied that. And, while it doesn't really invalidate his comments (yes, it is cold here), or really hurt anyone, it is slimy. On the other hand, do they have to come out and say where everyone is reporting from? (Seems like they used to, almost as an issue of pride -- "look at how many remotes we can affort to cull from for you!"). Look, there's another interesting line of thought, to some.

      The other interseting point (again, to me) is about "local" newscasts and such being post-processed national versions with local references edited in, such as "We'll be out at the mall today giving out T-shirts" is edited to insert town names and custom copies are distributed nationwide to dozens of "local" stations that actually have no local anything other than a transmitter run by computers. I think that's slimy too, but I can also see how it makes good business sense (highly cost-effective) . . . unless people actually backlash because of the sliminess.

      So, I guess, besides those points for discussion, what I'm saying is STFU and stop threadcrapping. If you don't like it don't read it. And definitely don't post about it -- no one wants your complaints, just your insight and interesting discussion, which you are clearly lacking in this case.

      --
      everything in moderation
    3. Re:News For Nerds???!!! by XO · · Score: 1

      I have mod points, I want to mod this story down negative 4 for "uninteresting, boring, lame, and trollish"..

      I don't even see how it is even relevent to Michael.

      --
      "Champagne for my real friends - and real pain for my sham friends!" http://ericblade.postalboard.com/
    4. Re:News For Nerds???!!! by JimBobJoe · · Score: 1

      So, obviously, the fun for the discussion is to think about and discuss (1) what ways this is happening that we don't really know about

      Morning radio often interviews all sorts of famous people. They are carrying on as if the famous person were right there, but often I suspect that this is not the case, the famous person is in a studio elsewhere.

  13. WBZ 1030's entire weather staff lives in PA... by LostCluster · · Score: 5, Interesting

    WBZ's weather reporters never experience our weather either. Gary is the main anchor, he always gets his weather information from an AccuWeather personality, and AccuWeather is centered in PA.

    There is another major weather-radio service called Weather Services Corp. That's based out of the Boston area, which like AccuWeather provides weather forcasts delivered by personalties who don't ever actually visit the station's studios, but they never use a national-trademark brand, and they will call their studio anything the station wants them too, such as the "Kiss-FM WeatherDesk".

    So, this has actually been going on for decades, it's just that nobody has noticed...

    1. Re:WBZ 1030's entire weather staff lives in PA... by BoomerSooner · · Score: 1

      You don't need to live where you are forecasting weather. You just need data (and a lot of it). Besides most weather is predicted by computer models now anyway. Doing it by hand is very tedious and error prone (I have taken some meteorology classes when I was in college, and they were more difficult than you'd think, especially with the wind whipping down the plains).

    2. Re:WBZ 1030's entire weather staff lives in PA... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ooooooooO!..klahoma, where the wind comes sweeping down the plain
      and the waving wheat can sure smell sweet
      when the wind comes right behind the rain!

    3. Re:WBZ 1030's entire weather staff lives in PA... by AKnightCowboy · · Score: 1
      they never use a national-trademark brand, and they will call their studio anything the station wants them too, such as the "Kiss-FM WeatherDesk".

      Wow, what a coincidence. You have a KISS FM station too? Those guys really get around.

    4. Re:WBZ 1030's entire weather staff lives in PA... by benny_lama · · Score: 1

      Why does the peson writing the forecast have to live in the local area? I think that the least accurate form of forecasting has to be going outside and seeing what things look like. More likely they are using weather products generated from satellites and NEXRAD and projections from computer models to come up with fairly accurate forecasts. I'd rather have the radio station have someone who is an expert on meterology come up with the forecast then some TV or Radio personality who only knows how to read off a prompter.

      --
      "No Comm, No Bomb"
  14. But, the internet makes us global! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is no local anymore, get used to it!

    1. Re: But, the internet makes us global! by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1


      Yeah, I pretend to send some of my e-mail from Nigeria.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  15. This story is total bullshit by defile · · Score: 4, Funny

    Of course he's in Boston during his broadcasts. I saw it on TV.

    1. Re:This story is total bullshit by LostCluster · · Score: 1

      Nope. He's usually in Boston when he does his radio newscasts, but notice that he didn't turn up on WBZ-TV 4 at all last week.

    2. Re:This story is total bullshit by Sivaram_Velauthapill · · Score: 1

      I think the original message is sacastic. At least that's what I think... see... You rely on one lying media (tv) to prove another lying one (radio)... lol Thinking more about it, that's actually hilarious. lol I can't wait until such mass deception happens on a large scale. Will tv become irrelevant when that happens? Already you can modify video and you can generate some really fake stuff (of course the classical examples are UFO video :) )

      Sivaram Velauthapillai

      --
      Sivaram Velauthapillai
      Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places ;)
    3. Re:This story is total bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes...the UFO videos are...fake...you are doing well to believe that. Nothing to see here. Move along.

  16. So what? by Apro+im · · Score: 3, Insightful

    So who, exactly is he harming? He's telecommuting - and he's not claiming to investigate these things. It's not like those journalists who fake stories that happen in places they've never been. He's just reading a weather report off a computer, which every radio news anchor does, anyway - it's not as if he's claiming to be out there with a thermometer. And to say things like "when do we get a break" does not constitute lying - it's not as if he said "I'm here in Boston, reporting on blah-blah-blah".

    I have many issues with ClearChannel, but frankly, this isn't one of them.

    1. Re:So what? by LostCluster · · Score: 1

      Yep, he's been a reporter in the past... but last week he was functioning at an anchor who is never expected to see things first hand, just process and present the reports that other people are producing to make a complete show.

    2. Re:So what? by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Well, he is trying to create an emotional attachment, a closeness, to his listners so his rating increase.

      The facts about the weather were correct.

      So the question is, is it unethical or immoral for him to imply he was in boston?

      And by saying 'we' he is impling he is experiencing the same weather.

      Is this a big deal? not to me. I do wonder why they kept it secret? is itpolicy? did no one think its a big deal?

      The real question is: Why do so many radio personalities get to work remotly, but so few people who work in the field that developed that technology don't get to?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  17. At least ... by mistert2 · · Score: 5, Funny

    it is not India....yet.

    1. Re:At least ... by euxneks · · Score: 1

      That would be interesting. Everyone living in north america, and working in India.

      --
      in girum imus nocte et consumimur igni
    2. Re:At least ... by WuphonsReach · · Score: 1

      That's exactly what I was thinking... what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

      Heck, that's probably an action-item on the "what-to-do" plan the next time that corporate profits dip and the radio conglomerates. After all, it's a lot cheaper to hire someone in a 3rd world country to do the radio-voice since it's all pre-programmed and completely washed of any creativity by the (semi) local DJ.

      --
      Wolde you bothe eate your cake, and have your cake?
    3. Re:At least ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      That's not gonna happen, because nobody's gonna listen to ol Habib trying to read the news in his horrible accent. It'll sound like he's munching on curry more.

      News broadcasts aren't headed to Bangalore. Nobody would want a worthless Indian curry muncher reading their news.

    4. Re:At least ... by martinX · · Score: 1

      At a hotel in Singapore, they had a Malaysian doorman who had a very solid (to my ears) Yankee accent, though he had never left SE Asia. We asked him how he learned to speak English, and he said "By watching American TV." See, it's not hard to find someone with the right accent...

      --
      When they came for the communists, I said "He's next door. Take him away. Goddam commies."
  18. Does it really matter? by sfbanutt · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I mean really, does it?

    --
    I've wrestled with reality for 35 years and I'm happy to say, I finally won out - Elwood P. Dowd
    1. Re:Does it really matter? by LostCluster · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I mean really, does it?

      Nope. Gary's rarely in the same room with most of the reporters he talks with on his morning show, the sports reporter works in another room in the same building, the traffic reporter is somewhere accross town, the weatherperson is from AccuWeather in PA, and any field reporters are of course out in the field.

      The content decisions are still being made by editors in Boston... and there's no need to hand pieces of paper to the lead anchor anyway because it's all done on computers anyway. The technology exists to push all of the "data on his desk" to Florida, and for him to send back his voice in high quality...

    2. Re:Does it really matter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      No, it doesn't really matter. It's only Boston. If it were a major city, one might be able to get a little upset.

    3. Re:Does it really matter? by michael_cain · · Score: 1
      Gary's rarely in the same room with most of the reporters he talks with on his morning show, the sports reporter works in another room in the same building, the traffic reporter is somewhere accross town, the weatherperson is from AccuWeather in PA, and any field reporters are of course out in the field.

      The content decisions are still being made by editors in Boston... and there's no need to hand pieces of paper to the lead anchor anyway because it's all done on computers anyway. The technology exists to push all of the "data on his desk" to Florida, and for him to send back his voice in high quality...

      Now there would have been a story worthy of "News for Nerds". How do they do a virtual studio distributed over several states? What do they use for voice transport? Digital over modems? What kinds of applications distribute the various "paper" bits to people at remote locations? Does Gary's screen have reminders so that he knows what the temp is in Boston and doesn't slip up? Does he have a remote console so he can control equipment that's in Boston? Are there open source programs to do the job? Could you do it over the Internet -- talkers in six cities doing a single interactive broadcast?

    4. Re:Does it really matter? by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Yes, it matters. Not because Gary is here or the traffic reporter is somewhere else. What matters is that they are doing this for various reasons to increase their market share and make money, and aren't being up front about it. Honestly I don't really care where a DJ is when he's sitting in front of his mike: I just don't like being lied to. This whole effort was designed to keep people believing that they were supporting their own local radio personalities by listening while the broadcasters were saving bucks by centralizing their operations. That's fine ... I'm sure it made good economic sense but then they lied about it. When that came out it (rather predictably) irked a lot of people. What else did they expect?

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    5. Re:Does it really matter? by LostCluster · · Score: 1

      What do they use for voice transport? Digital over modems?
      Typically, it's G.722 over ISDN.

      What kinds of applications distribute the various "paper" bits to people at remote locations?
      Whatever applications are being used in the studio... typically the remote broadcaster logs in using a data channel on the ISDN setup. Basically, there are specialized "show control" software packages for TV and radio that associates scripts with timeslots and estimated reading times.

      Does Gary's screen have reminders so that he knows what the temp is in Boston and doesn't slip up?
      Most likely yes. Most broadcast control programs have a slot on the main screen for the official time and temp at the station's studios, but a cheaper workaround that sometimes is used (even in the main studio) would be WeatherBug. Since WBZ-TV is AWS's Boston TV partner, it'd be easy for him to get a free copy of the no-popup version and then just set it to monitor the WBZ Studio readings. He could then with absolute authority say "It's 6 degrees outside our WBZ studios on Soldiers Field Road."... he didn't say he was there, he just said what the temperature was there.

      Does he have a remote console so he can control equipment that's in Boston?
      Yep, the typical interface is touchscreen-based. Of course, the days of tape playback are practically over in major market radio. It's likely that every element in his show that needs to be recorded has been stored digitally and the system knows where to find it on various hard drives. There is also usually an easy-to-hit 2 or 3 inch button on his desk that is tied into the system, used to indicate that a "live" element has finished and that he wants the next element to begin immediately. (Of course, the next element will only come if it's recorded or opens up the connection to another studio. Network elements that come in live are marked as "hard" start times that can't be moved, only skipped.) Usually, in a complex news show, the same touchscreen interface is duplicated for the sports anchor in his own studio, so he can have direct control over his segments in the program, and there's also an interface for the producers to use.

      Are there open source programs to do the job?
      Nope.

      Could you do it over the Internet -- talkers in six cities doing a single interactive broadcast?
      The Internet is always avoided in such setups. IP protocol is okay, but the public internet has far too much variablity in lag times, and possible unreliablity to be used in broadcasting. That's why ISDN is the weapon of choice, it's a direct-dialed digital connection to the ISDN number of whatever studio you wish, which means the same home-studio can be used for more than one station, and the bandwidth is sure to be circuit-switched on the way there.

    6. Re:Does it really matter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nope. Gary's rarely in the same room with most of the reporters he talks with on his morning show, the sports reporter works in another room in the same building, the traffic reporter is somewhere accross town, the weatherperson is from AccuWeather in PA, and any field reporters are of course out in the field.

      Really? I don't know that. Nobody knows. It's all BS.

      He could and should disclose that he's not in the area. "Damn, it's cold there, good thing I'm in Florida!" would be appropriate.

      Not "It sure is cold! Brrr!". That is what I call "Bullshit", and is just more evidence that the Media is not what it appears to be.

  19. Not a big deal, but..... by mao+che+minh · · Score: 2
    He is making a very personal connection with his viewers, a connection that is built on deception. I'm sure that he has won his fair share of viewers this way.

    I doubt anyone really cares in the end, but his actions do lack integrity, and he could win points by admitting his wrongs and conducting his broadcasts appropriately. Basically, just stop pretending, because now that the cat is out of the bag, everyone will just think he's a retard when they see him "freezing".

  20. It must be what the people want? by fsandford · · Score: 0

    If the ratings wern't there they would pull it off the air. I boycot all clearchannel content after they turned one of the best rock radio stations here in Seattle to mush. Bastards they are!

  21. What my Mom Taught me by iCharles · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Where he's reporting from is irrelevant. I'm not wasting my airtime to tell people where Gary is."

    I a standard my mom taught me probably would let him know: if you can't admit what you are doing, then you probably aren't doing the right thing.

    In the article they make statements like "location doesn't affect reporting," and "the DJ never actually says he's shivering."

    OK. If you don't think it makes a difference, take two seconds to say "my name is John Deaux, and I'm coming to you from Northern Florida. In Where-ever-you-are, USA, it's a bone-chilling five degrees..." If you are afraid to make that little disclosure, then you are implicitly admitting that it does make a difference.

    Of course, I've been thinking that Clear Channel is evil for a while now, for totally different reasons.

    1. Re:What my Mom Taught me by bazarodin · · Score: 1

      I don't understand why you care at all? Who really cares where the anchor is sitting? Was he _actually_ wrong about anything? Did he actually make up news? I just don't see why everyone is getting their panties in a bind. If you don't like the DJ/Reporter/whatever, that's one thing. If the news is wrong, that's another thing. But who cares where the DJ is sitting?!

    2. Re:What my Mom Taught me by bazarodin · · Score: 1

      Also, as seen in other posts for this article, this isn't a ClearChannel station. So you might actually want to come up with some real non-made up reasons to dislike ClearChannel.

    3. Re:What my Mom Taught me by iCharles · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think there are three things.

      First, there has been much concern about media conglomeration. More stations in the hands of fewer people means that fewer views are presented, less choice, more homogenization. Further, if something does become a problem (say, DJ's advocating violence against cyclists), then it is in fewer hands to try to do something about it. So long as it doesn't cause the FCC to investigate, those few hands don't have to. Likewise, the lack of music choice that is often lamented (hey! It's Britney Spears Clone #192!) is part of the problem The practice described in the article is both a symptom of this problem as well as a way for it to be masked.

      Second, I think there is the inherent dishonesty. You're right, on the Great Scale of Things to Worry About, it probably isn't that great (though, on \., I've seen far more trivial matters argued in great detail). However, there is a sense that implying you are "local" when you are in a different timezone just isn't fair.

      Further, creating this "generic" show just strikes me of corporate disrespect. I read another article about this practice, and it describes how one DJ does a dozen morning shows from one control booth. He creates this illusion that he is local with little tweaks.

      I think there is an expectation (mostly through historical means) that the person they listen to on the radio is like them--actually go to the same places, had to deal with the same conditions on the way in, etc. I know when, growing up in southwest Louisiana, you could even hear hints of the areas accent and slang. By making the radio generic, you lose that connection.

    4. Re:What my Mom Taught me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Technically he's still in the same time zone :)

    5. Re:What my Mom Taught me by HeghmoH · · Score: 2, Funny

      "My name is John Deaux, and my presentation tonight will be a little forced, because I've been constipated for a week...."

      What makes your version something that must be said and mine something that must not be said? (Of course, you may think that my version is something that should also be said, but I think most listeners/viewers would disagree.)

      --
      Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
    6. Re:What my Mom Taught me by BroncoInCalifornia · · Score: 1
      "the DJ never actually says he's shivering."

      This is on the level of saying "I did not inhale."

      --

      Religion is the main cause of atheism.

    7. Re: What my Mom Taught me by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1


      > (though, on \., I've seen far more trivial matters argued in great detail)

      Yes, like the proper spelling of "/."

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    8. Re:What my Mom Taught me by Cosmic_Hippo · · Score: 1

      By making the radio generic, you lose that connection.

      Here in Detroit, one of the top rated morning shows is done by local DJs. The Drew and Mike show on WRIF consistantly beats similar syndicated shows such as Howard Stern or Bob and Tom. They are always involved with Detroit sports and local news stories, more than the others and the listeners seem to respond to that. They have been doing their show for about ten years now and have a very large fan base

      I think local radio will always have an edge over the nationally syndicated shows because of the greater flexibility. The syndicated programs have to stick to tighter schedules to the affiliates can fit in their commercial breaks and start their mid day programming on time. Drew and Mike regularly stay on past their usual time without a problem and don't need to plan every single commercial break in advance. This kind of schedule makes for a more entertaining program in my opinion.

    9. Re: What my Mom Taught me by iCharles · · Score: 1

      I'm left handed. :)

    10. Re:What my Mom Taught me by pipingguy · · Score: 1

      OK. If you don't think it makes a difference, take two seconds to say "my name is John Deaux, and I'm coming to you from Northern Florida. In Where-ever-you-are, USA, it's a bone-chilling five degrees..." If you are afraid to make that little disclosure, then you are implicitly admitting that it does make a difference.

      I'd have to agree with that, if only because not mentioning it hints at some insincerity on the announcer's part. The guy's 61 years old, I don't think most of his listeners would slam him for being able to broadcast from a warmer climate for a few weeks per year.

    11. Re:What my Mom Taught me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I a standard my mom taught me probably would let him know: if you can't admit what you are doing, then you probably aren't doing the right thing.

      Virtual PC for Mac doesn't tell the guest operating system it's not running on an x86 processor. Is that a bad thing? ;-)

      Seriously, I agree with the parent post. It's a matter of credibility -- something optional for an 'entertainment' broadcast but integral to anything claiming the moniker of 'news' broadcast.

      If a news worker -- even a 'Ted Baxter' clone -- makes an editorial decision to not be forthright about something as simple and harmless as where he is broadcasting from, that raises a big red flag about his news judgement and his editor's/producer's.

    12. Re: What my Mom Taught me by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1

      LoL.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    13. Re:What my Mom Taught me by JimBobJoe · · Score: 1

      a standard my mom taught me probably would let him know: if you can't admit what you are doing, then you probably aren't doing the right thing.

      There are however times when I sincerely believe that people can't handle the truth.

      In my mind a lie is most serious if it could harm life, liberty, property. If the only harm that a lie can cause is when the person finds out about the lie, then honestly, the truth must be really stupid.

      Here is a great example of that, the truth is indeed stupid. His location has no effect on his reporting, and people were conjuring up artificial attachment concepts in their head to a radio personality who could have been broadcasting from Boston, New Hampshire, NYC, or Tokyo.

      A brouhaha of similar proportions happened here...an engineering professor at Ohio State had an article ghostwritten concerning some random thing, and it was published in the Columbus Dispatch. He did not tell the Dispatch that it was ghostwritten, and they got cheesed off.

      The funny thing is, had they known it was ghostwritten, that would not have bothered them; it's a very common practice. It was the fact that they didn't know that bothered them.

      Of course, people got cheesed off at the ghostwriting concept, which is very very common. (My gf has written articles for the local newspaper for media, and then the "journalist" prints it verbatim and sticks his name on it.) And a lot of people pointed out that this is not necessarily all that much off of plagiarism, and that's a little odd coming from someone in an academic environment.

      I trust the Economist. They almost never tell you who wrote the article. It honestly doesn't matter. I also trust them because they have an opinion and first present facts and then give you the opinion (which they call "analysis.") To me it's very insincere to pretend to be "objective" when really, no one is truly objective.

  22. what else are they "doing for you"? by ack154 · · Score: 1

    "It's just one of the nice little things the station has done for me," said the 61-year-old newsman.

    Really? Who is paying for this then? Is there money that the station is spending to send you there? Or to set up your studio there? When that money could be used to ... I don't know ... make the station better?

    I understand that he may be good, and that by having him at all, it may improve the station... but really, how much is this "two studio" thing costing?

    1. Re:what else are they "doing for you"? by fafaforza · · Score: 1

      I don't believe the radio station is a publicly owned governmental institution, so what difference does it make what they decide to allocate their budget to?

    2. Re:what else are they "doing for you"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're a retard, its a fucking private radio station, they're not accountable to anyone for costs. They could get a gold plated hot air balloon and try to fly it into the sun and they wouldnt have a person to answer to.

    3. Re:what else are they "doing for you"? by glenebob · · Score: 1

      Nobody said the station is paying for it. It could just as easily be that he is paying for it out of pocket and the 'nice thing the station did' is simply letting him telecommute. Maybe they struck a deal where the station pays for some of the equipment or something. The point is, we don't know one way or the other do we?

