6
60sguy
Guest
Dave Universal's 15 minutes of fame isn't over yet. Check out Page 14 in the April 6th edition of "Rolling Stone" for their story on Spitzer's Entercom investigation.
-
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
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
> Dave Universal's 15 minutes of fame isn't over yet. Check
> out Page 14 in the April 6th edition of "Rolling Stone" for
> their story on Spitzer's Entercom investigation.
>
<font face="times new roman" size="3" color="660033">
Much as I'd sincerely (or, Spincerely as Mickey turntable used to sign her tipsheet) like to give DU the benefit of the doubt, it becomes more and more difficult every time he opens his mouth or poses for an interview.
It seems he's trying to validate his way back into the employment pool in the U.S. But what he seemingly fails to realize is, every time he's quoted or interviewed, he provides more fuel for Spitzer's fire.
It takes a person with a massive ego and little common sense to think he can talk his way around issues such as he and Entercom now face. You'll notice that Entercom isn't doing much talking these days; one press release to rebut Spitzer's charges and mum's the word.
If DU thinks he can fence with the attorney general of New York or Entercom's attorneys, he's in for a big surprise and a world of hurt. He may have had golden ears and been able to pick the hits, but I suspect he's not much for civil procedure in the courtroom.
<hr>
<font size="5">S</font>peaking of fencing with Spitzer, it was amusing to hear WBEN's Sandy Beach take on Spitzer last week in connection with the Native American tobacco sales and the state's income tax laws. Spitzer vowed to uphold the laws on the books which were passes by the people's representatives in Albany and signed into law by the governor. Beach apparently believes in selective enforcement of the laws. Apparently that's how one forms a legal opinion after graduating from the Layman's School of Law.
One wonders if the Entercom suits gave Beach their blessing to stir the pot on this topic; especially interesting considering Entercom will likely be facing of against the state attorney general's office over charges of payola.
It would be interesting, compelling and no doubt informative to hear Spitzer go one on one with Beach and give him a real world primer on tax law and legislative policy.</font>
> out Page 14 in the April 6th edition of "Rolling Stone" for
> their story on Spitzer's Entercom investigation.
>
<font face="times new roman" size="3" color="660033">
Much as I'd sincerely (or, Spincerely as Mickey turntable used to sign her tipsheet) like to give DU the benefit of the doubt, it becomes more and more difficult every time he opens his mouth or poses for an interview.
It seems he's trying to validate his way back into the employment pool in the U.S. But what he seemingly fails to realize is, every time he's quoted or interviewed, he provides more fuel for Spitzer's fire.
It takes a person with a massive ego and little common sense to think he can talk his way around issues such as he and Entercom now face. You'll notice that Entercom isn't doing much talking these days; one press release to rebut Spitzer's charges and mum's the word.
If DU thinks he can fence with the attorney general of New York or Entercom's attorneys, he's in for a big surprise and a world of hurt. He may have had golden ears and been able to pick the hits, but I suspect he's not much for civil procedure in the courtroom.
<hr>
<font size="5">S</font>peaking of fencing with Spitzer, it was amusing to hear WBEN's Sandy Beach take on Spitzer last week in connection with the Native American tobacco sales and the state's income tax laws. Spitzer vowed to uphold the laws on the books which were passes by the people's representatives in Albany and signed into law by the governor. Beach apparently believes in selective enforcement of the laws. Apparently that's how one forms a legal opinion after graduating from the Layman's School of Law.
One wonders if the Entercom suits gave Beach their blessing to stir the pot on this topic; especially interesting considering Entercom will likely be facing of against the state attorney general's office over charges of payola.
It would be interesting, compelling and no doubt informative to hear Spitzer go one on one with Beach and give him a real world primer on tax law and legislative policy.</font>
It would be more interesting to hear Beach give Spitzer a "real world primer" on common sense. The books are full of arcane laws, especially in small towns, about not being able to walk your dog on the right side of the street during a solar eclipse, etc. If ALL of the laws were enforced, we would all be arrested for - or at least guilty of - something. This is, I think, exactly what big governnment wants: the ability to pinion anyone they choose. Spitzer is the one living in "legislative land"; the rest of us, NOT the politicians, live in the "real world", and unfortunately have to contend with the crap these people come up with, almost always at our expense. I am no scofflaw, nor do I choose to pass judgment on Dave Universal, Entercom, or anyone else. I do choose to pass judgment on foolishness, and there is plenty of it where politicians and legislatures are concerned. There are an infinite number of societal woes more pressing than this payola investigation.
> It would be interesting, compelling and no doubt informative
> to hear Spitzer go one on one with Beach and give him a real
> world primer on tax law and legislative policy.
> It would be interesting, compelling and no doubt informative
> to hear Spitzer go one on one with Beach and give him a real
> world primer on tax law and legislative policy.
> It would be more interesting to hear Beach give Spitzer a
> "real world primer" on common sense. The books are full of
> arcane laws, especially in small towns, about not being able
> to walk your dog on the right side of the street during a
> solar eclipse, etc. If ALL of the laws were enforced, we
> would all be arrested for - or at least guilty of -
> something. This is, I think, exactly what big governnment
> wants: the ability to pinion anyone they choose. Spitzer is
> the one living in "legislative land"; the rest of us, NOT
> the politicians, live in the "real world", and unfortunately
> have to contend with the crap these people come up with,
> almost always at our expense. I am no scofflaw, nor do I
> choose to pass judgment on Dave Universal, Entercom, or
> anyone else. I do choose to pass judgment on foolishness,
> and there is plenty of it where politicians and legislatures
> are concerned. There are an infinite number of societal
> woes more pressing than this payola investigation.
