Which companies were manufacturing there? You may know this from having been there, but John DeLorean had considered manufacturing his cars in Puerto Rico, then the British government offered him/his company better incentives, so he/the company went there in 1979.
-
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
White House bars AP, Reuters and other media from covering Trump cabinet meeting
- Thread starter Y2kTheNewOldies
- Start date
The White House is starting a new media policy that restricts wire services' access to the president
The White House has put forward a new media policy that sharply curtails access to Donald Trump by the news agencies that serve media outlets around the world.
apnews.com
Here is the current status on outlets like AP and Reuters in the White House. Apparently whatever this is violates a court order that that AP and Reuters is supposed to have access to the White House on Free Speech grounds.
At one time, through the 70's, nearly 80% of all prescription pharmaceuticals and a significant percentage of over the counter medications were made on the Island. Microsoft packaged the consumer releases of Windows in Humacao, and Splenda sweetener was made down the block from the station group where I worked.
The whole island was covered with plants making stuff for the mainland; companies got federal tax reductions or exclusions on profits from things made in Puerto Rico.
The act behind this expired and was not renewed. So all the drug companies moved manufacturing to China. Puerto Rico lost perhaps a quarter million jobs, and the country became dependent on China for meds. So instead of getting drugs from within the U.S., they now come from a country that has been our enemy ever since Chang Kai Shek fled to Formosa.
And that went well for DeLorean!
And now according to a friend of mine who works for a Canadian TV station, "We've heard from multiple sources that U.S. Customs are now routinely asking travellers what their opinion on Donald Trump is. Answer wrong, and you're refused entry and turned around. A local family was refused AND banned from entering the country for five years."
She used to routinely cross the border to shop and pick up packages sent to a U.S. P.O. box to avoid costly international shipping. Now, no more.
I would suspect the above story to be 'unchecked'. I know from living on the border Customs can only ask certain questions. I knew several agents, one pretty high up. Asking the opinion of Trump is not one of them. Customs cannot just ban you without a hearing. It's their protocol. Why on earth would somebody be so stupid to answer anything but positive remarks even if they were asked? I say this story is BS. \
I'm not saying Customs doesn't swerve out of their lane. Our news director, upon being told Customs was asking 'personal questions' (obviously to see if you act nervous), took a recorder and drove out to their check station on the highway. They asked her where she was going and such. She refused to answer until she had them mad. Then she said she had recorded the whole thing and was headed back to the station to put it on the air. Lots of heads rolled by evening at Customs.
I'm not saying Customs doesn't swerve out of their lane. Our news director, upon being told Customs was asking 'personal questions' (obviously to see if you act nervous), took a recorder and drove out to their check station on the highway. They asked her where she was going and such. She refused to answer until she had them mad. Then she said she had recorded the whole thing and was headed back to the station to put it on the air. Lots of heads rolled by evening at Customs.
It happened back during Trump's first term, too:
Canadian Muslim grilled about her faith and view on Trump at US border stop
The case raises concerns that border patrol agents are targeting minorities more broadly in the wake of Donald Trump’s travel ban
The judge won't take further action in the AP case:
What ever this is also limits Reuters access to the White House Press Corps too not just the Associated Press. Reuters is also affected because AP and Reuters are listed as "Wire Services" by the White House. Associated Press got hit with the denial of access issue because of "Gulf of America" stuff but Reuters also got banned from the same issue because they investigated Elon Musk prior to being in the White House.
As long as the Supreme Court's Chevron Decision (i.e. the "John Roberts Said I Can" decision) of last year remains in effect, not a lot can be done until they revisit and overturn it. Or Congress does something. (Or Roberts clarifies just what the hell they were thinking.) I see none of that happening.
NPR, AP and Reuters are really the only outlets left doing hard, straight mainstream journalism in the USA anymore. And they all got kicked out of the White House.
CNN, ABC, NBC and CBS are next, if they don't "behave".....
See where this is going? See what happens ultimately when you get rid of a perfectly good Fairness Doctrine? You end up enabling this. You'll notice Salem is not in any particular cross hairs. There's a visible reason for that. I won't say "pretty visible" because that would be implying that it's pretty when it's not. But it is visible.