    4. Re:what else are they "doing for you"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Someone pays for something somewhere. That's how it is.

    5. Re:what else are they "doing for you"? by nerw · · Score: 1
      Sure, the station paid to set up the equipment at Gary's vacation home in Florida - equipment which consists of maybe $5000 worth of an ISDN codec to get the audio back to Boston, a mic and a mixer, a PC connected through a broadband connection to the station's computer system, and a phone line so Gary can talk to his editor back at the station.

      Gary's been doing morning news at WBZ for forty years, and he's a big reason why the station is consistently (by far) top rated in that daypart. He's been talking about retiring since I worked there as his newswriter (1992-97), and being able to work from Florida for part of the winter was a big perk that helped him decide to renew his contract instead of heading down to Florida for good.

      How many spots does WBZ have to sell in morning drive to pay for all the gear they set up in Florida for Gary? At the last rates I was privy to, about ten minutes' worth!

      Scott Fybush (Gary's newswriter at WBZ, 1992-97)

  23. Why is this on Slashdot? by Sophrosyne · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It must be a slow news day... because this has to be one of the most pointless stories around, whether on slashdot or any other news site.
    --Wow some guy broadcasts a news show from home...big freaking deal- The former prime-minister of Canada had a vacation house in Florida as well, and he managed to "run the country" while he was away.
    Look at the logo: News for Nerds. Stuff that matters.
    Someone enlighten me, why should anyone care?

    1. Re:Why is this on Slashdot? by Eminence · · Score: 1

      Yeah, you're right. This site is supposed to be News for nerds, stuff that matters". This story is no news. I'm a nerd, I think, but it doesn't matter for me where is the reporter making a story as long as it is accurate.

    2. Re:Why is this on Slashdot? by Orion442 · · Score: 1

      Maybe because he uses computers to do his shit? "Ohhh, techy..."

    3. Re:Why is this on Slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      because it sure wasn't a dupe!

    4. Re:Why is this on Slashdot? by Idarubicin · · Score: 1
      Look at the logo: News for Nerds. Stuff that matters.

      That's News for Nerds. XOR Stuff that matters. You're incorrectly reading it as News for Nerds. AND Stuff that matters.

      --
      ~Idarubicin
    5. Re:Why is this on Slashdot? by Sophrosyne · · Score: 1

      my point was: why does this matter... I dont care if it's nerdy or not nerdy- just why exactly does it matter?

    6. Re:Why is this on Slashdot? by Your_Mom · · Score: 1

      *lights up some Karma*

      I read the write up, saw that there was no actual story submitted, knew that WBZ is not owned by ClearChannel (I live in the Boston area) and said to myself "Self, I think Micheal posed this..." I look to the author and sure enough, it's him. If it wasn't for the fact that he is almost the only one that posts on weekends, he would have never made it off my killfile.

      --
      Objects in the blog are closer then they ap
    7. Re:Why is this on Slashdot? by protohiro1 · · Score: 1

      This is not the best story ever but it brings up the issue of the de-localization of local radio. A large number of radio djs and/or morning shows (esp the clear channel bunch) are not local at all, but they IMPLY that they are. Which just doesn't sit well with a lot of people.

      --
      Sig removed because it was obnoxious
    8. Re:Why is this on Slashdot? by Sophrosyne · · Score: 1

      well then "a lot of people" need to bring this up with their therapist/psychiatrist.

  24. BFD by macragge · · Score: 1

    Whats the big deal, are you going to get pissed off the next time you visit a web site that shows your locat temperature even though the server is located in india?

    I really don't see what the problem is, its not like the station is trying to scam its listeners.

  25. It comes down to disclosure... by bc90021 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...and how much is enough to be providing accurate information honestly.

    This will happen more and more - the recent financial industry news about dishonesty in companies, mutual funds, is just the beginning. As it becomes easier to do things virtually (ie, they have the capability now to edit live braodcasts, and the capability to replace existing ads with digital ones (see Spider-Man)), guideliness will have to be drawn up to make sure that what people see is actually real. If it's not actually real, people should be informed so that they can make decisions based on actual facts, not supposed ones.

  26. how long? by jeffy124 · · Score: 1

    so how long will it be until a remote radio personality makes a slip up similar to the traveling musician? Something like this:

    Band Member #1, near the end of a concert: Thank you Detroit! We love you!!!
    [crowd goes into surprised silence]
    Band Member #2, whispering to #1: Hey bro, Detroit's tomorrow.

    --
    The One Rule Of Chess You'll Ever Need: Don't play someone who carries a kit in their bookbag.
    1. Re:how long? by LostCluster · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Such slips happen all of the time with small-name radio personalities on small market stations. The most common slip-up is when a planned major event gets canceled at the last minute, while the DJ has already locked-in comments about how great the event was. Really messed up when the DJ says how great a concert was when everybody who had tickets knows it didn't happen...

    2. Re: how long? by Black+Parrot · · Score: 1


      > The most common slip-up is when a planned major event gets canceled at the last minute, while the DJ has already locked-in comments about how great the event was. Really messed up when the DJ says how great a concert was when everybody who had tickets knows it didn't happen...

      Given the quality of the top bands these days, maybe the DJ thought it was great because it was canceled!

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    3. Re:how long? by jeffy124 · · Score: 1

      also happens in newspapers, like this nugget from last year's baseball world series.

      --
      The One Rule Of Chess You'll Ever Need: Don't play someone who carries a kit in their bookbag.
  27. The only thing interesting about this article... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    is the fact that people are actually suprised. Duh.

  28. Not quite relevant by mcc · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This isn't actually relevant, but it amused me.

    On friday cnn.com was running an article about the upcoming Iowa democratic primary. Attatched to this was a photo, labelled as being Dean supporters busing to Iowa from another state, of four or five people standing on a bus and a big guy asleep in one of the seats with a "DEAN FOR PRESIDENT" t-shirt.

    Also that day, cnn.com was running an article about how republican supporters were busing into the areas of democratic primaries to hold pro-Bush rallies in an attempt to blunt the effect of the media attention the democratic primaries drew. Attatched to this article was a picture labelled as the pro-Bush supporters busing in. The picture was the exact same one as from the other story, but with the guy in the "DEAN FOR PRESIDENT" t-shirt cropped out.

    I found this funny.

    1. Re:Not quite relevant by S.Lemmon · · Score: 3, Funny

      Actually they both probally hire out from the same "Rent-a-Rally" service.

    2. Re:Not quite relevant by mcc · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actually they both probally hire out from the same "Rent-a-Rally" service.

      I wonder how long it will be before we have political rallies populated chiefly by virtual "extras" created by digital compositing techniques such as those used to create the armies in the "Lord of the Rings" movies.

      It would certainly be a big win from a convenience standpoint...

    3. Re:Not quite relevant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are some published photos like that.. I wish I could find the link.

      But the website had close-ups of some pictures with crowds of people supposedly welcoming troops to Baghdad or whatnot, and many of them were the same people. It was incredibly fake-looking, there was even one guy (who was closer to the camera), he was in the 'crowd' several times in slightly different poses.

      I wish I could find the damn link.. google turns up quite a few results for fake things in Iraq..

    4. Re:Not quite relevant by Artifakt · · Score: 1

      Back when the stock market took a tumble (89 or so, not the most recent one), I saw a set of two graphs in the local paper. One was for this little crash, one for 1929. The graphs were line for line identical except for color and inflation adjusted dollars, while the text claimed to show the differences that supposedly proved this wasn't the start of another big depression. Text didn't match graphs at all, pointing to a sharp downturn and saying, "this flattened area shows the comeing recession will be neither deep nor long". I remember thinking "Wow, they bothered to print these in color to reassure people". (Color was still very rare then). Looking back, it seems more like their purpose was to panic anyone capable of actually reading the charts.

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
    5. Re:Not quite relevant by FleaPlus · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Oh wow. Do you happen to have links to the articles you mentioned? I tried to find them on cnn, but wasn't successful.

    6. Re:Not quite relevant by TCQuad · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The closest I could come to what the parent said was an article that matched the second description and a picture which matched the first description at CNN. I'm not sure if the poster was confused, CNN corrected or what happened.

    7. Re:Not quite relevant by mcc · · Score: 1

      Yah, that's the story, though I must have seen an earlier version. In this version they seem to have combined the two articles I mentioned into one and correctly labelled the Dean bus pic.

  29. quality control by ir0b0t · · Score: 1

    Its also worth asking whether forcing fewer and more poorly trained journalists to cover increased territories and issues is good or bad journalism.

    Individual journalists may not intentionally set out to deceive audiences, but how competent a job can they do under the operating conditions described in the article? Piss poor.

    Journalists have the only profession important enough to be specifically protected by the bill of rights. But their current situation resources are starved to point of circus pathos.

    Its ironic that the trend (documented by Ben Bagdikian since the 80s in multiple editionis of Media Monopoly) is promoted under the banner of efficiency. What is good for shareholders' retirement income does not always harmonize with the public interest.

    --
    I'm laughing at clouds.
  30. Re:Don't present facts to Michael Sims by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    what'sa matter Michael--can't take a little criticism?

  31. Rush Limbaugh mentions Florida by whovian · · Score: 1

    Um...Rush Limbaugh does occassionaly mention that his studio is in Florida. So he's not hiding it.

    --
    To-do List: Receive telemarketing call during a tornado warning. Check.
    1. Re:Rush Limbaugh mentions Florida by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In fact, every time he's on air from Florida, he says he's broadcasting from "Southern Command".

      One of the local philadelphia morning hosts had radio broadcast equipment installed in his house, so he could broadcast his morning show and still be home with his kids.

      Y100, the popular alternative rock stations, has their offices in Conchehocken, which is about 30 minutes outside of the city.

    2. Re:Rush Limbaugh mentions Florida by ceejayoz · · Score: 1

      Um...Rush Limbaugh doesn't claim to be a local news anchor.

    3. Re:Rush Limbaugh mentions Florida by whovian · · Score: 1
      Right. Somebody should tell WBZ's Peter Casey:

      "He's reporting about Boston and Boston's issues," said Peter Casey, director of news and programming at WBZ Radio. "Where he's reporting from is irrelevant. I'm not wasting my airtime to tell people where Gary is."
      ...

      WBZ's Casey said that with the advancement of technology, it has become common practice for on-air personalities across the industry -- such as Rush Limbaugh -- to anchor programs remotely.

      A non-sequitor on his part AFAIAC.
      --
      To-do List: Receive telemarketing call during a tornado warning. Check.
    4. Re:Rush Limbaugh mentions Florida by LostCluster · · Score: 1

      Um...Rush Limbaugh doesn't claim to be a local news anchor.

      Yep, Rush Limbaugh is not a news anchor. He doesn't report the news, which is the main reason why for the first five minutes of every hour he steps to the side so that a newsbreak can be inserted that does actually report the news. He's a commentator who talks about the news and what his opinions about it are. People can agree or disagree with them, even a person who thinks he sucks but still listens gets counted in the ratings...

    5. Re:Rush Limbaugh mentions Florida by Snake_Plisken · · Score: 1

      30 minutes? Are you walking to the city? Conshohocken is barely outside Philadelphia. Part of your 30 minutes estimate on driving might be cause the local roads are built for carriages from 200 years ago.

      --

      Eat recycled food - it's good for the environment, and OK for you.
  32. Ronalg Reagan in the Cryptonomicon by axolotl_farmer · · Score: 5, Interesting
    This is apparently nothing new.In "In the Beginning was the Command Line" by Neal Stephenson is this passage on Ronald Reagan pretending to report live from ballgames in the 30s!

    When Ronald Reagan was a radio announcer, he used to call baseball games by reading the terse descriptions that trickled in over the telegraph wire and were printed out on a paper tape. He would sit there, all by himself in a padded room with a microphone, and the paper tape would eke out of the machine and crawl over the palm of his hand printed with cryptic abbreviations. If the count went to three and two, Reagan would describe the scene as he saw it in his mind's eye: "The brawny left-hander steps out of the batter's box to wipe the sweat from his brow. The umpire steps forward to sweep the dirt from home plate." and so on. When the cryptogram on the paper tape announced a base hit, he would whack the edge of the table with a pencil, creating a little sound effect, and describe the arc of the ball as if he could actually see it. His listeners, many of whom presumably thought that Reagan was actually at the ballpark watching the game, would reconstruct the scene in their minds according to his descriptions.
    1. Re:Ronalg Reagan in the Cryptonomicon by FFFish · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The US Adminstration does pretty much the same thing.

      "The villianous Saddam Hussein is stockpiling mountains of weapons of mass destruction. He strides from his palace, his aides cowering in terror. With a stony hatred in his eyes, he points to a small town in north Idaho. 'Kill them all,' he commands. His aides jump to action.

      Meanwhile, in the White House, George Bush is informed of the Evil One's plans. 'Bring it on,' the President states flatly."

      Etcetera. It's the fairy tale everyone in the government loves to tell its adoring public.

      Meanwhile, the frontline boys continue to die.

      Because so many people love to hear the fairy tales, I'm sure to now lose karma.

      --

      --
      Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
    2. Re:Ronalg Reagan in the Cryptonomicon by Ingtar · · Score: 1

      Reagan was hardly the only one doing this, it was a very common practice, especially for sporting events. Come to think of it, it's even immortalized in the baseball classic "Bull Durham".

      --
      Now I've got a mind / full of wicked designs / I've got a non-stop hole in my head / imagination - Poe
    3. Re:Ronalg Reagan in the Cryptonomicon by operagost · · Score: 1

      Yes, because you're offtopic and wrong.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    4. Re:Ronalg Reagan in the Cryptonomicon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes this is off topic but I want to say it anyway.

      Well, the first thing I want to say is..."Mandate my ass!"

      Because it seems as though we've been convinced that 26% of the registered voters, not even 26% of the American people, but 26% of the registered voters form a mandate - or a landslide. 21% voted for Skippy and 3, 4% voted for somebody else who might have been running.

      But, oh yeah, I remember. In this year that we have now declared the year from Shogun to Reagan, I remember what I said about Reagan...meant it. Acted like an actor...Hollyweird. Acted like a liberal. Acted like General Franco when he acted like governor of California, then he acted like a republican. Then he acted like somebody was going to vote for him for president. And now we act like 26% of the registered voters is actually a mandate. We're all actors in this I suppose.

      What has happened is that in the last 20 years, America has changed from a producer to a consumer. And all consumers know that when the producer names the tune...the consumer has got to dance. That's the way it is. We used to be a producer - very inflexible at that, and now we are consumers and, finding it difficult to understand. Natural resources and minerals will change your world. The Arabs used to be in the 3rd World. They have bought the 2nd World and put a firm down payment on the 1st one. Controlling your resources we'll control your world. This country has been surprised by the way the world looks now. They don't know if they want to be Matt Dillon or Bob Dylan. They don't know if they want to be diplomats or continue the same policy - of nuclear nightmare diplomacy. John Foster Dulles ain't nothing but the name of an airport now.

      The idea concerns the fact that this country wants nostalgia. They want to go back as far as they can - even if it's only as far as last week. Not to face now or tomorrow, but to face backwards. And yesterday was the day of our cinema heroes riding to the rescue at the last possible moment. The day of the man in the white hat or the man on the white horse - or the man who always came to save America at the last moment - someone always came to save America at the last moment - especially in "B" movies. And when America found itself having a hard time facing the future, they looked for people like John Wayne. But since John Wayne was no longer available, they settled for Ronald Reagan - and it has placed us in a situation that we can only look at - like a "B" movie.

      Come with us back to those inglorious days when heroes weren't zeros. Before fair was square. When the cavalry came straight away and all-American men were like Hemingway to the days of the wondrous "B" movie. The producer underwritten by all the millionaires necessary will be Casper "The Defensive" Weinberger - no more animated choice is available. The director will be Attila the Haig, running around frantically declaring himself in control and in charge. The ultimate realization of the inmates taking over at the asylum. The screenplay will be adapted from the book called "Voodoo Economics" by George "Papa Doc" Bush. Music by the "Village People" the very military "Macho Man."

      "Company!!!"
      "Macho, macho man!"
      " Two-three-four."
      " He likes to be - well, you get the point."
      "Huuut! Your left! Your left! Your left...right, left, right, left, right...!"

      A theme song for saber-rallying and selling wars door-to-door. Remember, we're looking for the closest thing we can find to John Wayne. Cliches abound like kangaroos - courtesy of some spaced out Marlin Perkins, a Reagan contemporary. Cliches like, "itchy trigger finger" and "tall in the saddle" and "riding off or on into the sunset." Cliches like, "Get off of my planet by sundown!" More so than cliches like, "he died with his boots on." Marine tough the man is. Bogart tough the man is. Cagney tough the man is. Hollywood tough the man is. Cheap stick tough. And Bonzo's substantial. The ultimate in synthetic selling: A Madison Avenue masterpiece - a miracle - a c

    5. Re:Ronalg Reagan in the Cryptonomicon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      please, stop breathing, we can't spare the oxygen for such stupidity.

    6. Re:Ronalg Reagan in the Cryptonomicon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This kind of deception is essential training for a US President. If they telll the truth, the turn out like Carter.

    7. Re:Ronalg Reagan in the Cryptonomicon by Alaska+Jack · · Score: 1

      You posted this to the wrong thread. I think you meant to post it to the thread about how spammers used long, rambling, nonsensical strings of random words to defeat bayesian filters.

      Alaska Jack

  33. It's called telecommuting! by Bob+Cat+-+NYMPHS · · Score: 1

    It saves travel time and fossil fuels. Why would anyone object?

  34. get your priorities straight by Leers · · Score: 1

    TV and radio news lie all the time and cover up all sorts of dirty stories. Why don't we worry about lies that actually make a difference?

    1. Re:get your priorities straight by Night+Goat · · Score: 1

      Why not worry about BOTH? If you have a good story to submit, why don't you do that? Apparently the Boston Globe thought this story was important.

    2. Re:get your priorities straight by Leers · · Score: 1
      it's worth asking the question: when does it cross the line into deception?
      All I'm trying to say is the line was crossed along time ago. Its like if somebody took a bulldozer and started demolishing your house, and your complaining about them messing up the garden.
  35. This is why I don't listen to the radio. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "He's reporting about Boston and Boston's issues," said Peter Casey, director of news and programming at WBZ Radio. "Where he's reporting from is irrelevant. I'm not wasting my airtime to tell people where Gary is."

    Well of course you're not going to "waste your airtime" telling people the truth, you cock-smoking little lying teabagger. Between this kind of crap and the fact that Clear Channel is nothing but a soulless corporate garbage dispenser rather than an actual radio network, I'm not surprised at these antics at all. Is it any wonder that more and more people would rather download their music, weather from iTunes, Kazaa or wherever else? DIE, CORPORATE RADIO. DIE ALL OF YOU.

  36. we already have virtual war by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Haven't you played Call of Duty?

  37. Re:THIS MEANS WAR !!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If anyone's interested, here's the actual complaint that was filed: No, wait, it's here.

  38. Rush Limbaugh by BandwidthHog · · Score: 1

    it has become common practice for on-air personalities across the industry -- such as Rush Limbaugh -- to anchor programs remotely.

    Umm, I'm the last person you'll ever meet that would stand up and defened Rush Limbaugh, but isn't what he does known as <fingerquotes>syndication</fingerquotes>?

    --

    Quantum materiae materietur marmota monax si marmota monax materiam possit materiari?
    1. Re:Rush Limbaugh by Kamel+Jockey · · Score: 1

      but isn't what he does known as <fingerquotes>syndication</fingerquotes&g t;

      Rush Limbaugh always announces when he is broadcasting from the EIB Southern Command as well. When I read the article, I didn't see any reason for his name and what he did to be mentioned because its clearly not relevant to what the original DJ was doing.

      --
      In case of fire, do not use elevator. Use water!
  39. The media you don't see by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Using the 1992 presidential election as his springboard, documentary filmmaker Brian Springer captures the behind-the-scenes maneuverings of politicians and newscasters in the early 1990s. Pat Robertson banters about "homos," Al Gore learns how to avoid abortion questions, George Bush talks to Larry King about halcyon -- all presuming they're off camera. Composed of 100% unauthorized satellite footage, Spin is a surreal expose of media-constructed reality.

    (588 MB download)
    www.illegal-art.org/video/vcd/Spin_1.mpg

  40. Come on now... by Henry+Stern · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Aren't there more constructive ways of spending energy than complaining about a guy who is lucky enough to be able to work from his vacation home?

    Yeeesh.

    P.S. What does Clear Channel have to do with this, anyway?

    1. Re:Come on now... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It has everything to do with CC. The article describe their business model and how absurd it is.

    2. Re:Come on now... by antiMStroll · · Score: 1

      Agreed. How about a story about pandemic deception by companies entrusted with the publicly-owned airwaves?

  41. Local News Anchor Feels Pain from Afar by phunster · · Score: 0

    "He's reporting about Boston and Boston's issues," said Peter Casey, director of news and programming at WBZ Radio. "Where he's reporting from is irrelevant. I'm not wasting my airtime to tell people where Gary is."

