First, per the decree, they have to get approval from third parties in the areas specified. That could take months, depending on how fast the reforms the institute are approved by the named authorities.
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
Well-known radio advertiser settles in false advertising lawsuit
- Thread starter Martin Gilbert
- Start date
Martin Gilbert
Banned
It’s how listeners and viewers will see it when they learn that media outlets have knowingly deceived their audiences for financial gain.
Martin Gilbert
Banned
Media outlets running Balance Of Nature’s ads know full well that the products are a scam. 31 fruits and vegetables in a pill?
I've never seen listeners or viewers blame an ad medium for running exaggerated or false ads. The worst I have witnessed, and that was once in 60 years in radio, where a listener called to say "you should not run ads for so-and-so as I bought a car from them and it was a lemon".
No one forces them to listen. They willingly listen to talk show hosts who perpetuate lies and misinformation.
Fox News was sued by Dominion. They presented texts from air talent admitting the lies. It hasn't affected ratings.
Martin Gilbert
Banned
I blame them. Obviously, I’m not alone.
Many people with very strong opinions, generally gravitate to talk radio hosts and TV "news" channels that reinforce and validate their own personal prejudices and beliefs. To them it doesn't really matter if the hosts are telling the truth or not and they rarely take the time on their own to find out or to do any sort of fact checking. The programming they hear validates what they believe to be true and it's someone who's "speaking their language" and that's what sometimes matters most.
One of the biggest blowbacks Fox News has received from their viewers was on election night 2020. For weeks they'd been telling their listeners and viewers exactly what they wanted to hear. They'd only given them the polling numbers that were favorable to DJT and would only report "news" stories that were slanted and biased to deliver the message their viewers expected to receive. Then on election night when Fox News had to simply give the actual vote counts and numbers that were coming in, their viewers grew incredibly angry at that network - for once they weren't being spoon fed a message they expected to hear and they simply didn't know how to react - even though Fox News was just giving them actual counts as they were being reported by various precincts and states.
Last edited:
The OP is trying to say the audience will blame the station because the advertising is found to be untruthful. My response is they will put up with anything to hear their favorite hosts. The audience won't stop listening to WABC or WOR because they air commercials for Balance of Nature. They may complain about it, but they won't stop listening.
But I wouldn’t be surprised to see a few local hosts sued if they voiced the commercials (instead of using the national spots I remember hearing)
If the personality does it as part of his job, he won't get sued, but his employer will. That's what happened a few years ago when the FTC sued iHeart for endorsements its hosts read for the Google phone.
FTC, States Sue Google and iHeartMedia for Deceptive Ads Promoting the Pixel 4 Smartphone
The Federal Trade Commission and state attorneys general announced lawsuits against Google LLC and iHeartMedia, Inc.
I'm guessing they won't even complain. Again, these hosts and their listeners are peas in a pod. The hosts speak the language the listeners/viewers want to hear. That's all that matters to many of them. Even if you proved the hosts knew Balance of Nature's claims were BS and they continued hawking their products anyway and were making money hand over fist because their listeners were/are gullible, the majority of their audience wouldn't care. Look at the products Alex Jones and others sell to their listeners and somehow people are willingly showing up, cash in hand, though most any sane and rational person would never take Jones' claims about that stuff seriously.
Martin Gilbert
Banned
Talk show hosts who have personally shilled for Balance Of Nature, and I won’t embarrass them by naming names, lose credibility and integrity, including when they endorse other products.
We already know broadcasters have no ethical standards when it comes to the kind of dishonest, damaging programming they willingly air. Why should we think there's any bottom to the type of advertising they'll accept? It's always solely about money.
Yet people continue to listen. That's my point.
It depends. A lot of broadcasters choose to work for less money in non-commercial radio.
Anyone who dislikes advertising is welcome to listen to non-commercial radio.
Martin Gilbert
Banned
I listen much less to talk show hosts pushing questionable products. One such guy in NY who shills for Balance of Nature is also overly aggressively pushing gold on behalf of a sponsor, which I believe is a violation of the law.
Martin Gilbert
Banned
FCC and FTC might disagree. They have complaint departments.
The FCC does not regulate advertising claims.
Which part of it do you believe is "a violation of the law?"
- Status