NPR, AP and Reuters are really the only outlets left doing hard, straight mainstream journalism in the USA anymore. And they all got kicked out of the White House.
CNN, ABC, NBC and CBS are next, if they don't "behave".....
See where this is going? See what happens ultimately when you get rid of a perfectly good Fairness Doctrine? You end up enabling this. You'll notice Salem is not in any particular cross hairs. There's a visible reason for that. I won't say "pretty visible" because that would be implying that it's pretty when it's not. But it is visible.
The "Fairness Doctrine" had nothing to do with access to the Presidential Office at the White House. It required licensed broadcast stations to have "balanced" coverage of controversial subjects. The issue became finding a definition for "balance" and it was dropped because there was broad agreement that the topic was very subjective.
Yes, because it is down to only a few radio stations that next to nobody listens to.
While Soros and his investors are rumored to have bought the Univision dog stations to prevent Salem from getting them, it has been two years since that purchase and nothing of any impact has been done on any of the stations other than losing a good part of the small audiences they had prior to the sale (The one station with decent audience, WAQI, was kicked to the political center and ended up losing more than half of its audience)
Without getting into politics, the Soros purchase shows that ownership of a bunch of radio stations has little or no political influence today, as the medium is ratings driven and agenda-driven programming will only lose audience.
For example, if a group, red or blue, were to buy iHeart and then inject partisan political content into the Seacrest show, the only thing that might happen is a dramatic loss in the audience reach of that show.
PBS has to deal with the same stuff that NPR, Reuters and AP are facing such as PBS Newshour citing AP as the framework to investigate the White House cabinet, in some cases a PBS Frontline episode was about Vladimir Putin and the controversies surrounding that administration.
Also in some cases the local PBS affiliate news pages repost articles from NPR, PBS Newshour, BBC, AP and Reuters for national and international news content. Then again none of White House staff or the current FCC chair has ever read the journalism Manuals such AP Stylebook, Reuters Handbook and the NPR book on Journalism if they did they won’t go in the direction they are going that affects the 1st Amendment.
Reuters Journalistic Standards
Explore the 10 hallmarks of Reuters journalism. See how we uphold trust and independence.
reutersagency.com
AP Stylebook
The AP Stylebook print edition, web-based access and style-checking software.
Sound Reporting, Second Edition: The NPR Guide to Broadcast, Podcast and Digital Journalism|Paperback
An indispensable guide to audio journalism grounded in NPR’s journalistic values and practices, with tips and insights from its top reporters, hosts, editors, producers, and more. A lot has changed in media in recent years, but one thing that remains steadfast is...
This is what the FCC said:
The four commissioners who voted to abolish were all appointed by Reagan. Congress attempted to codify it into law, and it was veto'd by Reagan.
That was then. Now you have the government restricting the freedom of journalists by limiting their access to the president, with that limit based on ideology. You have the government initiating investigations into CBS, 60 Minutes, Audacy, ABC, and NPR all for ideological reasons. The basis for eliminating the FD has been turned on its head, and is now being used to enforce presentation of only conservative views and expand it beyond talk radio to all media. The entire basis for defunding all of public broadcasting is the accusation of "anti conservative bias" at NPR. That was also the reason for the shutdown of the VOA. The government is now using its power to inhibit the journalistic freedom of broadcasters in every way it can.
And yet that hasn't stopped the FCC from opening an investigation into KCBS, based only on the role of Soros in the Audacy bankruptcy. Carr has repeated that he will reopen the bankruptcy approval and consider the challenge posed by Brent Bozell. The concept of limited government, once the hallmark of Reagan republicans and the basis for the elimination of the FD, has been completely forgotten. If radio has "little or no political influence today," why is the government so concerned about what Soros might do to Audacy? Why are they so defensive about the preservation of conservative talk radio? And why is ideology being used as a weapon in the government's relations with the media?