    Ahem, you air time? I think not. It's our air which you are being allowed to use "for the public good". As soon as we decide that you are not in our best interests you are history dude.

    OMFG, what am I saying, Bush in the White House and Powell at the FCC, never mind.

    1. Re:Local News Anchor Feels Pain from Afar by boobsea · · Score: 1

      I don't care where the anchors are reporting from. As long as the news is actually news and not made up, its all good.

      Would you object to reading a newspaper that reported on your town's local news every day but was layed out and printed in some other city before it came to you?

      The point is - someone in your city reported the news before it came to that anchor's attention.

      I really dont see what your or Michael's problem is.

    2. Re:Local News Anchor Feels Pain from Afar by The+Monster · · Score: 1
      Would you object to reading a newspaper that reported on your town's local news every day but was layed out and printed in some other city before it came to you?
      You apparently don't know much about the newspaper business. It's not uncommon for rural newspapers to be printed in a larger city where the economies of scale allow for better equipment. In some cases, the rural papers are even owned by the big-city paper, and maintain a token local editorial and reportage presence, as well as the ad sales force.
      --

      [100% ISO 646 Compliant]
      SVM, ERGO MONSTRO.

    3. Re:Local News Anchor Feels Pain from Afar by boobsea · · Score: 1

      You apparently don't know much about the newspaper business. It's not uncommon for rural newspapers to be printed in a larger city where the economies of scale allow for better equipment. In some cases, the rural papers are even owned by the big-city paper, and maintain a token local editorial and reportage presence, as well as the ad sales force.

      I think you need to re-read what I said.

      I never said that this doesnt happen, nor did I express any objections to that practice. I was making an analogy so that the original poster could see that such practices are common and have no reason to be not accepted.

  42. A lie is a lie is a lie is a lie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why so much discussion? Of course it's a lie. And lying is bad.

    If you knowinglt say "X"
    while the fact is "Y"
    then you lie.

    There is no difference between a 'small' lie 'that hurts nobody' and a 'big lie'. A lie is a lie. The problem is that if someone starts 'small', his conscience starts to get weakened. He'll find it easier and easier to lie. It goes from worse to worse. Words have no meaning anymore. The shame is leaving. Next step is abuse of words (deceipt) for manipulation, getting things done from other people. In the end everyone EXPECTS the other to lie and nobody (righfully) can believe anything someone tells. Then we start to pay auditors to verify the words. But of course, they are people like you and me; and lots of those firms will whore for money. Look at society. Isn't being a CEO little more than whoring with the financial community, lying to customers, hiring PR firms to sell even better lies? Yes, this culture likes to be lied to.

    One slight example. Why is there a huge industry in books / series / shows about weight loss? Apart from the primary reason (the lie that a woman is not ok, cannot be loved if she's overweight), the second reason is that people want to believe lies like '10 steps to lose weight'. While two words would suffice: "eat less".

    Fucked up world.

  43. Hey Michael... by liquidsin · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Just a quick question. Since there is absolutely nothing in the linked article about Clear Channel or anyone else making up news from central studios, would you care to post us a link to THAT story too? It sounds like a good one.

    --
    do not read this line twice.
  44. Autocue by fozzmeister · · Score: 1

    if an autocue says "brr its chilly" the presenter says "brr its chilly" whether he/she thinks so or not. as a lot of presenters just read of autocue's is it any more lying to read off an autocue somewhere hot than somewhere cold, i don't think so (btw i don't know whether he uses an autocue or not, but some do, which i think is enough to justify my opinion)

  45. I can't believe it! This must be stopped! by teamhasnoi · · Score: 2, Funny

    Clear Channel uses *real people* in their broadcasts?!

  46. No news, just PR most of the time... by mankey+wanker · · Score: 1

    Wake up, people.

    "Toxic Sludge Is Good For You! Lies, Damn Lies and the Public Relations Industry"

    "There's no money for real journalism, just play that PR video and we'll slap on one of our local newscasters to bookend the piece. No one will know the difference."

    "But Boss, how is this different from a commercial -- this tape is from freaking Pfizer!"

    "Do you ever want Rupert Murdoch to even know who you are?"

    To overcome the lies you have to read a lot, come to your own conclusions, and THINK!

    1. Re:No news, just PR most of the time... by Mr12inch(Powerbook) · · Score: 1

      I couldn't have said it better myself. If you want real news, try NPR or Democracy Now. The rest are just one giant fsck'n commercial. But seriously, learn to think for your self and interpret information intelligently, regardless of the source.

      --
      every time a republican dies a queer angel gets his wings
  47. It's called casuistics by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can decive people without actually having to lie.
    For a great example see http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0310793/

  48. Not Clear Channel by iCharles · · Score: 1

    Point taken. I have read other material that indicates that Clear Channel participates in this practice.

    Further, in 2003, several Clear Channel morning programs advocated violence against cyclists. There was limited response at the corporate level. It occurred over a several month period. Happening in one market is an anomaly. Two, and it could be that they didn't spread the word. After that, though, and it's really a question of why the corporate parent didn't say, "knock it off all of you!"

    I have real non-made up reasons.

    1. Re:Not Clear Channel by jeffkjo1 · · Score: 1

      I live in one of those markets. Raleigh Durham clear channel radio station G105 has a morning show hosted by Bob and Cheri.

      There was a shitload of trouble that Bob got into as a result of this. The station was forced to issue a formal apology and has run several pro-cylcing awareness type PSA's. The Bob and Cheri show was also suspended (sadly, for only 2 days.)

      I don't listen to G105 (the market we are in, thankfully, has alternatives to clear channel, both small and corporate), but I know that they've done quite a few stunts to pull in listeners that backfired royally over the past few years. Their FCC renewal comes up soon, and though I feel that the FCC has slacked off in their responsibilites (the whole 'public interest thing'... since when is advocating cyclist violence acting in the public interest?), I do hope that their liscense is revoked, or that they are at least fined.

    2. Re:Not Clear Channel by Awptimus+Prime · · Score: 1

      I recall the cyclist remarks at their peak.

      That's when I was commuting about 70 miles a week by bike. Sure, i'll play along if you want to make comments on the super-hero helment and tight pants -- but when jokes are being made about harming cyclists by DJ's, it's a little out of hand.

      If you think it's okay, then fine, let's start conspiring to beat the hell out of any DJ's we find in public places. What? No, really. It was okay when it was people on bikes.

    3. Re:Not Clear Channel by Artifakt · · Score: 1

      In the army, I saw people face at least article 15's for similar actions. That's a _non_ judicial punishment, less than a court marshal can dish out. Typically it involves taking two weeks pay, making the person stay on post for those two weeks, and such. In a few cases where the incitement to bodily harm was particularly severe, a full court threw someone into Ft. Levenworth for 2-3 years or so. In the civilian world, I'm sure many of you could think of comparable penalties, from loss of job, to loss of liscences, to actual jail time. These people faced two days supension instead. These people are a priveleged class, and they don't even know it.

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
  49. Facts in journalism by robnauta · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's simple, journalists must broadcast verifyable facts and speak the truth. Or else they are columnists and should identify themselves as such.

    I'd recommend everyone to watch the movie Shattered Glass, it's a good thriller about a reporter who gets caught on a minor error and then sees his house of cards he built by going further and further by inserting false facts and bogus stories into the magazine he wrote for, untill his fall. He was eventually fired on the spot. It's based on a true story.

    1. Re:Facts in journalism by Sancho · · Score: 1

      But where should those verifiable facts be true? That's what this article asks. If I'm in a small town watching a Waco station and they say it's 20 below, does that mean that they are lying if everyone in their broadcast area isn't seeing temps of 20 below? Of course not, since we know (assume) that the place where it's 20 below is the same place that the broadcasting station is. What if it's less obvious, say a web radiocast. Is it a verifiable fact that it's 20 below if I'm listening to it on the web from Hawaii? It's not 20 below where I'm listening to it.

      Most of the laws governing newscasts were written in a time before this sort of information dispersal was possible. The concept of being able to telecommute from Florida to Boston was simply unheard of. It's time to rethink the laws, rather than getting all up in arms about a guy telling BOSTON temperatures to a BOSTON audience from a BOSTON broadcaster, even though he's telecommuting from Florida.

    2. Re:Facts in journalism by LostCluster · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Correct, and if he says "it's 20 below outside the WBZ studios" and it really is, he's telling the truth. One might think that the only way for him to know that exact number is to be at the studios, but they're flat-out wrong... anybody who can download WeatherBug can get the realtime temperature reading from a unit installed outside of the WBZ studios.

      I'd think he was well aware to not use "here in Boston" phrase constructions when he was broadcasting from his house in Florida. Technically, he's almost always wrong when he says "here in Boston" because WBZ's main studios are actually in the community of Allston, MA... and their transmitter is actually in Hull, MA. The station is actually licensed to serve the community of Boston, but a radio station doesn't actually have to be located in it's city of licensed, just close enough so that it covers its city with a "city grade" signal quality.

    3. Re:Facts in journalism by nerw · · Score: 1

      From the "beyond nitpicking" dept...Allston is a neighborhood in the city of Boston, so "here in Boston" is perfectly valid - especially if WBZ is on their 10 kilowatt backup transmitter at the studio when he's saying it :-)

  50. This isn't surprisng by mrkurt · · Score: 1

    Here in Columbus, (one of) our ClearChannel stations, WTVN, has a morning weatherman, Pat Pagano, who comes to us from... New York City or thereabouts. The morning jock, Bob Connors, also seems to have daily talks with this or that ABC News reporter. I've known about Pat being in New York for many years now; Mr. Connors has always been in Columbus. I consider it a matter of using the available talent that you have, wherever they may be./p

    --
    Always look on the briight side of life! (whistle, whistle)
    1. Re:This isn't surprisng by aclute · · Score: 1

      Actually, Connors broadcast a good part of *his* show from his house in Florida during the winter as well.

      When I saw this article, I assumed it was about him.

  51. I don't know... by Zigg · · Score: 1

    When does michael's paranoia cross the line into just plain annoying?

    Oh, wait, it already has, hasn't it.

    Guess it's time to go play with the story filters. Either that, or we can get an RFID chip stuck on him, and convince him he needs to live in a lead-lined room for the rest of his life.

  52. We'll see who laughs last by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We'll see who laughs last when his job is exported to India!

  53. Distortion of new is not a crime by ip · · Score: 3, Interesting

    As ghastly as it might seem, this issue has been tested in court. When Akre and Wilson sued Fox in Florida under the Whistleblower act, for altering an rbgd story, after initially winning a $425K judgment, they lost an appeal because the Whistleblower Act only protects people resisting employer crime, and it was deemed that distorting the news, and falsifying news stories is not a crime.
    It seems to me that pretending to be local is a far lesser offense.

    http://www.organicconsumers.org/rbgh/moreakrestu ff .cfm

    http://www.foxbghsuit.com/release022803.htm

    Cheers,
    --Stewart

    1. Re:Distortion of new is not a crime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Good job there - a bunch of idiot reporters discover that yes, the First Amendment applies to corporations. What a bunch of fucks, they want Congress to pass a law abridging the freedom of speech for news casters, all because they were fired for refusing to report a story that the station wanted to report.

      Well excuse me that I don't care about their plight. They need to pay the lawyers fees that Fox wasted defending themselves on a frivilous lawsuit and then just shut up. Guess what - if I started spouting off about things about my company without following the company line I'd probably be fired too. They had no case and their lawyers should have told them that from the get go. Maybe they should sue their lawyers for suggesting they even had a case.

      Even though people here don't seem to want to believe it, corporations have First Amendment rights too...

  54. The anchors may think it's great now. by cat_jesus · · Score: 1

    But wait until the networks realize it's incredibly cheaper to pay for an Indian with a newly localized accent to do the same thing. You can bet the Indian guy won't have a problem with any of those pesky ethics.

  55. Credibility Matters by velkr0 · · Score: 1

    it's a matter of credibility

    People develop 'relationships' with their radio personalities. Listeners get a lot of information from the radio, sure it may just be weather or traffic, but what happens when more important stories are covered? I know listeners have to be more sceptical of what they hear on the radio, but the media should strive to uphold an honest relationship with their listeners.

    - "It's really cold out here" yeah right, how's the line for Space Mountain?

    1. Re:Credibility Matters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're right. I fully agree.

  56. Tour of the station by mrpuffypants · · Score: 5, Interesting

    A few years back I took a tour of KDGE here in dallas. The Edge is probably one of the biggest stations in the DFW metroplex, and there are a few other stations based out of the same offices.

    Well, as we went into the booth for the 'oldies' station the DJ started talking to us and mentioned that he was recording the morning show for Phoenix that would air tomorrow. He also said that he was the voice for something like 6 other stations, just with different names, personas, etc.

    Also, back in my small hometown the local Clear Channel station ditched the local morning guys and decided to go with some syndicated bullshit that is generic for ANY market; Think of them saying "Man, it sure is cold!" "Hell yeah!" and of course all of the call-in stuff is BS to the extreme. Call the number, give the `DJ` your request and it may be considered by the CC people if its requested in enough numbers.

    You know what's a lot more satisfying? What lets you listen to the song a bunch of times, even on your iPod? Fucking KaZaa. Download music. Why would you request something then wait 4 hours for it to come on the radio?

    1. Re:Tour of the station by Lenolium · · Score: 1

      Eh, it's nothing new. I worked at an smaller radio station, but big enough that it was spread through a couple of markets.

      The music choice on those stations were small enough that they never did requests, they would record the call, and when the song came up, they would play it back. Typically it would be just over an hour between when the frequently requested songs were played back to back.

      Gave me hell when I was trying to diagnose a problem with one of the audio servers, because it always seemed to crash pretty close to this one song ("Linkin Park - In The End"), so we reencoded that song, reuploaded it, ran it through some wav checkers, and everything turned up fine. Then I scanned through the log files, and found out that it played around 26-30 times A DAY, so no matter when those guys crashed, it would be somewhere near/in the queue.

  57. We'll see by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    We'll see who laughs last when his job is exported overseas!

  58. At least... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    At least he wasn't arrested for rapping an intern... Like some local DJs...

  59. Clear Channel music isn't centralized by kitzilla · · Score: 3, Informative
    Local Clear Channel stations make their own music decisions. We all share our local research, but the company NEVER dictates which songs we play. Period.

    Those who say differently are lying, guessing, or wishing.

    Other companies have their own policies. But that's how we do it at CC.

    --
    This is my post. There are many others like it. If you don't like what you read here, go try one of the others.
    1. Re:Clear Channel music isn't centralized by LostCluster · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Local Clear Channel stations make their own music decisions. We all share our local research, but the company NEVER dictates which songs we play. Period.

      Yep. People are all up in arms about the DJs being from out of town, but DJs have had little to no say in what songs get played for years. The computer generates a playlist, with maybe a few holes for requests or DJ selections... any deviations from the computer-asigned schedule are logged and subject to review by the PD after it happens, override the schedule the wrong way and the PD will want to have a talk with the DJ...

    2. Re:Clear Channel music isn't centralized by Monx · · Score: 5, Interesting

      the company NEVER dictates which songs we play. Period.

      What about the refusal to play "Imagine" for a while after 9/11? Or the ban on playing the Dixie Chicks.

    3. Re:Clear Channel music isn't centralized by _xeno_ · · Score: 1
      Or the ban on playing the Dixie Chicks.

      Oh, come on, that's just good taste. :P

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
    4. Re:Clear Channel music isn't centralized by trmj · · Score: 1

      Quoth another poster, "computer-generated playlists"

      Because those playlists are generated in-house, and factor in which songs a label is paying more to push into rotation and other such revinue-based decisions.

      And, by the way, I said nothing about the whole schedule, only the TRL top 10s, which is information I got directly from a CC press release bragging about how their technology helps people hear what they want (them) to hear.

      But hey, I'm just guessing/don't know what I'm talking about/whatever else. My bad.

      --
      Work sucked, until it became unemployment, when it became slightly more tolerable. -Tet
    5. Re:Clear Channel music isn't centralized by LostCluster · · Score: 4, Informative

      Clear Channel never put out a "Banned Songs List" from corperate. What sparked that rumor was the fact that local PDs started contributing song names on a "Songs that it would be a bad idea to play right now..." thread that formed on their intranet message boards. That thread circulated as PDs were rushing to reprogram their computers to avoid playing songs that would either be too depressing or had gained a second meaning because of 9/11. A parellel list of songs that were better to play also got spread arround, and some instant-hits such as a remix of Enya's Only Time with news quotes inserted got created and spread as a result.

      There wasn't any order from corperate as much as there was an online groupthink session among the people who had all been tasked with the same responsiblity.

      The "ban" on playing the Dixie Chicks was requested by their own fans. See, they lost a lot of fans when their lead singer made a dumb comment in Europe that got reported stateside. Requests and album sales plumeted immedately, and as a result of those drops, they started falling off of radio playlists. You can't be on a Top 40 station if there are 40 songs more popular than you...

    6. Re:Clear Channel music isn't centralized by Mr12inch(Powerbook) · · Score: 1

      And how does a song get "popular"? By being played on the fuckin' radio, dipshit. Or, where I come from, by not being played on the radio:-) Support GOOD MUSIC, turn OFF your radio and go to some local concerts.

      --
      every time a republican dies a queer angel gets his wings
    7. Re:Clear Channel music isn't centralized by kitzilla · · Score: 4, Informative
      You are referring to an informal, non-binding, and rather oddball list circulated by a few CC programmers shortly after 9-11. It had no weight at all, was not issued by the company, and was rather ignored by virtually all CC PDs (including me).

      In any case, al lot of folks sort of lost their minds after 9-11. I don't fault the PDs who made up the list. They were really trying their best no to rub salt into listeners' wounds.

      As for the Dixie Chicks, Clear Channel NEVER banned them as a company. Many stations pulled their records after getting hundreds or thousands of listener complains. My stations chose to keep playing them, but we've backed off in recent months. The music research comes back looking horrible. But that's the decision of our listeners, not Clear Channel.

      I can think of at least one radio company which *did* officially ban the Chicks: Cumulus Media. Go picket THEM.

      --
      This is my post. There are many others like it. If you don't like what you read here, go try one of the others.
    8. Re:Clear Channel music isn't centralized by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Turn it off, turn on the radio, nah fuck it turn it off
      Fear is your only god on the radio
      Nah fuck it, your saviour's my guillotine, crosses and kerosene
      Flex tha cerebellum, fire, uh!
      Somebody gotta shell 'em
      These evil angels lists, hittin' tha AM playlist
      Paid ta say this
      That one inhuman, illegal, single woman
      Tha one wit out a room
      The transmissions wippin' our backs
      Yeah, comin' down like bats from Stacy Coon
      Terror's tha product ya push
      Well I'm a truth addict, oh shit I gotta headrush
      Tha sheep tremble an here come tha votes
      Thrown from tha throat, new cages and scapegoats
      One caution tha mics a detonator unwound
      Ta shut down tha devil sound"

      I don't think I've ever heard that song on anything other than college radio....

      Oh yea: I think he's a dipshit too

    9. Re:Clear Channel music isn't centralized by kitzilla · · Score: 1
      Because those playlists are generated in-house, and factor in which songs a label is paying more to push into rotation and other such revinue-based decisions.

      No, we NEVER factor the wants and desires of record companies into our rotation decisions. That would be stupid, and we're not paid to be stupid.

      Record companies want us to play untested, unfamiliar music (to develop new product). We want tested, hit music that's popular with the largest segment of our target audience. Radio and the record industry want entirely different things out of radio airplay.

      Speaking entirely from a business standpoint, we radio programmers are responsible for multi-million dollar radio stations. If I advance play for crap records just because some record company wants to farm some new artist, my ratings will decline. Then I lose my job (which I value). It's the same for all other programmers. We base our music on the response of our listeners.

      --
      This is my post. There are many others like it. If you don't like what you read here, go try one of the others.
    10. Re:Clear Channel music isn't centralized by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Picket them?

      Fuck I'd rather someone go tyler durden on all your asses.

      Manipulative, monopolistic fuckwads.

    11. Re:Clear Channel music isn't centralized by kitzilla · · Score: 1
      Oh...and no computer genetrates any of my stations' playlist, thanks. Human beings decide which songs go into a given level of rotation (spins per week).

      Most of us schedule our music hours using a hoary old DOS (yes, DOS) program called Selector. It drops songs in the slots we define. But it's just a highly glorified card file, and is edited by hand.

      DOS: still at work on a radio station near you.

      --
      This is my post. There are many others like it. If you don't like what you read here, go try one of the others.
    12. Re:Clear Channel music isn't centralized by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since there is a Clear Channel employee around, I'd like to know what's up with the rash of retard CC DJs advocating violence against cyclists. I know CC has been apologizing but how did it get started in the first place?

      I don't care about your crappy programming, but when you folks start encouraging people to run me off the road, I get displeased.

    13. Re:Clear Channel music isn't centralized by Monx · · Score: 1

      In Miami, Florida, the three or four Clear Channel stations worked together to prevent the playing of some songs -- going so far as to deny listener requests. After word got out, they reversed their decision. In any case, how is "Imagine" a bad song to hear as war looms? It might take people's minds off of revenge and back on making the world better for everyone so that things like 9/11 stop happening.