>
Clearly, payola, insurance scams, bogus 401(k) investments are a bit more serious than j-walking, failure to curb or scoop after one's dog or littering. The problem with most talk show hosts is they have no understanding of the legislative process and the law.
While they're entitled to their opinions, they often sound woefully ill-informed (and downright foolish) when it comes to talking about legal issues. Certainly, one need not be an attorney to talk about and question the law.
Beach is no dummy. He can be quite literate, yet there are times lets when he allows his emotions to override his knowledge or worse, exposes his lack of knowledge, regarding certain issues.
What Spitzer said was, "the law stipulates that taxes must be collected and my office is charged with upholding the law." Hard to fault an elected official for properly executing his responsibilities.
> "real world primer" on common sense. The books are full of
> arcane laws, especially in small towns, about not being able
> to walk your dog on the right side of the street during a
> solar eclipse, etc. If ALL of the laws were enforced, we
> would all be arrested for - or at least guilty of -
> something. This is, I think, exactly what big governnment
> wants: the ability to pinion anyone they choose. Spitzer is
> the one living in "legislative land"; the rest of us, NOT
> the politicians, live in the "real world", and unfortunately
> have to contend with the crap these people come up with,
> almost always at our expense. I am no scofflaw, nor do I
> choose to pass judgment on Dave Universal, Entercom, or
> anyone else. I do choose to pass judgment on foolishness,
> and there is plenty of it where politicians and legislatures
> are concerned. There are an infinite number of societal
> woes more pressing than this payola investigation.
>
Clearly, payola, insurance scams, bogus 401(k) investments are a bit more serious than j-walking, failure to curb or scoop after one's dog or littering. The problem with most talk show hosts is they have no understanding of the legislative process and the law.
While they're entitled to their opinions, they often sound woefully ill-informed (and downright foolish) when it comes to talking about legal issues. Certainly, one need not be an attorney to talk about and question the law.
Beach is no dummy. He can be quite literate, yet there are times lets when he allows his emotions to override his knowledge or worse, exposes his lack of knowledge, regarding certain issues.
What Spitzer said was, "the law stipulates that taxes must be collected and my office is charged with upholding the law." Hard to fault an elected official for properly executing his responsibilities.
> Clearly, payola, insurance scams, bogus 401(k) investments
> are a bit more serious than j-walking, failure to curb or
> scoop after one's dog or littering. The problem with most
> talk show hosts is they have no understanding of the
> legislative process and the law.
Personally (disclaimer: I'm not in the radio biz and never have been) I don't see what is so wrong with record companies forking over stuff to get music on the air. It's no different than what goes on in any grocery store, department store, etc. Everyone has to do somthing to get shelf space. At most the station should just have to disclose periodially that they have received compensation for airing certain songs. It is COMMERCIAL radio after all. Maybe some record industry funds would reduce the number of ads per hour.
That makes more sense than the stations having to pay royalty fees to air music which is essentially a free promotion to get people to buy CDs, iTunes, whatever (and again, up the station to choose to pay if they want to air music - not up to the government).
> are a bit more serious than j-walking, failure to curb or
> scoop after one's dog or littering. The problem with most
> talk show hosts is they have no understanding of the
> legislative process and the law.
Personally (disclaimer: I'm not in the radio biz and never have been) I don't see what is so wrong with record companies forking over stuff to get music on the air. It's no different than what goes on in any grocery store, department store, etc. Everyone has to do somthing to get shelf space. At most the station should just have to disclose periodially that they have received compensation for airing certain songs. It is COMMERCIAL radio after all. Maybe some record industry funds would reduce the number of ads per hour.
That makes more sense than the stations having to pay royalty fees to air music which is essentially a free promotion to get people to buy CDs, iTunes, whatever (and again, up the station to choose to pay if they want to air music - not up to the government).
> That makes more sense than the stations having to pay
> royalty fees to air music which is essentially a free
> promotion to get people to buy CDs, iTunes, whatever (and
> again, up the station to choose to pay if they want to air
> music - not up to the government).
>
Your reasoning is quite understandable, but it's simply not the same a shelf space at Wegmans or Tops. You should spend some time reading the Complaint and the Exhibits.
Disclosure and clarity are critically important, especially as these charactyeristics relate to the Rules and Regulations of the FCC and the U.S. Code. Clearly, there is no crime in taking money to promote a song as long as that transaction is disclosed. After reading the Exhibits, you should be duly impressed (and somewhat disgusted) by the depths to which this scam sunk and to the heights of the Entercom corporate structure it ascended.
Additionally, as many have noted, the actions of Entercom completely obscured the fact that the songs heard on its radio stations were not necessarily due to merit as it was due to money.
> royalty fees to air music which is essentially a free
> promotion to get people to buy CDs, iTunes, whatever (and
> again, up the station to choose to pay if they want to air
> music - not up to the government).
>
Your reasoning is quite understandable, but it's simply not the same a shelf space at Wegmans or Tops. You should spend some time reading the Complaint and the Exhibits.
Disclosure and clarity are critically important, especially as these charactyeristics relate to the Rules and Regulations of the FCC and the U.S. Code. Clearly, there is no crime in taking money to promote a song as long as that transaction is disclosed. After reading the Exhibits, you should be duly impressed (and somewhat disgusted) by the depths to which this scam sunk and to the heights of the Entercom corporate structure it ascended.
Additionally, as many have noted, the actions of Entercom completely obscured the fact that the songs heard on its radio stations were not necessarily due to merit as it was due to money.
- Status
- This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.