What would it take for AP or Reuters to accept the renaming of the gulf? Congress making Trump's executive order an actual resolution and approving it? What process did the renaming of Cape Canaveral to Cape Kennedy and back to Cape Canaveral go through? If Trump were to issue an order renaming it Cape Kennedy again, would AP and Reuters go along? What if Florida Gov. DeSantis, and not the president, were to do so? What if Massachusetts, through executive order or legislative process, were to rename its Cape Cod as Cape Kennedy, or its Massachusetts Bay as Kennedy Bay? Just looking for consistency here. I realize that these scenarios are highly unlikely.
Once again, an executive order is not law. It doesn't apply to private businesses. However if those businesses are regulated by executive agencies, or are impacted by the executive branch, those agencies can use their power like law over private businesses. That's what's happening here.
Well if she works for a TV station, boy has she got a story for The 5:00 News. I kinda expect to see something like that if this really happened. No Canadian TV news director would even think of turning down a story like that these days.
That's why it's a good idea to use a voice recorder. And not the app on your phone, but an independent one or even an old microcassette recorder if you're dealing with government officials now..
First, you don't go around suddenly changing the names of major internationally recognized geographical places on the map on a whim like that. The world has known that area as the Gulf of Mexico for hundreds of years. He can't change that overnight just because he said so.
There's a troubling thing politicians do when a major one of their own dies and it's that they feel compelled to officially rename every landmark that comes to mind after them. Without any warning.
The morning after Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson died in 1983, I turned on the news and the weather man said the temperature "...at Jackson International Airport". No mention of "formerly Sea-Tac", WHAT?? The Jackson Memorial insanity was so thorough in WA state, with countless state buildings being renamed after him that the UW student newspaper in a parody issue renamed itself "The Scoop Jackson Memorial Newspaper" Eventually it toned down mostly to state bureaucratic buildings and some schools. And Sea-Tac quickly got it's name back (the confusion was real.)
I wish they would stop doing that. Life is confusing enough as it is these days without the question of where you are right now being inconveniently and unhelpfully added on top of it.
The body of water known as the Gulf Of Mexico has been accepted world wide for hundreds of years. Trump's capricious whim of changing it is obviously connected to the border. The current President could change the USA to Trumpland with an executive order. Once he's gone, so would that name.
Fort Benning was changed to Fort Moore (and now apparently changed back). What's the common link for all this? Trump wants Confederate White Men to be honored and mongrel people of color sent back into servitude. People are having their rights trampled by not being able to buy slaves. It should be a State Right..??
The renaming of Cape Canaveral came after President Kennedy's assassination. Back then, even people who didn't vote for Kennedy mourned. It was changed back years later after Floridians complained. The Kennedy Space Center retains that name. It's hard to even know what is "legal" at this point, given that due process is being ignored...
Last edited:
Boom and BOOM!
There was no "bias" in the 1980s either. You heard all voices. Conservatives were not bound and gagged and stuffed in a closet somewhere. They were on the radio with the center and left. Difference was they all made some kind of rational sense back then. It was what was the best way of achieving whatever goal.
Then the bias began showing up in the 1990s when longtime, supposedly apolitical "News/Talk" stations began running seamless right-wing schedules.
Now it's about suddenly abducting people and sending them to El Salvador just for the hell of it just because the president said so and why that's supposedly a good thing.
It's gotten to the point where these radio stations won't even carry top of the hour national news from anyone except Fox or Salem. Any other option is unacceptable. ABC and CBS News are struggling to get clearances in major markets. NBC News Radio was being offered by iHeart, but they discontinued it last year. Not because of the content, but because the brands have been demonized by talk radio and the president. That's the goal.
There's a similar situation where South China Sea is also called West Philippine sea in media reports. In the Philippine news they would call a section of the South China Sea as West Philippine sea especially if it's off the coast of Palawan Island in the Philippines and when international news outlets cover incidents in the same general area it's the South China Sea.
FAST FACTS: Why the West Philippine Sea is important
How important is the West Philippine Sea? What does it offer to Filipinos?
www.rappler.com
What is the South China Sea dispute?
Overlapping claims in the South China Sea threaten to turn the region into a flashpoint of global concern.
www.bbc.com