    14. Re:Clear Channel music isn't centralized by CoreyG · · Score: 1

      Is it also the local station's decision to speed up the tempo of all music played on a Clear Channel station?

    15. Re:Clear Channel music isn't centralized by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "In any case, al lot of folks sort of lost their minds after 9-11."

      like the government of the USA and 70% of the populace?

    16. Re:Clear Channel music isn't centralized by gertsenl · · Score: 1
      Yep. People are all up in arms about the DJs being from out of town, but DJs have had little to no say in what songs get played for years. The computer generates a playlist, with maybe a few holes for requests or DJ selections... any deviations from the computer-asigned schedule are logged and subject to review by the PD after it happens, override the schedule the wrong way and the PD will want to have a talk with the DJ...

      Unless of course its Flush the Format Friday!

      --
      --Leo
    17. Re:Clear Channel music isn't centralized by madcow_ucsb · · Score: 1

      Not to flame, but how *do* you guys determine what's popular? Typically people decide they like music they hear on the radio, so the most requested songs are going to be those that are already played the most...?

      I know a guy who worked for a station (I think it was an infinity one though) and said that, for example, requests were a complete sham, since the vast majority of the time, the song being requested is already in the playlist within the next hour or so. Which is why when I was driving cross-country in Summer '02, I swear to god probably >60% of the time when one radio station faded and I found another it was playing By the Way by the Red Hot Chili Peppers or Standing Still by Jewel. Now, over a year later, if I hear either of those songs, I instinctively turn off the radio completely. I don't even search around for another station, since it's drilled in my head that I'll probably just find the other song there, mocking me.

      That said I wish they'd just cut the crap and lose the DJs altogether. Then we still get crappy music, but at least we don't have the inane chatter between commercials and maybe, *just maybe* I could actually hear more than two songs on my 45 minute morning commute. Instead I get to choose between Howard Stern (yay another stripper interview!), Lamont & Tonelli (yay a three hour sleep train commercial), or Greg Kihn (yay we're all morally bankrupt and listen to bad music, even though you don't play any). *sigh* I need an ipod.

    18. Re:Clear Channel music isn't centralized by Blic · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Wow, I hope you got a good price for your soul. =)

    19. Re:Clear Channel music isn't centralized by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You work for Clear Channel?

      What happened? You couldn't get a job with a tobacco company?

    20. Re:Clear Channel music isn't centralized by Jayfar · · Score: 2, Interesting

      ...and before computers, many stations did literally use a categorized box of file cards. One adult contemporary station I worked at in the late 70s, had 8 numbered categories. 1s were the top 10 or so current hits. 2s were either upcoming or downsliding current songs. 3s we called recurrents and were mostly hits of the past several months. 4 were album tracks, IIRC. 5s were slightly hippish album tracks (eg. Dire Straits, John Handy "Hard Work"). 6s and 7s were oldies. 8s were older oldies (from 50s & 60s). Depending on daypart we had different repeating sequences of these #s we followed in selecting file cards during our shifts. My evening shift, IIRC, was 62716346271635(repeat). Morning shifts would play less new stuff, the theory being to ease people in to their day with comfortably familiar tunes.

      As we played each song we made a notation on a grid on the card of the date and time played. With the older songs particularly, you avoided playing the same song in the same hour of successive days. Pre-disco era there were a couple other rules that were common to most mainstream formats - you never played 2 female vocals in a row and you never played 2 records by black artists in a row (the cards for which had an "R" notation in the upper right corner, to make sure you knew). Yes, that was racist and wrong, but that's the way it was.

      Anyone who hasn't worked in the industry probably has no idea how much thought and phychology goes into determining how radio formats work. Of course some of the theory behind some formats was arguably bogus, such as Lee Abrams "Superstars" consultancy (music in a particular key appealed to particular psychographic groups for instance). Superstars and Lee Abrams, then of Burkhart/Abrams, were largely resposible for the homogenization of album rock, beginning in the late 70s.

    21. Re:Clear Channel music isn't centralized by LostCluster · · Score: 1

      It's true what you say about requests. Usually, when a good request call comes in, they go to their computer and find the song that they were going to play in the next few hours anyway, and moves it up to be the next song. Nothing added or deleted, just re-arraged. Then they take one of their talk blocks, and move it to just before the song, in which they playback the call, which is edited to fit the allotted time slot. If a song isn't scheduled in their shift, then the DJ is going to have to spend one of their self-selected slots to get the song on the air... which means you have to hope the DJ likes the song too, and also that the DJ you called has enough credibility with his PD to even be granted self-selected slots, most rookies don't have any. Request a song that's not on the station's main playlists... even if they have a song they're not gonna play it for you.

      As for mornings, I'd recommend XM. History shows that the majority of listeners like talk-heavy shows in the morning, because they need the news, traffic and want the alleged humor. Usually, after a morning show team has been fired, stations resort to a "More music in the morning!" ad campaign to cover up the hole in their lineup. Never has a station seen a ratings increase from doing that, so inevitably they have to hire another morning zoo.

    22. Re:Clear Channel music isn't centralized by qtp · · Score: 1

      Clear Channel never put out a "Banned Songs List" from corperate.

      Oh really, I guess it was up to the DJs to decide what songs they thought that "corperate"(sic) wouldn't want to hear.

      There wasn't any order from corperate as much as there was an online groupthink

      So I guess it isn't quite censoprship if "corperate"(sic) lets you know the "type" of thing they object to and leaves it up to you to cover your own butts. "Groupthink" is an apropriate word for this, and banning a song like Lennon's "Imagine" after an event like 9-11 shows "groupthink" for the bullshit, bad idea, spineless pandering that it is.

      The "ban" on playing the Dixie Chicks was requested by their own fans.

      The drop on the playlist began the day following the comment (anticipating any record of a change in sales) and, acknowledging radio play as the advertising that it is, is an example of the power that the radio playlists have over record sales. If the playlist was actually following the popularity of the music rather than a shallow attempt at corporate manipulation of what people should (or should not) buy, then the playlist frequencies would likely reflecty the popular downloads.

      AFAICT, they do not.

      --
      Read, L
    23. Re:Clear Channel music isn't centralized by LostCluster · · Score: 1

      They've got several indicators at their disposal...

      1. Radio play causes sales, but there's formulas that can convert radio play to an expected quanity for sales... if somebody's getting more sales than the airplay dictates, they're hot. If somebody's getting less, they're not.

      2. Radio play causes requests, but again, there's a way to convert what you've played to what you should be getting for requests. Exceed that, you're hot. Fall below that, you're not.

      3. Just go out and ask your listeners. Many stations have rate-a-song slots in their nighttime shows where the DJ plays a new song they've just got in and asks the listeners to call in to vote on it. Songs that win instantly join the rotation, songs that lose may never be played on the station again. (Note: I remember hearing that annoying Titanic song get played in such a segment, and get deemed a flop... the station eventually had to add the song when it went mega-hit, but they were notably late in doing so because they had first-hand knowledge that the song wasn't that good, it was just tied to a hit movie.)

      4. Just plain common sense comes into play sometimes. Stations very rarely get "negative requests"... somebody calling up to ask that they not play a song. When there are ex-fans of the Dixie Chicks doing that, you don't have to look too far to see that they are not as popular as they were yesterday. They've gotta move down in the rotation, it's just a judgement call whether to drop them completely or just cut their airplay down to a fraction.

      Now, there are outside influences that can cause a PD to have to do something non-popular. For example, nearly every big station runs one or two charity benefit concerts per year... the idea being that the station can keep a big chunk of the tickets for themselves to give away free as a contest prize after the show sells out. Typically, a record company will send one hit artist, but also send two or three other acts they want to promote as well. In this situation, the PD's got no choice... they've got to build up the value of the artists that are coming. The star moves up in the rotation, and those two or three other artists have to be played as well... you can't have an act nobody in your town has heard of showing up at your concert, so that's the easiest way to fix that. Want an easy way of guessing who's coming before it's announced? See who jumps in the rotation in a way that isn't being matched by similarly formatted stations in town... those are the guests that are about to be announced.

    24. Re:Clear Channel music isn't centralized by LostCluster · · Score: 1

      The "Dixie Chicks SUCK!" phone calls started the moment the comment was reported... and that was the main cause of the instant radio drops.

    25. Re:Clear Channel music isn't centralized by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      The "Dixie Chicks SUCK!" phone calls started the moment the comment was reported... and that was the main cause of the instant radio drops.

      Bullshit.

      You don't think these kinds of phone calls can't be orchestrated, by interested parties? You should check out the nut jobs over at Free Republic for an example of "group think" and orchestrated hate campaigns.

      The fact is the Dixie Chicks were still selling out their concerts after their comments. Their comments had no effect on their fans or their actual popularity.

      So, either Clear Channel are spineless jellyfish who "cave" after a few angry phone calls from people who probably never listened to the Dixie Chicks to begin with, or Clear Channel are a cynical corporation trying to curry favor with the Bush controlled FCC, by anticipating what they think the Bushbots want, and using "angry phone calls" as an excuse to ban the Dixie Chicks.

      Either way, Clear Channel sucks, as would any company that owns too much of our airwaves. Thanks, very much, btw, to the Clinton administration and its "reforms".
    26. Re:Clear Channel music isn't centralized by kitzilla · · Score: 2, Interesting
      In Miami, Florida, the three or four Clear Channel stations worked together to prevent the playing of some songs -- going so far as to deny listener requests.

      Very few stations play listener requests at any time. Radio figured out a long time ago that only about 1% of our listeners call the studio, and their tastes and listening patterns are not usually representative of the total audience. Unless you're a teeny-bopper, be glad 14-year-olds aren't deciding what you hear on the radio.

      We do, of course, take note of what people are calling for. But we generally defer to more scientific methods of determining the tastes of our target audience: call-out research, auditorium testing, and record sales data.

      I happen to know the Rock programmer in Miami. He's a smart guy -- hardly the sort of person to make knee-jerk decisions. In any case, it sounds as if you had local programmers attempting to tailor their stations to the community. Dunno if they made the right call, but it's not a case of sinister corporate censorship.

      As an aside, I *did* drop one song on our Classic Rock station. We held Steve Miller's "Jet Airliner" for several months after 9-11. Nobody complained. I'm with you on the appropriateness of Lennon's "Imagine."

      --
      This is my post. There are many others like it. If you don't like what you read here, go try one of the others.
    27. Re:Clear Channel music isn't centralized by kitzilla · · Score: 1
      Is it also the local station's decision to speed up the tempo of all music played on a Clear Channel station?

      Yes, by nature that's a local programming tactic. An old one, too: DJs were wrapping the capstans of their turntables with tape to speed them up way back in the Sixties.

      This is usually done when you have two stations slogging it out for dominance in the same format. If you pitch the music up, it makes your competitor sound like they're dragging. It's an aggressive radio war tactic. Works, too.

      There's no need to pitch music beyond a tight competitive situation, and there are some formats (Classic Rock comes to mind) in which this technique is inappropriate.

      --
      This is my post. There are many others like it. If you don't like what you read here, go try one of the others.
    28. Re:Clear Channel music isn't centralized by kitzilla · · Score: 1
      Pre-disco era there were a couple other rules that were common to most mainstream formats - you never played 2 female vocals in a row and you never played 2 records by black artists in a row (the cards for which had an "R" notation in the upper right corner, to make sure you knew). Yes, that was racist and wrong, but that's the way it was.

      Yup, that's how it was. Back then, though, there were far fewer female and black artists on the playlists. It made sense to seperate them, for variety's sake.

      I still seperate female artists in Oldies and Classic Rock for just this reason. But there would be no way to do this in most other formats today, nor any particular listener-driven reason to do so.

      --
      This is my post. There are many others like it. If you don't like what you read here, go try one of the others.
    29. Re:Clear Channel music isn't centralized by michajoe · · Score: 1

      Oh, of course ClearChannel doesn't dictate which songs are played.

      They actually dictate which songs are NOT to be played.

  60. michael... by BTWR · · Score: 1

    wow. Michael, you're such a left-wing conspiracy theorist.

    Corporation = evil (always)
    Republican = evil (always)
    America = imperialistic/ignorant (always)

    Read this quick, folks, cuz the 14 year-old mods are gonna mod this down in a heartbeat.

    1. Re:michael... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you're such a pathetic moron, you break my heart. - A 34 year old centrist.

  61. Don't bitch at slashdot by tr0llb4rt0 · · Score: 1

    It's not a very exciting story, but it's fair comment about how many of you really believe that the *man on the box* is your truthfull friend and informant?

    Hey the media lie to us ... whats new?!? :-D

    --
    Worst .sig ever!
  62. It's Already Crossed the Line by Kurt+Wall · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It's deceptive when a report pretends to be local but isn't. ClearChannel aren't the only media company that does this, of course, nor is radio the only medium that does this. Ever wonder how three nightly news reports on three different channels manage to have precisely the same background image for a "live" report from [insert news hotspot here]?

  63. The same thing happens with Washington and Detroit by i_want_you_to_throw_ · · Score: 1

    Here is Washington we have a turd of a DJ named Jon Ballard on local cock rock station DC101 and one day when I was visiting Detroit on a business trip I heard him there too. WTF?!
    The Detroit Free Press has a story about it Not so much that he's on two stations, just that he's such bad DJ that the world gets cursed at least twice with his presence.

    Corporate Radio Sucks...Listen to this instead

  64. How requests on commercial radio work by Plug · · Score: 1

    If you ring up a radio station and make a request, the DJ has to equate the value of a song that one person wants to hear (you) vs the song that their intelligence says that their entire listnership is most likely to want to hear next. With the exception of really good DJs and request shows, you never get requests on commercial radio.

    What you do get is your soundbite recorded, because 9/10 times you're requesting something that's coming up soon (something in the top 10 perhaps?) - so when they next play the song you wanted in their schedule, they play the "Hi, can I hear this new song please?" sound bite before it and it sounds like someone requested the song, the station played it, and they are doing what their audience want. Couldn't be farther from the truth.

    1. Re:How requests on commercial radio work by Awptimus+Prime · · Score: 1

      I was used as a sound byte for a dance radio station in Atlanta back years ago..

      They took a clip from me winning a contest and did 'something' to it. I won 99 (hmm, which station is this? :) bucks and wasn't really all that excited. I just wanted my money. Anyway, the version of the winnings that was played "live" was about 10 minutes old and they doctored up my voice to sound slappy happy excited. There was also added conversation that never happened..

      They are a Clear Channel station now.

    2. Re:How requests on commercial radio work by MemoryAid · · Score: 1

      How about "if I don't hear the Beatles by 17 January, 5:30pm, I will just die."

      --
      Language students: Don't try to learn English here. This ain't it.
    3. Re:How requests on commercial radio work by jred · · Score: 1

      Then they'd never play your clip & probably not your song and you'd be dead :)

      --

      jred
      I'm not a mechanic but I play one in my garage...
  65. the Local News Anchor pains ME by MMHere · · Score: 1

    I feel pain every time I watch the Local News Anchor. Does this count as the same thing?

  66. He just left out a few details ... by danwiz · · Score: 2, Insightful
    He just left out a few details ...

    "Would you believe it's 5 below zero right now, back in Boston?"
    "The only thing worse than the actual temperature where you are right now is having the wind chill factored in."
    "It doesn't get any worse than this, when do we get a break from temperatures in the low 60's?"

    Happens all the time in politics -
    "I did not have sex with Ms Lewinsky, if we're not counting that oral stuff."
    "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most conventional lethal weapons ever devised."

    With apologies to Mr. Cronkite -
    And that's the way it is - according to news feeds, the internet, and my web cam.

    1. Re:He just left out a few details ... by LostCluster · · Score: 1

      With apologies to Mr. Cronkite -
      And that's the way it is - according to news feeds, the internet, and my web cam.


      Cronkite let the CBS News underlings do the dirty work for him. When a sub anchor reported that he was "on assignment", that often should have been written as "on Assignment"...

      The difference? "Assignment" was the name he gave to a boat he owned. If he was spending his vacation fishing, the sub anchor would begin the newscast by saying "Walter Cronkite is on Assignment." as the explanation as to where he went. Sounded like he was working, but really he was fishing.

  67. The press is not expected to mislead by GuyMannDude · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This is an excellent example of how easy it is to dupe the public into believing something that is not entirely factual. It also drives home the importance of our taking what we hear on radio/TV and what we read in the newspapers with a very big grain of salt.

    I think what irritates people such much about this is that this time it was the PRESS in a BLATANT attempt at disception. People like to believe that even though commericals are filled with lies and deceipt and politicans' televised speeches are full of fabrications that somehow the press is above all this and has a responsiblity to be as open and honest with their audience as possible. Now, you and I and most slashdotters know better. But the average person really trusts the media to keep them informed. Sure, this is a relatively small breech of trust. "Who cares?" you might be tempted to ask. And, yes, the actual location of some TV personality doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things. However, the very idea that this station is involved in deception and, when caught, claim there is nothing wrong with what they are doing is what upsets people so much.

    GMD

  68. to answer your question: by RLiegh · · Score: 1

    How soon can we have virtual war, where nobody dies?

    Not Soon Enough!

  69. Capitalism & the Media by Sivaram_Velauthapill · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Since nearly all media are controlled by private entities under capitalism, and since my theory is that free markets will result in oligopolies and monopolies, I think it is fair to say that this is just the start of the takeover of "news" by corporations. If you ever thought the media was responsible for the truth, you are sadly mistaken. The media has never had anything to do with the truth. In the past, the government controlled media* was nothing more than a propaganda outlet for the--you guessed it--government.

    Nowadays, the media is nothing more than the propaganda arm of the corporations. Don't get me wrong. The government still has massive influence. One just needs to look at how the US government has manipulated television, movie studios, or print media since 9/11. At least 40% of what came out of US media in the last 2 years have been disinformation. Anyone wonder why the majority of Americans believe that Saddam Hussein was an Al-Qaida member? Ever wonder why no one bothers to find out WHO cooked up the fake documents relating to plutonium in Niger? And best of all, ever wonder what happened to the Anthrax Assasin? Yes folks, the Anthrax Assasin, who incidentally killed more innocent Americans than Saddam Hussein, has dissapeared. And it does not stop with USA. I mean, just pick your favourite country and see how the media manipulates information. One needs to look no further than France and how the French government is manipulating the recent ban on religious ornaments as passing it off as liberalism. Clearly, this has nothing to do with liberalism. After all, liberalism is consistent with multiculturalism and banning things takes society even further away. Yet the French government is claiming it is the liberals who wanted it (this is kind of interesting given that Jacques Chirac is a right winger (Gaullist I think)). Of course, if you want the ultimate book on how the people's opinions are shaped, you can check out the highly acclaimed Manufacturing Consent by Noam Chomsky. Or you can check out some books by Nazis (they were the ultimate propagandists).

    Now, my comment is about capitalism. There have been countless stories that were not aired, or countless people who were fired, for simply telling the truth that had a potential to damage their parent corporations. Next time you watch NBC, CNBC, MSNBC, or National Geographic, and notice how it never criticizes G.E., you know why. This is just a tame example (clearly organizations like Fox News and Washington Post are more propagandist). You don't need me to tell you that. Just look around and you'll see. Something like 11 companies control 90% of all media in USA. For the smaller countries, it's even worse (2 or 3 companies control 95% of the media).

    It doesn't get any better. People in "liberal" societies think that their news is diverse and comes from many sources. Oh, how mistaken they are. The vast majority of news (probably 80%+) comes from two sources (in North America): Reuters and Associated Press. Sure, there are hundreads of newspapers. Flip through them and you'll see that most news comes from AP and Reuters. Needless to say, AP and Reuters are for-profit entities who only care about making money.

    All of this will just get worse and worse. The only thing keeping some of these media companies from merging with each other creating even larger multinational corporations are anti-trust laws and nationalistic laws (eg. laws preventing foreign ownership). Once those legislation are weakened (capitalism calls for the elimination of them), the final stage will be complete. Rest assured. Unless you lead a high-risk lifestyle, it will likely happen within your lifetime.

    Welcome to the future world... where all news comes from the Associated World News Network (with its 'your only news source' slogan) versus FuX News Network (with its sloga

    --
    Sivaram Velauthapillai
    Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places ;)
    1. Re:Capitalism & the Media by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      What the fuck does this screed have to do with the story about the weatherman reporting from his vacation home?

      Please explain how this is on-topic or remotely relevant.

    2. Re:Capitalism & the Media by polyiguana · · Score: 1

      Needless to say, AP and Reuters are for-profit entities who only care about making money.

      You're wrong on that. AP is a not for profit cooperative that is owned by all the newspapers that participate. So any "profit" that AP makes is merely passed back to the owners who paid for the service.

    3. Re:Capitalism & the Media by Sivaram_Velauthapill · · Score: 1

      I stand corrected. Thanks for pointing it out. However, the main point still stands. The members of AP co-op are for-profit entities so one would expect AP to be aligned with that vision as well.

      Sivaram Velauthapillai

      --
      Sivaram Velauthapillai
      Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places ;)
    4. Re:Capitalism & the Media by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      that's all we need, Apu telling us "how it is".

      Thanks for the insight but your rant is completely offtopic. Wait for an article on something else and paste this there.

    5. Re:Capitalism & the Media by Sivaram_Velauthapill · · Score: 1

      The anchor is FAKING his story. He is LYING! Yes, it is only some comment about some weather (it isn't even the weather report). However, the point is that he is LYING! The media, in this case radio, is manipulating the listeners.

      As far as capitalism is concerned, if my theory that free markets lead to oligopolies and monopolies is correct, this phenomenon will increase significantly. It will get to the point that you can't derive any truth from media. Similar to another point I make in another post, if the tv and radio are owned by the same company, how do you know what you are hearing is the truth? If the radio station claims that their employees are located at a certain place, can you look at a tv report to verify this? What if the tv company and the radio are owned by the same company?

      Sivaram Velauthapillai

      --
      Sivaram Velauthapillai
      Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places ;)
    6. Re:Capitalism & the Media by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lick my sack you cryptoracist fucker.

    7. Re:Capitalism & the Media by MemoryAid · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I think you are missing the distributed reporting that is happening on the internet right now, with Slashdot as an example. While many so-called news stories are repeated over and over by the mass media, they can easily be lumped together and weighted appropraitely by modern technology.

      Google news is a prime example of this. It is easy to find a story, and the mass media stories are lumped on the front page. A 'more like this' link allows you to view multitudinous other reports on the subject. Most of those are exactly the same, spread by the wire services and posted to myriad web pages. However, this makes the ones that are different stand out precisely because they are different. In fact, it is often striking the difference between western reports and those from Al Jazeera or other non-western source.

      On the other hand, this really only applies to the internet right now. Television and radio are still controlled by the corporations you mention. Newspapers are a mixed bag. Some are huge corporate entities, but there are also many neighborhood papers that mainly discuss evening entertainment. I think some of them have room for actual news, but they aren't frequent enough to be useful as a news source. Newspapers are, in general, too slow to be responsive to people's news needs, when stories can break on television immediately (such as the 9/11 attacks).

      This story of the news anchor reporting from his home in Florida seems to point more toward the distribution of the media than the consolidation of it. That is, if studio equipment is cheap enough that it can now be installed in someone's home, how far away can we be from the common man putting together his own news outlet for local stories or commentary on international issues. Distribution is the biggest problem, but moving data gets easier every day. I have tuned into some pretty outlandish political internet radio stations that are not at all in tune with the prevailing groupthink (not mainstream media by any means), so how far behind is streaming video? The only problem with the media today is that it is so damn easy to get news while sitting on one's couch with remote in hand. So, for now, television rules. Technology is about making things easier, though. Some day, many different news sources will all be easy to see. First hand web-cam footage of newsworthy events will probably be among the choices. What happens when a tourist can film a significant event with a digital camcorder and use a mobile phone to put the footage on the internet for all to see? It won't happen tomorrow, but probably will within my lifetime.

      One of the pitfalls of predicting the future is to extrapolate current trends without end. Often, that makes for good science fiction, but in reality, trends taper off and counter trends take over. There was a book written (about this) in the early 80's called The Third Wave by Alvin Toffler. Many of the references are dated, but the parts about 'electronic cottages' allowing workers to work from anywhere is pretty interesting. The Amazon reviews are probably a better analysis than I can give. Anyway, major point to take away: Trends don't continue as far as we might think.

      --
      Language students: Don't try to learn English here. This ain't it.
    8. Re:Capitalism & the Media by MrWa · · Score: 1
      And best of all, ever wonder what happened to the Anthrax Assasin? Yes folks, the Anthrax Assasin, who incidentally killed more innocent Americans than Saddam Hussein, has dissapeared.

      Yea, what *did* happen to him?

      Completely off-topic, I know, but does anyone have more information about what happened?

    9. Re:Capitalism & the Media by Sivaram_Velauthapill · · Score: 1

      Last I heard, the FBI was having problems with their investigation (possibly because the military was blocking the investigation). They had a suspect who was a scientist who worked on the biological weapons programs. His house was searched and they went through all leads relating to him but I guess they came up with nothing. I personally think this scientist is a scapegoat for whomever initiated the attack.

      Anyway, the point is not what happened; rather, why is nobody (meaning the media) on this case?

      Sivaram Velauthapillai

      --
      Sivaram Velauthapillai
      Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places ;)
    10. Re:Capitalism & the Media by Sivaram_Velauthapill · · Score: 1

      If you are a racist, why don't you post with your name and stick up for your fascist ideology? Why call me "Apu" with an anonymous name? A coward perhaps?

      Sivaram Velauthapillai

      --
      Sivaram Velauthapillai
      Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places ;)
    11. Re:Capitalism & the Media by Sivaram_Velauthapill · · Score: 1

      I agree with you that the internet is FAR freer (when it comes to media) than anything else. However, it remains to be seen how long this will last or how much things will change. Some of the things you said still don't indicate much freedom of press. You cite Google News, which is a great site and my primary online news site (not counting leftist sites--I'm leftist). You are falling into the same pitfall as the general population. Let me explain.

      The general population, living in a somewhat "free" country like USA thinks that the press is quite free. But as I pointed out, the majority of the news comes from two sources: AP and Reuters. The freedom of press is just an illusion. The same is true of Google News. Nearly everything Google lists are mainstream sources (for a valid reason*). Sure, there are hundreads of links for each story. But how many of they are different? Nearly all of them quote the same source. Al Jazeera (even though I don't read it much) isn't any different. They keep quoting Reuters and others all the time. The only difference that you might see is that they will have different stories for the Middle East (like Iraq). They have their own staff in Iraq so that will be independent. But nearly all their other news is the same as the mainstream AP, Reuters, AFP, etc. Just read a story such as the emergence of the SARS disease, or the new flu, or the US plan to change its space goals, and I'll bet they are almost identical to the wire stories. So in summary, Google News is an illusion of press freedom, just like print media in your country may be.

      You mention that community papers are more independent. I actually think it is the OPPOSITE for GENERAL news. The vast majority of small papers don't have large staff so they mainly pick up news off the wire (AP, Reuters, freelancers, etc). Therefore, communisty papers are EVEN MORE biased than some of the larger ones. The large papers (like New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, etc) have their staff to do the reporting. So you'll find stories in these large papers that are unique. Having said that, the large papers are influenced and controlled by the elites whereas the elite influence on smaller papers is weaker.

      Having said that, I agree with you that small papers are more independent in some sections--often for local events. So the entertainment section (as you cite) or sports will be very independent. This is really interesting if you look at it. The sports section, for instance, is perhaps the most independent section of all. The reason is because the papers have their own staff who have different opinions. In addition, sports does not negatively impact the elites and their control over society so it can be safely ignored by those that control things. People often dismiss sports as being biased, juvenile, and unimportant, but the fact of the matter is that they are more independent than the main news.

      I have great hope for the internet. Since the cost of dissimating information is very low, there is great hope for hte future of media online. However, there are many problems. The first one is that no one has a framework for dissimating news without running into financial problems. As a site or medium becomes popular, costs just skyrocket. Something that you can do for free is very difficult when in becomes popular. I am somewhat familiar with the problems faced independent media since I follow leftist websites. Many have problems with funding. Others have problems with disinformation. Some even don't know how to organize themselves. So far the only successful ones have been "text" sites. The ones that try to provide news through video, webcast or some other means cannot often afford to pay bandwidth. So there are many problems. Personally, I think the ideal situation will be when you have an independent media that provides the news. People throughout the world should be able to report news, regardless of their power (i.e. don't have to be supported by elites). But this will take some time. I always

      --
      Sivaram Velauthapillai
      Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places ;)
    12. Re:Capitalism & the Media by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Noam Chomsky, OHhh the irony. You do realize that Chomsky will look at you, and say you are the same as you meta label those with whom you dont agree as ones as wrong, when you in fact condeming them for acting like fascits, and not tolerating other views.

      congratulations you know how to use words, yet you dont know what they mean!

      Highfive to propagation of one mind set at slashdot.

      You make me proud!
      Hitler

    13. Re:Capitalism & the Media by Chris+Johnson · · Score: 1

      I haven't finished the videotape in which he says he had WMDs and was working with Al Quaeda yet. It's hard to make his mustache move along with his lips, and I have to draw in each of his teeth frame-by-frame because they're too grungy to computer model :)
      Wait, this is a public post? ...doh! ;)

  70. Re:i have posted by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You should get a dictionary so you can understand the meaning of the word "not"

  71. *cough* "baa..." *cough* by janbjurstrom · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Meta-territory here, but was there a vote on bleating-acceptance I missed, or...? Didn't Nirvana's "here we are now, entertain us" attitude end a decade ago?

    Part of the problem could stem from casting oneself as "the audience". An audience passively consumes what it is served. I don't know, but shouldn't (being part of creating what is) Slashdot, be ..you know, the opposite of wanting to be spoonfed?

    --
    668.5
    1. Re:*cough* "baa..." *cough* by Tim+C · · Score: 5, Insightful

      An audience passively consumes what it is served.

      So tell me, how much input do you get on which articles get posted and which rejected?

      We passively consume the articles, occasionally getting our suggestions accepted. But the real active part only comes *after* the article is posted, and we get to discuss it. Even if the vast majority of us agreed that an article was crap, and should never have been posted, we couldn't change it one iota.

    2. Re:*cough* "baa..." *cough* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is the problem with people who continually complain that "Clear Channel" stations are destroying radio.

      If there is a lack of good radio, make it yourself.

    3. Re:*cough* "baa..." *cough* by janbjurstrom · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Good point. I agree with the first part. Much could be done with the submission/selection/creation side of /. (precisely what I don't know, maybe something akin to the ingenious ideas and implementation of these collaborative discussion tools(?)).

      But even today, I believe it is working quite well. As you say, the weak "articles" are quickly scrutinized, the initial slants, etc. are - if substandard/false - discarded, and the discussions yield insights, perspectives and opinions no one could foresee. (Unfortunately, a lot of very good stuff is offtopic, and sometimes get modded thusly.).
      But the real active part only comes *after* the article is posted, and we get to discuss it.
      What I think I'm saying, is that I believe the *after* part of the "Slashdot experience" is what matters. The Slashdot "articles" aren't so much articles (at least not to me), as 'sparkplugs'; facilities to get us talking - about whatever matters (increasingly offtopic if we choose, like this thread :) ). Speed, volume, and continuity; a steady stream of lots of new (yes, dupe-clusters are annoying) stuff to delve into, I firmly believe is more important than getting the facts 100% correct. Or getting a totally unbiased (which I don't even think is possible..) starting point for our discussions.

      As the original "article" examplifies, not even the *real* journos get it right, they just think they do. The important and best part about Slashdot (when it's working), is that all the smart people here collectively dig out what (if any) knowledge, humor, dilemmas, etc., any original topic (or whatever's remotely related) contains.

      To me, the "articles" are like the awkward opening phrases you resort to when meeting people. Necessary, but mostly to quickly break the ice and learn something interesting. Cheers.
      --
      668.5
    4. Re:*cough* "baa..." *cough* by PinchDuck · · Score: 1

      Or don't listen to Clear Channel. No listeners, No advertisers. No advertisers, no money. no money, no Clear Channel.

    5. Re:*cough* "baa..." *cough* by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 1


      We passively consume the articles, occasionally getting our suggestions accepted. But the real active part only comes *after* the article is posted, and we get to discuss it. Even if the vast majority of us agreed that an article was crap, and should never have been posted, we couldn't change it one iota.


      Wow. This explains why every once in awhile, we'll get some article peppered with responses about what crap the article is. Its because these folks "passively consume the articles."

      Imagine if these folks realized that they could actually interact. They can register. They can configure their account. They can filter out subjects they're not interested in. Or... now this is where it gets tricky.... NOT click on the articles that sound like "crap."

      Using the Web is odd like that. All chock full of interactive content and the ability to select one thing over the other. Granted - this is sometimes lost on content providers that come from broadcast media (and ad / marketer types). But hey.
    6. Re:*cough* "baa..." *cough* by TempeTerra · · Score: 1
      So tell me, how much input do you get on which articles get posted and which rejected?

      We passively consume the articles, occasionally getting our suggestions accepted. But the real active part only comes *after* the article is posted, and we get to discuss it. Even if the vast majority of us agreed that an article was crap, and should never have been posted, we couldn't change it one iota.


      But that's not passive consumption. Reading an article/post and deciding that it's crap is active. And responding is participation. It would be passive if we were to read articles and not wonder whether they were crap or not. It's on the internet, it must be true.
      --
      .evom ton seod gis eht
  72. Slashbots want to be spoonfed, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that's why they are called Slashbots. Throw in some linux here, SCO there, anti-MS FUD and you have yourself a Slashbot-style geeky self-rightous wankfest. Slashdot is just as full of content-hungry mindless babies as the CNN and Fox News audience.

    1. Re:Slashbots want to be spoonfed, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just try posting something here that does not agree with the mindset that you described and watch how fast it gets modded 'Troll'.

  73. Freedom works both ways by t_allardyce · · Score: 1

    Dont forget, Bill of Rights - freedom of the press to be owned by people with certain interests and party affiliations and freedom of the press to _not_ report certain things. Im not saying its bad, im just saying that they are free to say or not say what they like.

    --
    This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
  74. Of COURSE this is wrong by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Forgot all the angels on pins arguments, all the quibbling about telecommuting and whether or not everybody is doing it. Forget ALL that. Cut to the chase.

    Both the anchor and the radio station don't want the audience to know. Therefore they know they are being deceptive and that it is wrong.

    1. Re:Of COURSE this is wrong by skraps · · Score: 1
      Both the anchor and the radio station don't want the audience to know. Therefore they know they are being deceptive and that it is wrong.

      The anchor's exact geographic location has no bearing on the message he is conveying - it would only be distracting to the listener.

      It it a problem if I host my .co.uk domain in a US server? Perhaps the home page should prominently display the true location just in case people give a crap.

      --
      Karma: -2147483648 (Mostly affected by integer overflow)
  75. Outsourcing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What, companies such as Dell outsource all the time, why is this big news?

    1. Re:Outsourcing by evilviper · · Score: 4, Funny
      It's reminds me of how Indian phone center workers are sometimes trained in different regional US accents to create the illusion that they're local to the US customer.

      That's nothing... It's the naming thing that gets to me. Just a few weeks ago I was talking to a phone-support person with a deep, scratchy voice. The name given was (no joke) "Emily".

      What was just as funny, was hearing "Emily" freeze for about 15 seconds when I asked for her to spell it. :-)
      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    2. Re:Outsourcing by tomasito · · Score: 1

      (still offtopic)

      I call for vendor support several times a week and am routed to India. My favorite engineer introduced himself as "Ronald McDonald." Although he had an amusing and obviously non-Indian name, he was a very qualified engineer. He spoke pretty good English too.

      I can't make this stuff up!

  76. not "a few weeks a year" by genericacct · · Score: 1

    The article states that he anchors from Florida "for two weeks in the fall and two weeks each month in the winter". That's half the entire Boston winter and then some.

  77. News for Nerds? by Trauma_Hound1 · · Score: 1

    Does this post actually qaulify as news for nerds? Does it really matter? I think no on both points.

    --
    Don't Vote for Norm Dicks! http://www.nodicks2008.com Another nutless dirtbag that voted for the FISA bill!
  78. try looking the definition a lie up by painehope · · Score: 2, Informative

    "I don't think it's being disingenuous," he said. "I'm not lying to anybody."

    The definition of a lie . Merriam-Webster has a more detailed definition, but no direct links.

    So yes, jackass, you are lying to your listeners. That's all it boils down to.

    Of course, some people ( of which I am one ) would argue that almost all media has been lying to us for quite some time.

    --
    PC moderators can suck my White pierced, tattooed dick. If you think pride == hate, s/dick/Aryan meat mallet/g.
    1. Re:try looking the definition a lie up by _xeno_ · · Score: 1
      Actually, Merriam-Webster does allow direct links. You can use it in the default Firebird keywords too, it's under the keyword "webster".

      Or, for Mozilla users, "http://www.merriam-webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary ?book=Dictionary&va=%s"

      Although admitably they use POST by default. But the individual words linked from definition to definition give away the secret to directly linking to a given definition. :)

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
  79. Outsourcing by phr1 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I don't know why but that article made me chuckle "heh, Boston outsources its news/weather reporting to Florida". It's reminds me of how Indian phone center workers are sometimes trained in different regional US accents to create the illusion that they're local to the US customer.

  80. Re:It's on Slashdot because by glenebob · · Score: 1

    >> Michael just wants to bitch about Clear Channel and big evil corporations.

    Sadly enough, I think Mr. AC hit it on the head here.

    There is a reference to Clear Channel in the article text but absolutely no connection to it in the linked article whatsoever. Why is it there? What could it possibly have to do with some guy telecommuting to Florida? How could the linked article, in any reality, be considered 'News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters'?

    It's there because somebody has an axe to grind, that's why. Is this not a perfect example of the need for the 'troll -1' moderation?

  81. Good for him by euxneks · · Score: 1

    He's not freezing his ass off like the rest of us dumb-asses. I applaud his choice of weather..

    --
    in girum imus nocte et consumimur igni
  82. mod parent up, please. by Artifex · · Score: 1

    We can look at the tobacco lawsuits filed by states in attempts to recover medical expenses as evidence of the negative externalities resulting from people "not hurting anyone else."

    --
    Get off my launchpad!
    1. Re:mod parent up, please. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These are both excellent arguments against national health care in the U.S. If we have it, we will either all pay for people's stupidity or we will have to regulate every single aspect of everyone's life to make sure we all make 'healthy' choices. Also, the tobacco lawsuits are complete bullshit. In addition to sueing companies for things that are not their fault, the states claimed that this money was to be used to compensate them for treating smokers. In fact, the proceeds, after almost 50% attorney fees were paid, went to almost everything but public health. It was just another goldmine for the lawyers and politicians, to be paid for by the people.

    2. Re:mod parent up, please. by mingot · · Score: 2, Informative

      The best part of this is how much money goes back to the tabacco farmers to subsidize them for the money they're losing from the people quitting smoking based on the publicity of the lawsuits negatively affecting cig sales.

      Basically, the money goes in a big circle with lawyers peeling off most of it as it goes around.

  83. Why people get requests by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People don't order requests 'cause they actually want to here the song. People order requests so they can hear their name and voice and shout-outs on the radio.

  84. Yes it is ABSOLUTELY wrong by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 1

    Read your parent post. If the anchor and radio station don't want the truth out, if it embarasses them, then they themselves know it is wrong. It is deceptive. They don't want the audience to know. If they had nothing to hide, then it would not be wrong.

    If the perpetrators themselves think it is wrong, is that not good enough evidence for you?

  85. Unfortunately making up the news isn't news by 1iar_parad0x · · Score: 1

    How is this anymore phony then when a TV news anchor is seen reporting from the depths of some jungle, when in reality it's nothing more than a blue screen? Perhaps I should post an article to Slashdot about the repeated gaffs of journalistic integrity at the "Old Gray Lady". Undoubtedly the best source for such an article would be the NY Times itself, thus not being trustworthy and requiring that dreaded registration.

    Fox columnist exposes shoddy sourcing behind paper's story network paid singer

    The suspended New York Times reporter insists--wrongly--that everybody does it
    A story about Jayson Blair

    Oh, and let us not forget the historians like Stephen Ambrose and Doris Kearns Goodwin. Each is accused of lifting the work of others.

    On a last note, Doris Kearns Goodwin and Rick Bragg are both Pulitzer Prize winners. So, I'm hardly shocked or worried that some radio morning personality (hardly a true journalist) is being raked over the coals for broadcasting remotely.

    --
    What do you mean my sig is repetitive? What do you mean my sig is repetitive? What do you mean....
  86. "I'm sure to lose karma" by HeghmoH · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    First, I have to admit that I browse at +1 with the show-nested-comments-on-main-page thingy set to +3, and I browse highest scores first. So I don't read very many low-rated posts.

    Do posts with phrases like "I'm sure to lose karma" or "I'm sure I'll be modded down for this, but..." ever actually get modded down? I'm utterly sick of reading this phrase. It inevitably is in a post whose opinion is against "the public"'s opinion but is perfectly aligned with what all of the slashbots think. So of course it will get modded up, because it contributes to the great groupthink project. However, the poster has to imagine persecution. Even though all of his friends and everyone on this site agrees with what he's saying, he puts in a little persecution complex. "It hurts to bear the truth, and I'll lose :gasp: karma for it, but somebody has to do it!" But in reality he's just saying the exact same thing that every single other poster on the entire site has been saying since the beginning of time.

    Sigh. I guess I'll go take my meds and relax now.

    --
    Mod down posts with a "Free Mac Mini/iPod" sig, they're spam!
    1. Re:"I'm sure to lose karma" by MemoryAid · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      I'll probably lose karma for saying this, but you are a fuckstick.

      --
      Language students: Don't try to learn English here. This ain't it.
    2. Re:"I'm sure to lose karma" by Dirtside · · Score: 1, Offtopic
      Do posts with phrases like "I'm sure to lose karma" or "I'm sure I'll be modded down for this, but..." ever actually get modded down?
      Well, we can test the theory. Of course, anyone reading this post will know that we're just testing it, so that could affect their moderation, but who knows? Anyway, here we go:

      I'll probably get modded down for this, since I'm going against public opinion here. Call me crazy, but women voters? What planet are we on? Beam me back up to the mothership.

      --
      "Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
    3. Re:"I'm sure to lose karma" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      The comment won't get modded down unless...

      1) It's anti-slashdot. Or better yet, it's anti-michael. Such comments receive the wrath of editors who have no problem censoring you away and taking any mod privileges forever.
      2) It's a political, right leaning comment. Unless these are carefully and thoroughly explained, these in general almost always gets modded down.

      Other than that, you're right. Most people who say they'll get modded down get attention and convince people to read with an open mind. Thus, they get modded up.

  87. ST:ToS episode by Migraineman · · Score: 1

    Episode: "A Taste of Armageddon"
    Provides your virtual war without the inconvenience of actual weapons. Casualties are much less messy, too.

    Maybe CC et al could create "virtual markets" to broadcast their "virtual entertainment" into, eliminating the messy audience satisfaction surveys. Personally, I despise the homogenous nature of the broadcasters (radio and TV.) Why do I need more than one channel if they're all the same?

  88. OUCH! by Tandoori+Haggis · · Score: 1

    Local News Feels Pain from Anchor

    Er wait...

    --
    My hyperlinks aren't worth the paper they're printed on.
  89. Michael : Thank you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0



    Thank you for posting this story. With the recent (some say neverending) articles on SCO or Microsoft security patch #n (where n is "Oh my god such a high number in one month!" it is nice to have an intelligent, if brief, change.

  90. Mod this Fucker Down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He is offtopic and his "facts" are wrong.If thats not enough he doesn't have a point either.

    1. Re:Mod this Fucker Down by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He was not off-topic. He just put it in a broader context. And frankly, he's right.

  91. I'll Break Your Kneecaps by waldoj · · Score: 1

    Clear Channel's relationship with their affiliates is sort of like that between the Mafia and the businesses that they're "protecting." Clear Channel would never demand that certain songs not be played, they would simply make suggestions that the affiliates can follow or, alternately, choose not to follow. Of course, those station managers that choose not to follow the advice of their superiors may find that those promotions don't come like they used to, or perhaps they may find themselves cut out due to a budget crunch.

    So, yeah, sure CCE "NEVER dictates what songs [affiliates] play," but you and I both know what's really going on.

    -Waldo Jaquith

    1. Re:I'll Break Your Kneecaps by kitzilla · · Score: 1
      Clear Channel would never demand that certain songs not be played, they would simply make suggestions that the affiliates can follow or, alternately, choose not to follow.

      Clear Channel would insist that its programmers not play records known to research poorly. That's not a conspiracy -- just good programming. If a Program Director is knowingly playing stiffs, he's an idiot who doesn't deserve his chair.

      Clear Channel would not dictate chart movement or mandate a station add a certain record. And certainly not for pay, if that's what you are inferring by your "mafia" slur.

      We're not a perfect company, but most of our stations are run by folks who give a damn about our profession, communities, and the music we play. Most of us were doing what we are doing today long before someone hung a Clear Channel sign on our door, too.

      --
      This is my post. There are many others like it. If you don't like what you read here, go try one of the others.
  92. Same with traffic reports by Motherfucking+Shit · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Many media conglomerates do the same thing with traffic reports. Here in Memphis, one company handles traffic for all of the CBS/Viacom/Infinity radio stations, and even has a live TV studio set up in their building so they can give traffic reports to the NBC TV station.

    No, I don't understand why NBC and CBS are working together in this regard, there's something weird going on. The contact info for one local radio station gives @cbs.com email addresses, but check the postal address, 1960 Union Ave. They broadcast from the same building as the local NBC affiliate.

    The ClearChannel stations have their own competing alternative called the Total Traffic Network. All of the CC stations have the same guy/gal reporting the traffic each day.

    --
    "BSD: Free as in speech. Linux: Free as in beer. Windows 10: Free as in herpes." --Man On Pink Corner in #52607549.
    1. Re:Same with traffic reports by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      radio stations sell blocks of air time to traffic reporters and they get to sell advertising in those blocks. Shadow traffic is another and mobility technologies is another.

  93. Is their public radio in the USA? NPR? by xtal · · Score: 1

    I stopped listening to the tripe commerical radio some time ago, two or three years anyway. One of the few good things I get for the taxes is a decent public radio service via CBC. It's sometimes got a bit too much of a leftist bent for me at times, but that's probably a reflection of the local nature of the radio shows. That's right - real local radio for a few HOURS in the morning, in addition to good science programs (Quirks and Quarks!) and national news programs. Need I mention that there are no commericals to be heard anywhere.

    The shows are all downloadable off the web (archives.cbc.ca) so you can burn them and take them with you on long trips, and time-shift the best programs like the aforementioned Quirks and Quarks.

    Neat concept. If you get a shortwave radio from Radio Shack, you can get the BBC and others. Just stop listening to the crap. Spread the theme. Clear Channel will wise up eventually, or it really will be a clear channel. Heh.

    What of the micro-station FM initiatives in the US, too?

    --
    ..don't panic
  94. Opps. by DAldredge · · Score: 1

    Me stupid.

    Sorry about that.

    Opps.

    Never happen again. :->

  95. It's Where the Reporters Are That Counts by reallocate · · Score: 1

    Local news is created by local news reporters. If an Evil Giant Corporation actually has reporters working in your town, then the location of the guy in the studio isn't of consequence.

    Likewise, if your local Wholesome Mom and Pop Radio Station can't afford to hire reporters, then they're ripping and reading news from the same wire services the big guys use.

    If you're offended because some disk jockey pretends to be in your city, that's another story.

    --
    -- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
  96. No problem. by Bryan+Gividen · · Score: 1

    Honest mistake, no big deal.

  97. It's 2AM... by payndz · · Score: 1

    ...do you know where your DJ is?

    --
    You must think in Russian.
  98. Oh yeah! And... by Bryan+Gividen · · Score: 1

    Similarly, guns serve a purpose other then to kill people and the election analogy is just idiocy at its finest. Drugs ARE legal when prescribed by a doctor and under medical watch. (Morphine, etc.) The war on drugs gets rid of drugs which serve no purpose but a purpose which would break the law. Which is also why owning child porn is illegal. Does it serve any purpose besides the purpose which breaks a law? Nope.

    Which brings up the interesting question... should child porn be legal? I mean really... if a 14 year old girl decides to do that and her parents are fine with it, who is anyone hurting?

    1. Re:Oh yeah! And... by saiya · · Score: 1

      I certainly hope you're being sarcastic - that's circular logic at its finest.

    2. Re:Oh yeah! And... by Bryan+Gividen · · Score: 1

      Hardly circular logic. Things are made laws, therefore, breaking them has consequences. Where's the circle?

    3. Re:Oh yeah! And... by Moofie · · Score: 1

      You are assuming that making something illegal reduces its incidence.

      The current "drug problem" puts the lie to your theorem. There is HUGE incidence of drug use. We now need to figure out how to reduce the impact of that drug use (which is not going to go away) on society.

      I don't use "illegal" drugs because I choose not to, not because I'm scared of getting caught. On the other hand, I do not want a state powerful and intrusive enough to shut off drug use, because that state would limit my liberty and invade my privacy, in an effort to stop me from doing something that thanks very much, I don't do anyway.

      The cost (in freedom) is not worth the prize (no drug use).

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    4. Re:Oh yeah! And... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      BS again. Making something illegal WILL drop the chances of people doing it. Its basic economics. Take a micro-economics course, come back, and we'll talk.

    5. Re:Oh yeah! And... by Sivaram_Velauthapill · · Score: 1

      Laws are just something that are cooked up by the elites to control the rest of the population. This is the origin of laws (mostly from religion--and religion was HIGHLY corrupt at that time) but is still true. Ignoring that...

      Speaking as a leftist in favour of legalizing drugs, there are two arguments. One is a liberatarian argument and the other is a socialist argument.

      The libertarian argument is that people should have the freedom to do whatever they want. Anything less than that is simply the government (usually co-opted by the elites) controlling people. (As far as child pornography is concerned, read my words at the end) If you don't buy this argument, you don't support freedom. But that's ok. Only a few humans are libertarians. Anarchists, the most extreme liberatarians on the left, do not even recognize the state and want it abolished. In that case, clearly the government has no jurisdication over the individual, and drugs will be legal (along with a whole hoard of other things).

      The socialist argument is that the best way to control ANYTHING is via the government. This implies that you need to legalize something unless you are strongly authoratarian. You probably have to be practicing totalitarianism to control something that is not legal. Since I am not a totalitarian, this means that the government can only control something if it is legal. Another way of saying this is that the government can't control black markets (and to some extent gray markets). Even hardcore totalitarian governments like USSR had difficulties controlling the black market (you were still able to get US dollars, Western music, etc in USSR). Otherwise, government control is nothing more than an illusion. By legalizing drugs, the government can ACTUALLLY control drugs. Whereas, the government has ZERO control over drugs.

      Conservatives and various others may think the govt has control over drugs but it is anything but. You can get drugs in every high school. You can get drugs in most nightclubs. You can get drugs if you ask around. And so forth. The amount of drugs used now is FAR higher than at any point (except during the hippie days :) ). The US goverment spends hundreads of millions on DEA alone (likely to hit $1 billion within 10 years). Not to mention the billions spent by police on combating drugs. Government propaganda may make it seem like it is working but that is not true. You might see drug busts once in a while on tv. You know what? Even though those busts occur, the price of drugs on the street usually stays the same. What this means is that the supply is sufficient for the demand. Whether these busts occur or not is totally irrelevant. So the only way to control drugs (the socialist argument) is by government intervention, which necessarily requires legalization.

      So those are the two arguments. I'm primarily a socialist so I would go with the 2nd option. Even if you don't buy those arguments, you will lose! Liberalism triumphs over conservatism! Drugs WILL get legalized. Resistance is futile ;)

      (Side note: Child pornography will never ever be legalized, at least from a left wing perspective. There is a very simple reason for it. Liberalism respects human rights--in fact, liberals are the ones who are always clamouring for it (eg. civil rights movement, feminism, UN, etc). Child pornography will NEVER be allowed because it VIOLATES HUMAN RIGHTS. In particular, the rights of the child are violated. There is no getting around this. It doesn't matter what you think of the pornography. The fact of the matter is that this will violate human rights. Therefore it will never be permitted. This is similar to how slavery or rape will not be permitted, from a left-wing perspective, for the simple reason that they violate human rights. Unless you throw away all human rights (against liberalism and progressive views), you won't see this happening.)

      Sivaram Velauthapillai

      --
      Sivaram Velauthapillai
      Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places ;)
  99. Wait... does this mean... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does this mean all those little people that live inside my television aren't really there?

    Then who the hell has been eating the cookies I leave by the TV every night?

  100. Were is the bias by pauldy · · Score: 1

    This is something that has been addressed before again and again. The point is people don't really care. The only people who do are the smaller local broadcasters. I can sympathize with their plight trying to make a buck when the big guys are making it difficult for them. This does not excuse the libelous comments alleging made up news. I'm hopping someone at clear channels takes note of this and helps to lighten the load of slashdot editors like this.

  101. Broadcasting: "News" or "Entertainment" by shubert1966 · · Score: 1

    " . . . with the advancement of technology, it has become common practice for on-air personalities across the industry -- such as Rush Limbaugh -- to anchor programs remotely . . ."

    And just what technology might that be - Pharmacology?

    . . . but seriously folks . . .

    This reminds me of the movie Quiz Show from 1994. After people find out that certain charasmatic contestants have been supplied with the questions before the show, an executive from the program testifies before Congress. His statement in the movie goes something like: "Hey - we never said is was factual, we only said it was entertaining.". Here is some testimony from what I believe is the actual 1950's hearing.

    As far as radio goes, disco was bad enough, now that it's all pre-packaged and rotated - I'll stick to playing my guitar with my friends. However, for actual entertainment, and a counter-voice to Limbaugh (et. al.), I'm eagerly anticipating the new channel and programming involving Al Franken

    May the Universe continue to bless itself - through You!

    --
    Stuff that matters.
  102. Same with Fox Sports Northwest? by noncontributor · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Back when I had cable here in Seattle, I would watch Mariners games on Fox Sports Northwest. For the postgame, these two (rather annoying) sportscasters (can't remember the names, it was a couple years ago) would come on, either ecstatic that the Mariners had won, or disappointed that they had lost. So, I go visit the inlaws' in Detroit, catch a Tigers game on Fox Sports (whatever it is in Detroit), and for the postgame, it's the same two guys, and these same two sportscasters are bummed out by the Tigers' poor showing (go figure)! So, what gives? I'm now picturing a couple guys sitting in a studio down in LA, doing sports for all of the various "local" sports programs across the country. I guess this is an efficient way of doing sports broadcasting, but it seems dishonest and unethical. Can anyone verify that my suspicions are true, or is it possible that these two guys got demoted to covering Detroit sports?

    1. Re:Same with Fox Sports Northwest? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      haha that sux dewd

  103. Deception by DynaSoar · · Score: 1

    "...when does it cross the line into deception?"

    When the producer or director or editor decides to present some things and not others, and decides how those things are to be presented.

    Plain old "editorial discretion" is deception, because it presents a bias, whether of omission or commission. When they pretend that a golf tournament deserves as much air time as, say, a suicide bombing, they're already playing a role that goes way, way beyond pretending they're in a certain location.

    --
    "I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
  104. What about taping shows & then calling them li by Graemee · · Score: 1

    Our local radio stations here will tape weekend news & DJ banter then play it over the weekend as if live. This was the explanation when they could not broadcast an emergency weather condition and someone was fatally struck by lightning during the sudden storm.

    We do not have the same emergency broadcast system like in the US. I believe the weather service can cut in and broadcast these developments.

  105. As a side-note... by ziggy_zero · · Score: 2, Informative

    Sage Francis and the Non-Prophets are going on a Fuck Clear Channel tour this year, so if you want to stick it to the man and listen to some damn good music at the same time, I highly suggest you hit it up.

    --
    I belong to the ______ generation.
    1. Re:As a side-note... by LostCluster · · Score: 1

      "Non-Prophets" is a nice play on words for an anti-CC group. "Phrophet" is the name of the automation software used by nearly all Clear Channel stations.

  106. The forest and the trees. by AftanGustur · · Score: 1


    For over a year the US administration has been deceiving the public about Iraq, and now you are whining because some reporter talked about the weather outside without actually beeing there ???

    Get a grip woman !!! This is peanuts compared to other things that have been going on.

    --
    echo '[q]sa[ln0=aln80~Psnlbx]16isb572CCB9AE9DB03273snlbxq' |dc
  107. for the record... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    for the record, im in jacksonville, about 20minutes NORTH of st. augustine, and its 6:30pm here, and its 62 out, article said it was 50!

  108. Same story in "Tell it to the King" by Larry King by rufusdufus · · Score: 1

    I can't find my copy at the moment to check the wordng, but there is a section in Larry King's book "Tell it to the King" that has a section that reads exactly like this. I guess two people can report the same thing with words so very similar, but somehow I think being attributed to Neal Stephenson can't be right.

  109. Clinton's many crimes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    NB: I'm a fan of Clinton in most respects, just not how he handled a certain affair

    He lied and bungled just about everything. As far as ethics goes, the lewinsky thing was the least of the felonies he committed.

    1. Re:Clinton's many crimes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      NB: I'm a fan of Clinton in most respects, just not how he handled a certain affair


      He lied and bungled just about everything. As far as ethics goes, the lewinsky thing was the least of the felonies he committed.


      Would you like to name one? I can think of only one error in his presidency (not using ground troops sooner in Kosovo) but I can't think of any felonies. As to the Lewinsky affair, so what? He got a blow job. Did he lie about? Sure, but who cares? He shouldn't have been put in a position where he had to lie about it. The repukes really are a disgusting lot. So long as they remain in power, the more people like me will sponser terrorism against the USA.
    2. Re:Clinton's many crimes by The+Almighty+Dave · · Score: 1
      As to the Lewinsky affair, so what? He got a blow job. Did he lie about? Sure, but who cares?

      I don't care that he got a blowjob. I do care that he lied about it. It is a matter of credibility. He lied about that, what else did he lie about? What else was he willing to lie about?

      He shouldn't have been put in a position where he had to lie about it.

      He shouldn't have put himself in a position where he had to lie about it. I'm sorry, but Clinton isn't a stupid man. He should have known the consequences of his actions. He knew his position would cause him to be under scrutiny and should have avoided the whole situation.

  110. Ban the Dixie Chicks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It is within any station's free speech rights to ban the Dixie Chicks, especially after they started to spew hate and lies instead of just playing country music.

    Might as well call them "Saddam's Chicks". They lied themselves into a spider-hole. Just shows the problems with people like them, who know nothing about foreign policy, start to babble.

    1. Re:Ban the Dixie Chicks by danielsfca2 · · Score: 1

      Saddam's Chicks? Lied? Please. What a pathetic attempt to smear these women, for exercising their right, nay, responsibility, to express their opinion about the so-called leaders of this country. Care to justify your statement?

      And what about the thousands of rednecks who were saying "Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11. Why don't we carpet-bomb the whole country and kill all those damn ragheads!!" Now those are people who truly "know nothing about foreign policy" and "babble" anyway.

  111. I'll add this to my list of things to worry about by The+Famous+Druid · · Score: 1

    Lets see, how about #53217, just below
    "Does the light stay on in the fridge when the door is closed?"

    Come on people, get a life.
    Who gives a fsck whether the guy phones in a few reports now and then?

    How many of the people who are so concerned at this 'deception' were willing to be 'understanding' when they found out GWB invaded a country and killed thousands of innocent people based on a pack of lis about WMDs?

    --
    Quidquid Latine dictum sit, altum videtur (anything said in Latin sounds important)
  112. One thing I love about Dallas by Quattro+Vezina · · Score: 1
    Here in the Dallas area, we have the station WRR 101.1 FM.

    It's publicly owned by the city, so it's free of the usual garbage from the likes of ClearChannel. It's mostly a classical music station, but it also has news and weather, and some other stuff (e.g. religious programming on sunday mornings, if you're into that sort of thing). They also cover Dallas events, such as the July 4 TrinityFest fireworks show.

    In addition, they also sell some CDs in their online store, which I've also seen in various music stores around Dallas.

    --
    I support the Center for Consumer Freedom
  113. Depends on what "a few" means by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Which would be about 6 weeks.

  114. So /. is against telecommuting now? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What's the big deal. They don't mislead people about the facts, just who's reporting on them, and from what location.

  115. Outsourcing Radio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe theres a market for outsourcing broadcasting jobs overseas too. Since it no longer needs a local presence.

    I could pay an English speaking Pakistani one tenth of what I'd pay a local american citizen and not have to pay health insurance either.

    What a GREAT idea!

    the anonymous coward

  116. It seems like a little thing by HangingChad · · Score: 1
    But it's this little thing and that little thing that add up after a while. I've got a green screen in my studio and with a little work can make it look like I'm reporting from anywhere on any story. And really for a lot of news stories they are just "stand over there so we get the building in the shot" and it wouldn't matter if they were actually there or in front of a green screen somewhere else. But there has to be integrity in the process. If I see an anchor at the studio, I'd assume it was a stringer shooting the story. Happens all the time, no big deal. If the same anchor is super-imposed in front of the White House and says, "...reporting from the White House..." he's lying. To me that's a big difference. And if he'll lie about where he is, what else will he lie about? We have stations in town that the announcer will say he's in San Diego or somewhere else, they don't lie about being here. People still listen to them.

    This guy lied. He was pretending to be there. He wasn't just saying, "definitely got Boston in the deep freeze today." He was saying it like he was there. Not admitting it or not announcing a disclaimer is not the same as being deliberately deceptive. Paint it any way you want, pretend it doesn't matter, he deceived his listeners. It's not like telecommuting. If your boss knows you're telecommuting, you're fine. If you're telecommuting pretending to be in the office, you're fired.

    --
    That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
  117. healthy choices by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

    Your examples demonstrate the "natural monopoly" of a universal healthcare insurer. It should be no-questions-asked, and spread across the largest base of similarly risk-constrained people. Like OHIP in Ontario, where everyone's taxes pay to indemnify the health risks while living under the same laws. If everyone is free to choose to smoke or not, everyone should pay to fix the health of broken smokers. Health insurance is one area with reduced "moral hazard", where insurance encourages risky behavior, because the experience of being broken and then fixed is more prohibitive than any financial costs. Illegal risks, like breaking a leg while trespassing, or driving on the wrong side of the road, might be excluded from indemnification. It's a tidy way for populations to protect themselves from risks and their consequences.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  118. story queue moderation by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 3, Interesting

    When I asked Slashdot about a user (subscriber?) moderated story submissions queue, their reply (thanks!) was that such participation causes "social problems". They're experts, but I'd like to see a way to experiment with that social dynamic, so we can solve the social problems, instead of avoiding them. Sure, we could hack user moderation into the Slashcode story submission queue, and launch "OpenSlashdot (TM)", but without the large experienced community, the experiment won't work so well. Meanwhile, many story submissions disappear into an unaccountable black hole, while many other reposts appear weekly.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

    1. Re:story queue moderation by bjarvis354 · · Score: 1

      This has been a problem on /. since the beginning. This was one of the reasons that scoop was created. It is based on the idea of slash with an open model, but a whole new set of problems. To see it in action, check out kuro5hin which I think is vastly superior to /.

      But I still love /.

    2. Re:story queue moderation by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

      What kind of problems has kuro5hin encountered with their user moderated story queue?

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    3. Re:story queue moderation by bjarvis354 · · Score: 1

      One word: Trolls.....Lots of 'em. A totally open model like kuro5hin is great, but it is easy to be overrun by negative moderation.

      But are the storys that do make the front page on kuro5hin of higher quality than slashdots? Yeah, I think so. But it also takes alot of time for stories to make it to the front page. Kuro5hin is ideal for people who want to be active in the site itself.

    4. Re:story queue moderation by Kaboom13 · · Score: 1

      I read kuro5hin regularly, but the user moderated stories let tons of total crap in. Slashdot stories might be biased, or link to crud, but kuro5hin stories (especially political) are often filled with downright lies. The very strong liberal slant means almost anything that slams Bush on pure hearsay gets modded up, and the facts almost never make it out. If the slahdot editors actually employed the tiniest amount of effort to editing, it would be a much better system. For example, this stories content had almsot nothing to do with the linked article, and everything to do with someone carrying a torch against Clear Channel. If Slashdot editors actually bothered to read the linked articles, check sources, and check facts, it would be an effective system. Readers normally catch the errors, but most people have already reached a conclusion and write anyone that disagrees with their predisposition off as a crackpot. Just look at how many comments are attached ot this story about how evil Clear Channel is, when if you read the story, it has nothing to do with Clear Channel.

  119. Mister Simpson...Quit mocking my God by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apu

  120. What the Hell? by concordeonetwo · · Score: 1

    I work in television media. I know Canada also allows a corporation to own serveral types of media, but yet I don't see this ClearChannel effect going on up there (at least to my eye, I could be wrong though). Have us Americans become that greedy about money that we are cutting every corner to make the most money? No wonder were the laughing stock of the world, we have become jerks like England was to us in 1776!

  121. Re:Same story in "Tell it to the King" by Larry Ki by ndinsil · · Score: 1

    I've read "In the Beginning Was the Command Line", and I recall that anecdote. The attribution is correct.

  122. ... does it cross the line into deception? by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

    Yes.

    --
    The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  123. Call centers by Foole · · Score: 1

    How does this differ from call centers where someone pretends to be from several companies?

    --
    This is not a turnip.
  124. you asked for it... by kevin+lyda · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    you let bush and the republicans get elected. they said they'd deregulate, and they have. and it's as crappy and shitty as we liberals said it would be. but hey, it is profitable, hurrah!

    so pat yourselves on the back for a job well done. good going guys!

    yeay you!

    --
    US Citizen living abroad? Register to vote!
  125. In other news.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bill Gates takes a shit Steve Ballmer finds a diamond....moving along NOW...

  126. Re:Same story in "Tell it to the King" by Larry Ki by rufusdufus · · Score: 1

    I wasnt saying its not in the it, but rather, its not original...

  127. Geraldo Live! (Before a Studio Audience!) by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 1

    Geraldo Rivera claimed to be in Kandahar, while "phoning it in" from Tora Bora. Phesheya Dube, radio broadcaster in Swaziland, claimed to be broadcasting from Iraq, but really never left home. So much reporting on the US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is synthetic, that we should never trust what we hear, unless we corroborate from multiple sources. Even then, we must remain skeptical until we see where the money flows. Authentication of news requires interaction from consumers, which is why so many of us mine the Internet for information, and expect only entertainment from broadcasters.

    --

    --
    make install -not war

  128. torrent of chomsky by crabpeople · · Score: 1

    Manufacturing Consent [800mb~]

    something tells me hes like michael moore[5meg~] and wont care if people pirate his things.

    he has the exact same idea about it that I do but hes famous and im not. which is just as well because i dont want people going thru my trash any more than they already do.

    --
    I'll just use my special getting high powers one more time...
    1. Re:torrent of chomsky by Sivaram_Velauthapill · · Score: 1

      Is that the documentary about Chomsky? I think the documentary makers probably care about pirating. After all, they make their living off that. Chomky probably cares too. However, he is an anarchist and most anarchists don't respect copyrights* so I'm not sure.

      * Not all anarchists ignore copyrights but many do. In case you are wondering why anarchists don't respect copyrights, it's because they view copyrights as being legitimized by authority (as opposed to choice). This is one of the reason anarchist or anarchist-like websites (eg. indymedia.org) have postings blatantly violating copyright. For exmaple, people post full articles without paying the copyright holder (especially from newspapers or from other people's websites). Even on Slashdot, some people post full articles even though that is a blatant violation of copyright).

      Sivaram Velauthapillai

      --
      Sivaram Velauthapillai
      Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places ;)
    2. Re:torrent of chomsky by crabpeople · · Score: 1

      well i watched it and its all about how the media is the only source of information (pre internet of course) and how that makes people only think in certain ways. so yes i can say that even though someone made a documentary about it (i think it was more like a plug for the book IMHO), that it is ok in pirating it.

      of course i pirate everything because as michael moore and southpark both say; the message is more important than profit off said message.

      --
      I'll just use my special getting high powers one more time...
  129. Less censorship by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you let bush and the republicans get elected. they said they'd deregulate, and they have. and it's as crappy and shitty as we liberals said it would be. but hey, it is profitable, hurrah!

    Translation: "Deregulation" means less censorship and less government interference in the free press. If you value the Bill of Rights, you will know that this is how it should be.

  130. give me a break! He's just in another city, big... by iamhassi · · Score: 1
    Has anyone even read the article? They're making a huge stink because the guy was sitting in sunny Florida while his radio broadcast was publicized in chilly Boston, and he'd say things like "boy it's freezing outside!"

    Is it a slow news day or something? Don't you have anything else to bitch about? I thought I was going to read a "Wag the Dog" type article, but this guy's not making thing's up, it was cold in Boston and he reported that it was cold in Boston.

    Move on, nothing to see here...

    --
    my karma will be here long after I'm gone
  131. Re:ATTENTION: MY COCK IS HARD. WHAT TO DO NOW? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have three words for you: Dolphin

  132. It's lying when they intend to deceive listeners. by YouHaveSnail · · Score: 1

    when does it cross the line into deception?

    It crosses the line into deception when the announcer says things that are intended to deceive the listeners. Referring to the weather, the announcer says "When do we get a break?" so that listeners will think that he's there in Boston. And it's downright lying when he says "it's 5 degrees outside," because it's NOT five degrees outside, it's 50. Indeed, the ONLY reason to say those things is to tell the listeners that he's in Boston.

    "...The main thing is that his information does not deceive the public."

    Oh, but it DOES deceive the public. Do most of the listeners believe that LaPierre is in Boston? If yes, then by definition they've been deceived. You can make all the excuses for it that you want. You can tell yourself that it doesn't really matter that you lie to the audience. But that doesn't change the fact that you're a lying liar.

  133. But you aren't trying to hide it by A+nonymous+Coward · · Score: 1

    If someone asked you, other than beingannoyed at wasting your time, you wouldn't be embarassed to say where it was hosted. These people are. Both the management and the anchor don't want their audience to know. That means they think it is deceptive and wrong.

  134. What, by bsd+troll · · Score: 0

    were you hitting on her?

  135. Went through something similar not long ago by Platinum+Dragon · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I do a news-commentary-wild half-baked rant show on a community station in Toronto twice a week. A few months ago, the station's transmitter burned out on a Sunday night. My first show is early Monday morning.

    Upon arriving at the control room, I found a note on the console informing the next hosts that the station had been silent since at least 9:30 pm the previous night. Naturally, the paid staff generally don't work on the weekend, especially on a Sunday evening, so no one actually called the Monday morning hosts, myself included. Since I wasn't sure if we were broadcasting again[0], I went through with the show I planned anyway, even after a couple people called wondering where the hell the signal was. I did this, despite the probability that no one could listen, because there was no way for me to be sure that we had no audience at all. A prof with decades of experience in radio taught us to never say anything near a mic that we would not want anyone to hear on-air[1] [2], and I've taken this to heart.

    ObOnTopicComment: Not only am I straight about where I'm broadcasting from, I'm quite open about the editorial slant that will be broadcast[3] and encourage the listeners to confirm what I spew with other, probably more reputable sources.

    [0] The low-power backup came online before the next show, and we finally got back to full power a couple weeks later once repairs were completed.

    [1] And provided some graphic examples of what happens when on-air people don't watch their mouths.

    [2] I've made this mistake a couple times, once with the mic on. Nothing major or offensive, just dumb. Still, I learned my lesson.

    [3] "Libertarian socialist", if it matters. I figure it's better to be open about my political views and admit I'm as biased as the next person, than to claim objectivity and get called on it when my personal bias creeps in anyway. I don't fudge the facts, and I correct my mistakes on-air. I'm not a journalist, but I know better than to fake things I can be called on, which apparently this station did not.

    --

    Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
  136. Talking heads. by Animats · · Score: 2, Interesting
    The quality of the news being broadcast is in no way being impaired because he's not gathering it. He's a presenter.

    They have a point. They're called "news readers" in the UK, and "radio personalities" in the US.. Talking heads. They're not journalists.

    That whole job can be automated anyway. Check out Ananova. A few more years of improvement, and we'll be able to ditch most TV celebrities.

  137. Bin Laden != freedom fighter by iamhassi · · Score: 3, Interesting
    "What kind of problems has kuro5hin encountered with their user moderated story queue?"

    Well, kuro5hin did run a story calling Bin Laden a (misunderstood) "freedom fighter" and his war against the US a "strategic move".

    If that's the kind of stories user moderation results in then I'd say user moderation sucks.

    --
    my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    1. Re:Bin Laden != freedom fighter by Doc+Ruby · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I'm a New Yorker, and I'd flay bin Laden alive if I had the chance. That deluded story posted to kuro5hin would give me a chance to say so to the poster, as well as other commentors. As well as a chance to distinguish my personal interest from a proper US government policy and strategy for fighting terrorism. If it had been suppressed, that chance would have been lost. So posting it doesn't seem to be a problem, unless the system had been somehow gamed to post it contrary to the expressed decisions of the moderators. Or unless actual reality is subservient to expressions on websites, justifying supression of expression to control real events.

      You might say that the k5 moderators suck, in which case you could participate and influence to change things for the better. Controversy is not a social problem, unless it's an unmanageable din, or freedom of expression is constrained. What actual "social problems" have k5 people experienced?

      --

      --
      make install -not war

    2. Re:Bin Laden != freedom fighter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      You should actually read the whole post. You might even learn something. Besides, the author later explained his use of the word "freedom fighter":

      "First, let me apologize for using the term "freedom fighter". I didn't think about the emotional power of the word. I didn't intend to imply that a freedom fighter is a noble thing. A freedom fighter denotes a person's goals, not their method. A freedom fighter is a person who acts for reform in their own country. I did not intend to assign moral qualities to the term. A terrorist does not imply goal. It defines the method. A terrorist is a person who uses terror to achieve a purpose. According to these definations, bin Laden is both.
      "My main purpose with using the term freedom fighter was to drive home the point that his goals are solely nationalistic. I believe that bin Laden doesn't really care about the US. In fact, I doubt he cares about the Middle East or the situation of Muslims worldwide. This is apparent in the fact that the embassy bombings killed Muslims. His fatwa against US citizens included US Muslims. He cares about Saudi Arabia. He is using, no abusing, Islam to turn his goals into global ones."

    3. Re:Bin Laden != freedom fighter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Freedom of speech implies allowing other people's opinions to be heard and debated, no matter how distasteful they may be to you.

      There are probably a (large-ish?) number of people in the (Arab) world who feel like this; if you want to change that, one important thing is to *understand the way they think*. That doesn't mean that you agree with it, of course.

      (Also, I note that the story was written in June 2001 -- ObL wasn't really "Public Enemy #1" then. I wonder if that story would have been voted up six months later?)

    4. Re:Bin Laden != freedom fighter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll ignore the fact that you completely misinterpreted the meaning of that story and ask simply if you are implying that only stories with the "accepted" point of view should be posted. For one, that story clearly wasn't meant as news as it was posted in the op-ed section. Should newspapers also only print opinion pieces that the editorial staff agrees with? My, that would be dull.

      But if you don't want to be challenged to considered new points of view, I guess it would be best for you to find a site that heavily edits their news and presents things with your preferred spin. You might want to check out Fox.

  138. HOLY SHIT, YOU CAN'T BE THAT STUPID! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    1. Re:HOLY SHIT, YOU CAN'T BE THAT STUPID! by Sivaram_Velauthapill · · Score: 1

      Yo stop dissing people... Posting as an anonymous coward, and claiming someone else is stupid without any justification just makes YOU look stupid...

      Sivaram Velauthapillai

      --
      Sivaram Velauthapillai
      Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places ;)
    2. Re:HOLY SHIT, YOU CAN'T BE THAT STUPID! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Using the phrase "Yo stop dissing people" make you look stupid. Using ellipses instead of a period, makes you look stupid

    3. Re:HOLY SHIT, YOU CAN'T BE THAT STUPID! by Sivaram_Velauthapill · · Score: 1

      Really? I guess stupidity is in the eye of the beholder :)

      What's wrong with "yo stop dissing people". Too juvenile for you? Too hip for you? Too modern for you? ;) I guess you must be old...

      Using ellipses is correct because I was posting two thoughts that are not connect to each other. A period would mean that the sentences are related to each other...

      Sivaram Velauthapillai

      --
      Sivaram Velauthapillai
      Seeking the meaning of life... @slashdot of all places ;)
    4. Re:HOLY SHIT, YOU CAN'T BE THAT STUPID! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Using ellipses instead of a period, makes you look stupid

      Using commas in the wrong places, makes you look stupid. Missing the period yourself when you slam someone for using too many, makes you look stupid.

      Commas, used sarcastically.

    5. Re:HOLY SHIT, YOU CAN'T BE THAT STUPID! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      What's wrong with "yo stop dissing people". Too juvenile for you? Too hip for you? Too modern for you? ;) I guess you must be old...

      It has nothing to do with any of those things. Would you speak like that at a job interview? How about in a meeting with customers?

      The ellipsis indicates the omission of quoted material. A period indicates the end of a sentence.

  139. Okay then, so how far is too far? by potus98 · · Score: 1

    I'm really surprised you /.ers care where he broadcasts from. He's a radio presenter, not a TV journalist. Some of your points might be interesting if it was TV journalist standing in front of a Gainsville, FL courthouse claiming to be "live at the [Boston suburb] courthouse..."

    What if he was in a suburban studio just outside of Boston, would that be okay? What about a studio in New York City?

    What if he's in his usual downtown Boston studio and presenting the weather and temps for a distant suburb? Is that deceitful?

    So, what is the allowed mileage range before it becomes deceitful?

    BTW: Atlanta local TV news has the opposite problem. They feel compelled to send a reporter and camera crew to every damn street corner for LIVE UDPATES about EVERY SINGLE lame story they cover. On the 6am news I have to watch some poor sap freezing his ass off so he can report "LIVE from the Atlanta Fulton County government building that won't be open for another 3 hours anyways" "Behind me you can see the steps that so-n-so will be walking up when they arrive for their hearing 8 DAYS from now."

    --
    This one gang kept wanting me to join cause I'm pretty good with a bo staff.
  140. When did it cross the line? by carcosa30 · · Score: 1

    TV news crossed the line into deception a long time ago.

    The agendas of the corporate monoliths who run the media in the United States are stinking and obvious in every little "human interest" story. It wouldn't matter anyway if the "local stories that aren't" were actually local; the end result is the same.

    --
    Intolerance for ambiguity is the mark of the authoritarian personality.
  141. Clear Channel News by sybert · · Score: 1

    The Clear Channel talk station here in Los Angeles has an excellent news division. They have local hosts and reporters and are the only local news that is truly independant from our non-locally owned monopoly newspaper. (Can't say anything about their weather coverage, we don't have any weather here). Outsourcing can help smaller media (radio and TV) compete against newspapers to produce independant local news.

    I would love it if the radio station would partner with an independant TV station and open a competing newspaper. But then the new group would own a newspaper, TV station, and radio station, and that is not allowed under the old FCC rules because we need more media diversity.

  142. Sinclair Broadcasting by big_a · · Score: 1

    I think if I lived in Boston, I would probably feel a little deceived. However, I don't think what this guy's doing is a huge deal. I mean he's in Boston for most of the year and in the winter he flies south for 2 weeks out of the month.

    However, I have a huge problem with companies like Sinclair Broadcasting. Most of your local TV news probably comes from them. And then you get ultra-conservative jackasses like Mark Hyman injected into your local news. He's the VP of Corporate Relations for Sinclair, and this apparently entitles him to a 2 minute spot (The Point) every night, on TVs nationwide.

    1. Re:Sinclair Broadcasting by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mark Hyman is a great commentator.

  143. this proves that thier a liberal bias in the media by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    THe liberal bias is shown how, the some or most in the media tilt to the left and misinform or put things out of contexts to spin story to a left type view. JUst like when they bash bush.

  144. Radio Radio by qtp · · Score: 1

    Someone else said it better.

    (Yes, it's a cover, but it still tells the truth better than you or your colleagues ever did.)

    --
    Read, L
    1. Re:Radio Radio by kitzilla · · Score: 1
      (Yes, it's a cover, but it still tells the truth better than you or your colleagues ever did.)

      I am a garden-variety radio programmer in a medium-sized Southern market. I love what I do, am proud of my co-workers, and try to actually fulfill my stations' mandate to serve their communities. This was my attitude long before I ever worked for Clear Channel, and is how the vast majority of the people in our business feel.

      If you care to call me a liar, identify yourself and cite specific instances in which I have been deceptive. All I have done is relate my personal experience inside Clear Channel, even if it doesn't square with the lazy and ill-informed popular tendency to tar the company with every ill ever committed in the industry.

      --
      This is my post. There are many others like it. If you don't like what you read here, go try one of the others.
    2. Re:Radio Radio by qtp · · Score: 1

      If you care to call me a liar, identify yourself and cite specific instances in which I have been deceptive.

      The question is not one of lying, but of the absolute arrogance of a corporation that does not examine the effect they are having on the people they are pretending to serve and the loyalty and belief that thier employees place in that coprporation while not truly understanding who the customers are.

      While yoyu as a DJ might believe that you are serving the "listening public", the truth is that your customers are not the listeners, but are the advertisers who buy airtime on your station. The customers of your parent corporation are not only the individual advertisers, but also the record companies that wish to get airtime for thier music (which is advertising for acts and for record sales).

      Like all companies that produce a salable product (ie: your listeners), your companies wishes to produce a quality product that will maximise the benefit to your most customers. In the case of ClearChannel, so playlist guidelines are tailored to benefit the member companies of the RIAA, and specifically to not benefit those acts and studios that are not members.

      The listening community is your product, and always has been. That product is lower quality (in your customjers eyes) if it does not adapt the attitudes (consumerism) and beliefs (brand loyalty) that benefit your customers (the advertisers and reccord companies). Music that gets played either promotes those attitudes and ideas, or at least does not undermine them. The playlists do not reflect the wishes of the listeners (ie: the Dixie Chicks drop from the playlists less than a day after thier statement was publicized), but instead reflects the wishes of your customers (music debuting high on the charts before any listeners have actually heard the song).

      All I have done is relate my personal experience inside Clear Channel, even if it doesn't square with the lazy and ill-informed popular tendency to tar the company with every ill ever committed in the industry.

      Your brand loyalty is impressive in it's completeness and you willingness to adhere to the dogma will surely be rewarded. At least you will not be punnished for expressing your individual thoughts and beliefs about your employer, as you haven't yet shared those thoughts and beliefs with us.

      --
      Read, L
  145. It depends on what the meaning of "here" is by Frisky070802 · · Score: 1

    I reread the article, and don't see it saying that he says he's in Boston, he just says things like "It's 5 degrees outside [in Boston]" and "can't we [in Boston] get a break?". He says he doesn't lie, and I don't find anything in the article to contradict. But then I've never listened to the station.

    --
    Mencken had it right. So glad that's old news.
    1. Re:It depends on what the meaning of "here" is by LostCluster · · Score: 1

      Right, the break he might have been refering to is from having to lead with the same top story for three consecutive days while he's in sunny Florida...

    2. Re:It depends on what the meaning of "here" is by Frisky070802 · · Score: 1
      Funny.

      Really, though, it's the same white lie. "When do we get a break" refers to the collective we of Boston, and that even makes some sense. Thinking of it another way, if you're out of town and your spouse complains over the phone how cold it is, are you going to say "When will you get a break"? Maybe if you've been gone a long time and will continue to be gone a long time, but otherwise you're affected in absentia, and will be affected directly Real Soon Now.

      --
      Mencken had it right. So glad that's old news.
  146. An Excellent Example of this happening by paragon_au · · Score: 2, Interesting

    So what if Dan Rather, instead of traveling to the middle of a hurricane to report live, just used a blue screen and a wind machine, and had someone off screen throw a tree branch or two at him? Is that ok too?

    This happened in Australia just recently to do with the Iraq war. A current affairs reporter claimed to be in Iraq, and was saying shit such as "Look us anywhere we want. We are in a truck which could be filled with weapons and no one has stopped us." I also heard (didn't see all of it) that he claimed they were being fired at by Iraqi's.
    It was later exposed he had just been going thru the Australian outback, and the few shots that looked like they were from Iraq, were. But they weren't shot by him, they were added in later from other news broadcasts.

  147. alternative news is alive on the net by mabu · · Score: 1

    Here are some great sources for news online:

    Financial Times - FT a good example of actual "news reporting" (as opposed to "news creating" exhibited by most companies). As a result of the commercial influence in all aspects of society nowadays, it makes perfect sense that some of the financial news sources may now be the most objective source of information. Check out this wonderful site and newspaper.

    PR Watch - This site is run by the Center for Media & Democracy is a nonprofit, public interest organization funded by individuals and nonprofit foundations and dedicated to investigative reporting on the public relations industry. The Center serves citizens, journalists and researchers seeking to recognize and combat manipulative and misleading PR practices. There is an excellent weekly newsletter you can subscribe to from this site which summarizes news stories and special issues where media coverage was manipulated.

    Disinfopedia - a collaborative project to produce a directory of public relations firms, think tanks, industry-funded organizations and industry-friendly experts that work to influence public opinion and public policy on behalf of corporations, governments and special interests. More than 2500 articles outlining information and credentials on key individuals and entities involved with public policy and other areas. This is a great resource to look up the history of people in the news.

    Link TV - The first national network offering a global perspective on news, current events and culture, presenting viewpoints seldom covered in the U.S. media. We present first-run documentaries on global issues, current affairs series, international news, classic foreign feature films, and the best of world music. Link TV's programming, combined with innovative use of two-way digital link-ups and our participatory web site, deepens audience engagement and encourages active participation. If you have DirecTV, this network is channel 375 - ask your cable provider if they do not make this network available - it's worth it!

    Democratic Underground - What has turned out to be a polarized web site has become a watchdog for the mainstream media, the Democratic Underground exposes the hypocrisy and sleaziness in the media. Check this site out folks -- with references (something you do not find on conservative sites)

    CorpWatch - A great site for information on the nefarious activities of multinational corporations. Want to find out who's paid off whom? Which governments are under the influence of which corporations? Little-known corporate relationships that explain unusual social or political events? This is the site to check.

    Adbusters - In our society it has become increasingly difficult to separate editorial from advertising and many argue there is no longer a distinction. This site addresses the social changes in how people are educated by addressing the impact of news and the advertising media and exposes the propaganda campaigns. Very good reading, and in many cases, shockingly thought-provoking!

    Common Dreams News Center - Billed as "Breaking news & views for the Progressive community",
    this site endeavors to carry stories that the mainstream media may either not be reporting, or not telling all sides.

    Canadian Broadcast Corporation - Canada's state-owned news service is widely regarded as one of the most objective sources of information.

    Independent Media Center - A good source for news stories that the mainstream doesn't pick up. This site is particularly sensitive to the influence corporate America has over what is and is

    1. Re:alternative news is alive on the net by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      DU is filled with kooks, and IndyMedia is funded by anti-government George Soros.

  148. News is a mony making BUSINESS Damnit! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    when are you holier than thou /. readers going to realize that the news media is in the money making business and not in the news reporting business.

    Whey the hell did you not get mad when all of the anti-Howard Dean, Howard Dean scandal, etc news stories suddenly appeared 2 weeks before the Iowa primary?

    The news stories existed way before the Iowa primary and were held back by the media so that they could:
    1. influence the Iowa primary voting
    2. make money since it is 'important news'

    It should make you sick to think that the media holds stories back or ignores them because either they don't agree with the politics of the story
    or they want to be the only news source with a big story that day.

    For example, the news media politics are that day care is good for your kids, so moms can work without feeling guilty, and moms can be more liberal instead of staying at home.

    This is why you almost never ever hear that day care may be bad in some way for your kids.

    Check out the book "Bias" written by a CBS reporter

    1. Re:News is a mony making BUSINESS Damnit! by alex_ant · · Score: 0

      when are you holier than thou /. readers going to realize that the news media is in the money making business and not in the news reporting business.

      I'm not sure about the readers, but I'm pretty sure the slashdot editors had that figured out sometime around 1998.

  149. Is michael really Jon Katz? by thelizman · · Score: 1

    Holy crap, it just keeps getting worse! Michael can't keep his irrational politics out of what is supposed to be a "news" story. If slashdot is that hard up for editors, I'll volunteer. Seems to me there's plenty of good stuff going into the queue that michael doesn't need to dig up and mischaracterize issues just to get his own two cents in sideways.

    News for nerds indeed. News for uptight leftist wannabes.

  150. So what is your standing on Bush? by chriso11 · · Score: 1

    So... is Bush's lie about Yellow Cake more severe, in you opinion? Why or why not?

    --
    No, I don't trust in god. He'll have to pay up front, like everybody else.
    1. Re:So what is your standing on Bush? by The+Almighty+Dave · · Score: 1
      Let's see, there still seems to be some speculation as to whether President Bush knew that the information he was given was false, at the time of the speech, or not.

      Did President Clinton know Lewinski's lips were wrapped around his cock?

      Of

  151. Ironic that the Globe is covering this... by ckd · · Score: 1

    I find it amusing that the Boston Globe is covering this when they didn't seem to care when one of their columnists implied attending a conference, but clearly had not.

  152. Didn't know this existed by dfj225 · · Score: 1

    An interesting quote from the article: "Ethics specialists argue that LaPierre is breaching an unspoken contract of honesty between journalist and listener."

    If there really was a contract between journalists and the listener (or reader), why wouldn't they do more work to uncover the governments and corporation's lies? It really isn't too difficult to do, and in times like these I think that the American government needs to be as informed as possible.

    --
    SIGFAULT
  153. An example... by Rorschach1 · · Score: 1

    Not sure if this is a Clear Channel station or not, but I'm in Santa Maria, where Michael Jackson was arraigned the other day. Well, I just heard a news report on a LOCAL station that says he was arraigned in the usually sleepy town of Santa MONICA. Christ, this is the biggest local story in YEARS, and yet they still just read some newswire story complete with the name of the wrong town. Do you think these people even know what town they're reporting "from"?

  154. Now reporting live from Baghdad by Brett+Glass · · Score: 1

    If what this person is doing is ethical, what's to keep reporters from claiming that they're on the scene in Baghdad -- or Kabul -- when in fact they're safe in the US?

  155. Fiction is a lie too by rustman · · Score: 1

    Radio is all about getting your audience to imagine things. If you saw how ugly most radio hosts are, or what disgusting studios that they have to do their shows from, you'd think they were lying all the time.

    Radio is called "Theater of the Mind." Radio hosts are actors. They're creating visuals in your mind. Of course they use technology and special effects.

    For example, in Los Angeles, in the old days the top 2 news radio channels had sound effects of teletype machines running in the background. Just about every radio station in a major market has an Eventide Harminizor, a made for radio effects box which has a "traffic helicopter" effect preset.

    Don't confuse making good radio with making cheap radio. The latter is when an Infinity or CC fires 90% of the local staff and has a central studio do voice tracking for 10 different stations in 10 different cities.

    Next we'll be slagging Howard Stern for not telling the whole truth all the time!

  156. Why is domain hijacker Michael an editor here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    enquiring minds want to know why the juvenile who hijacked censorware.org is supported by /.

  157. Didn't Mention Clear Channel, But Should Have by cmholm · · Score: 1
    You're spot on, the story didn't mention Clear Channel, and the incident of the radio anchor phoning it in is pretty innoculous. Howevercomma IMO the writer and/or editor missed a worthwhile opportunity to expand on the topic a bit, even given the limited column space for the story.

    Although nobody was making up stories here, it is reasonable to me that this potends a slippery slope. The whole point? Save money. Nobody notices the early stages of sending production - of whatever sort - to a cheaper or more central location. Naturally, other broadcasters will want to save money too. At some point, who's left to do the actual local news gathering? AP? Don't assume market forces will handle it, because ownership of local affiliates has been getting very concentrated (Thanks, Mr. Powell, et al). In addition, with the centralized studios, how is - or is - one going to present faces that represent the varous communities?

    I can just see it, news for Hawaii, featuring a crew with maybe one Asian face, and none of which can pronounce 'Aiea'.

    --
    Luke, help me take this mask off ... Just for once, let me butterfly kiss you with my own eyes.
  158. Clear Channel makes up "local news" Huh? by pthunter · · Score: 1

    Since was does working at home constitute a Republican conspiracy involving Clear channel. Innuendo in this case is not effective. I work at home very effectively. The basic premise of the author is flawed.

  159. a lot of older hosts do this... by bnet41 · · Score: 1

    A lot of long time radio show hosts are allowed to do there shows from Florida. I know of a few other actually. I think its a right you have earned, if you have been there a long time. I wish they would be more upfront about it is all.

  160. as long as he has the local info... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Journalists all have their opinions to stuff me with in the form of "objective journalism" and that is by far a lot nastier than talkin' about the local news from afar.

    Honestly the only thing I care about when I listen to local news is that the news are accurate, local and news (not infomercials). Do I care if the guy is in the south? Absolutely not and nobody should. Much like I do not expect every journalist covering a war to be on the front, I mean it's actually kind of mean to require a journalist to be freezing to be able to talk about the weather, there are other way to acquire that info.
    [--Journalist: here I am on the front with colonel Hardy who just received a gunshot in the leg... just gimme a sec...
    BANG
    --I can now attest that it indeed really hurts! This is Peter Dimwit reporting from the front, feeling the war for you!]

  161. Gary's former newswriter weighs in... by nerw · · Score: 1
    I worked for WBZ as a newswriter from 1992-1997, much of that time as Gary LaPierre's newswriter in morning drive...so take my comments as being openly biased in support of the man, who taught me most of what I know about writing for radio.

    Gary is one of the longest-running news anchors in the business. He came to WBZ in 1964, and the very first story he covered was the Beatles' arrival in Boston. He's been working nonstop ever since, most of that time as morning news anchor, hauling himself into the station at 4 every morning. (I remember asking him, when I started on the shift, how long it took to get used to the hours - his answer was, "You don't.")

    There's nobody on the radio in Boston right now, IMHO, who knows the city, the region and its people as well as Gary does.

    He's been threatening to retire since the days when I worked there, and the opportunity to work from his vacation home in Florida was offered to him a few years ago as a perk to get him to re-up for a few more years (WBZ's morning drive is by far the top-rated broadcast in Boston, so the station had a big incentive not to lose Gary's services.)

    Everyone in Boston radio has known for years that Gary does a few weeks a year from Florida, and he's never denied it when anyone's asked him. Only the Globe, which has some of the worst coverage of radio in American newspaperdom, was apparently surprised to find out this was going on. (And, as usual, the paper didn't even get all the facts right, starting with Gary's shift, which is NOT "5:30-9.")

    What Gary does is to anchor the top- and bottom-of-the-hour newscasts, of which he writes about half himself and has the other half written by a newswriter (though he then proceeds to rewrite the material himself much of the time!). He hasn't done reporting from the field on a daily basis for years. The station has a crew of field reporters, as well as in-house writer/reporters and editors, who are always back in Boston when Gary's in Florida. (It also draws heavily on the resources of its sister TV station.)

    So what we have here is a guy whose job is to synthesize the information that's coming into him from his editor, from the reporters in the field, from the newswires and from the TV side and to make it all make sense to listeners in Boston. There's no part of that job description, it seems to me, that requires him to be tied to a desk in Boston at all times. Someone downthread had it just right: he's telecommuting, something that would have been impossible in radio news as recently as my own days at the station.

    I draw a distinction between "broadcast telecommuting" by veteran broadcasters like Gary (or Paul Harvey, or Don Imus, or Rick Dees, or even Rush Limbaugh, all of whom broadcast at least part-time from home studios at their vacation residences) and the more insidious practice of having "local" news and talk provided, in its entirety, by distant and often inexperienced voices who've barely set foot in the community they're presuming to serve.

    The worst case, at the moment, has nothing to do with Clear Channel (or Viacom, which owns WBZ). Sinclair Broadcasting runs an operation called "News Central," based in Hunt Valley, Maryland, that supplies news and "local" weather to about a dozen of its stations around the country.

    Here in Rochester NY, the arrival of "News Central" meant that Sinclair's local Fox affiliate unceremoniously ditched most of its (already small and relatively green) local news staff, leaving behind only a skeleton crew of reporters and anchors to gather local news headlines. Each night at 10, the local anchor alternates news segments with national news "from News Central." The Maryland-based anchor is sitting on an identical set to the Rochester anchor, and viewers are never told that half the newscast doesn't come from here - or that the weather (which is very important here in the frozen tundra) is coming from Maryland. And the weather forecaster makes frequent references to "here" and "us," even though she's never set

  162. There really isn't one good public news source by Polarism · · Score: 1
    Rather, you have to go out hunting around comparing articles to get all of the views and take all of the spin and propaganda out of it.

    Even then you can't protect yourself from it fully. Which is why I stopped even paying attention or caring. I get pretty good news source delivered to me (being Navy Intel) but even that has to be read with a skeptical eye.

    Basically my point here is to NEVER EVER believe anything you hear or read unless you can compare at least 3 or 4 other sources against it, and even then try to extract all of the hidden agenda out of it. We place far too much trust into what the media is delivering to us. It is not wise because most of it is total propaganda and 'spin' (yes, even Bill O'Reilly is full of it folks).

    It's sad that things have to be this way, but that's how our country is setup. That's how capitalism works. Our media is an industry, and therefore it must make a profit to survive (well in theory). This alone flaws it. Instead of caring about keeping the citizens of this country informed and educated on matters that do concern them, we choose to allow ourselves to blind each other in order to make a dollar.

    Just one more step on the road to eventual self-destruction.

    --
    All your base are belong to Google.
  163. Where's the ethical problem here? by macraig · · Score: 1
    I'm a greatly-reviled hardass and stickler for social ethics in my neck of the woods, and even I'm not bothered by the implications of this particular instance. I can certainly see the potential for abuse with this practice, but there's no abuse in this instance.

    The guy is apparently a Boston native (39 years of local broadcasting) and still technically lives there; leave the guy alone and let him have his perk "migrations". Sheesh!

  164. Clear Channel manufactured rallies for Bush's war by HongPong · · Score: 0, Troll
    Here's a creepy chunk of nearly-forgotten war news: with an eye towards Michael Powell's FCC potential actions against the bloated radio corporation, Clear Channel actually funded and hosted its own "Rally for America" pro war functions all over the place... Tom Delay even spoke at one. Here's one story on it. Plenty more on Google. This, clearly, is a situation of corporations manipulating the public, blar blar blar... It's extremely creepy, and it will be a lovely pattern for NewsCorp and the rest to emulate when we take on the Persians and Chinese in 2007.

    I dont really care that one weather guy is lying but Clear Channel on the whole is a horrible project that has obliterated good radio in Mpls/St. Paul. I've heard that their sprawl is only possible because they buy radio stations on the collateral of the other stations they own. If they can't keep buying and gutting stations they might implode from debt. Hence the cost cutting virtualization all around. Thanks for the Free Market, Michael "Totally Objective Communications Arbitrator Not His Poppa's Boy" Powell!

  165. Welcome to Slashdot! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you must be new here.

  166. Those who say different... by qtp · · Score: 1

    Those who say differently are lying, guessing, or wishing.

    Ah, cult logic.

    How refreshing.

    --
    Read, L
  167. Clear Channel has little control by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Either way, Clear Channel sucks, as would any company that owns too much of our airwaves.

    They control.... get this... 8% of stations. That is less than 1 in 10. Of course they would want to curry favor from the FCC, as there are left-wing extremists who want to use the government to censor Clear Channel.

  168. Yes, Saddam's Dixie Chicks lied. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What a pathetic attempt to smear these women

    They smeared themselves by lying, and sticking up for Saddam Hussein. An opinion that is a lie is still a lie.

    for exercising their right, nay, responsibility

    Free speech is a right. Lying to the public, as they did, is irresponsible.

    And what about the thousands of rednecks...

    You lost what little credibility you had when you descended into racist generalizations.

  169. Exactly by shis-ka-bob · · Score: 1

    I do make a habit of calling local and even national news offices. I will not be an 'audience'. There was one news report at breakfast time in which the news anchors discussed how a murderer preferred to canablize his victim with asparigus. This was during breakfast with children present. I called the local station and complained directly to the producers. Just becuase they say they say you are an audience doesn't mean you have to act like sheep.

    --
    Think global, act loco
  170. Missing what's important here by osgeek · · Score: 1

    I think that the important thing that we can all gather from this story, is that no one wants to actually live in Boston. Damn that Ted Kennedy. :)

  171. As a newsman I can say this... by El+Camino+SS · · Score: 2, Interesting


    They're idiots.

    Anyone who wants to cover local news from a distance is insane. There are major setbacks to doing it, but living in the environment and seeing what is going on with your own eyes is ESSENTIAL.

    This will all soon sort itself out.
    No one will listen to local news set far away when they have local news from real locals sitting right next to them on the dial. It is only a matter of time before the people will realize this when they say something wrong on the air repeatedly, and then the other guys will be at the big event news when it happens across the street. The public just assumes that you are local when covering local news. The public will notice this soon enough, and when it does, they will lose market share that will not make up for the cost losses.

    This is a new thing. I predict it will not be a very long thing. It will be over in a year and a half when the corporate nimrods bong-rip ideas like "we could do local news cheaper across the country!" die a horrible, horrible death.

    News is exteremely competitive. They just replaced their personal insight with a phone call. This is NOT a smart move.

  172. China & India by gr8_phk · · Score: 1

    Just wait till some personable people from China and India come along without accents. Even radio jobs will get outsourced overseas. As all the techies have learned, I you have a job that can be done from anywhere, the lowest bidder on the planet will get it.

  173. A similar situation by Dirtside · · Score: 1

    On Los Angeles's local rock station, KROQ, the morning show has been done by two guys named Kevin Ryder and Gene (Bean) Baxter for about 11 or 12 years now. They've got a few cohosts (Lisa May, traffic; Ralph Garman, entertainmnet news; Money, sports; Doc, news), but for the most part, Kevin and Bean do most of the talking.

    Three or four years ago, Bean moved to Seattle from Los Angeles. He made a deal with the station where he would set up a broadcasting booth in his house, and continue working the show from there. Kevin and Bean have never been secretive about it; they bring it up all the time (mostly to make fun of Bean and his numerous pets). And Bean does sometimes come down to L.A. for special events and is actually in the studio. But a new listener who wasn't aware of this might go on for some weeks without clueing in to the fact that Bean's not actually in the studio, but is in reality 1,200 miles away in Seattle. There's no deliberate misrepresentation going on here, but I thought it was at least somewhat relevant.

    (The other tricky part is that Kevin and Bean sound almost exactly alike, so that can be a bit confusing.)

    --
    "Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
  174. Why not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why not? If the Indians and Chinese can do the job better (i.e. the same work for less money), why not let them?

  175. Maybe it's because there weren't that deaths... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And if the Euro media is to be believed, Saddam was a saint who had done no wrong and the US Army is trying to kill as many people as it can while stealing everything in sight for their Republican overlords.

    The US went to extreme lengths to avoid unnecessary casualties to the extent that more US soldiers were killed. All the reports of massive deaths and genocides didn't pan out. That the vast majority of Iraqi's didn't even budge is the best indicator of trust in the US military prowess that I can think of. So the death, destruction and injury frankly weren't that much of a factor in this war. The US has lost 'only' about 500 soldiers with several thousand injured but we heard about each and every single one from every single news source. (More people are hurt and die from traffic accidents than that each and every day.) So I call bullshit on your claim that there was no reporting of casualties. There were no Springer style video of limbs blown apart or graphic and violent deaths. But why is it necessary to be graphic? I guess it's because people like you wouldn't remember all those reports otherwise. Maybe the family of the victims also want some privacy.

  176. good examples of bad journalism by roc97007 · · Score: 1
    "Clear Channel" is not mentioned in the article, which raises the interesting issue of being dishonest whilst reporting on journalistic dishonesty. Or, is it ok to be misleading if it supports a certain agenda?

    The Globe article seems to center around a radio news anchor working out of his home four weeks a year. This is news? What, the Globe got tired of talking about the democrat caucus?

    So, the article isn't about much of anything, and the slashdot report of the article tries to make it into something it's not. Thank you. I'll be more cautious about believing what I read here in the future.

    Ron

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  177. Little man by mapinguari · · Score: 1

    What? You mean there isn't a little man inside the radio? How misleading!

  178. LINKS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/anthraxsuspect.h tml

    http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/anthrax.html