• 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

KFI CHRIS LITTLE DIRECTLY ENDORSING EFAX.COM

Mister moore makes some good points about the early newscasters and the lack of objectivity. The Camel News Caravan aired weeknights on NBC from 1949 to 1956 (when it was replaced by The Huntley-Brinkley Report). John Cameron Swayze was the news anchor. Does anyone remember Swayze reading news reports linking cigarettes to cancer? I rest my case!
 
LARadioRewind said:
Mister moore makes some good points about the early newscasters and the lack of objectivity. The Camel News Caravan aired weeknights on NBC from 1949 to 1956 (when it was replaced by The Huntley-Brinkley Report). John Cameron Swayze was the news anchor. Does anyone remember Swayze reading news reports linking cigarettes to cancer? I rest my case!
Click to expand...

Actually I believe that anti-smoking news didn't appear too much until after the ban of cigarette advertising on broadcast media. As I recall tobacco advertising was a big part of commercial sponsorship back in the day. Lucy and Desi puffed and pitched Phillip Morris. Well actually Lucy puffed Chesterfields wrapped in a Phillip Morris package according to one biography I read.

Even Fred and Barney were active spokespersons for Winston, "Tastes good like a cigarette should".

But back to point, today we have media moguls openly and generously contributing to political campaigns. How unbiased do you suppose the news reported on those guy's broadcasts are? So how important is a station's news director pitching an e-mail fax service as compared to say who lives at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue?
 
nmoore6676 said:
LARadioRewind said:
Mister moore makes some good points about the early newscasters and the lack of objectivity. The Camel News Caravan aired weeknights on NBC from 1949 to 1956 (when it was replaced by The Huntley-Brinkley Report). John Cameron Swayze was the news anchor. Does anyone remember Swayze reading news reports linking cigarettes to cancer? I rest my case!
Click to expand...

Actually I believe that anti-smoking news didn't appear too much until after the ban of cigarette advertising on broadcast media. As I recall tobacco advertising was a big part of commercial sponsorship back in the day. Lucy and Desi puffed and pitched Phillip Morris. Well actually Lucy puffed Chesterfields wrapped in a Phillip Morris package according to one biography I read.

Even Fred and Barney were active spokespersons for Winston, "Tastes good like a cigarette should".

But back to point, today we have media moguls openly and generously contributing to political campaigns. How unbiased do you suppose the news reported on those guy's broadcasts are? So how important is a station's news director pitching an e-mail fax service as compared to say who lives at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue?
Click to expand...

You are making the classic mistake of conflating "objective" with "unbiased" or "disinterested". If you know the truth and are reality-oriented, then you are going to be "biased" to those people and organizations who are the most reality-oriented and it will be in your interest to support them in whatever way you can. But even if you are in the news business or are a "media mogul", that doesn't mean you are obligated to be "neutral", to "present both sides". Far from it. You are first and foremost obligated to report the facts, and then maybe include each side's spin on reality. John Kobylt has pointed out numerous times the absurdity of the "report both sides, let the audience decide" attitude that permeates the news business. As he points out, how can the audience decide if they don't have any facts to go off, just spin?

Getting back to this stupid, phony, manufactured efax.com "outrage", if there were some serious issues with the service, if customers were being ripped off, then KFI's reputation would be damaged if they continued to promote them in light of those facts. To those expressing "concern" about KFI promoting them I ask you, do YOU have any such facts to report about efax.com? If so, I'm sure KFI would like to know about it. I'm sure they would not like to have their name associated with swindlers. If not, then pardon my French but STFU, because you're just engaging in outright fearmongering. "ZOMG, KFI promotes efax.com, BUT HOW DO WE KNOW THEY'RE NOT A CORRUPT BUSINESS SECRETLY ENGAGED IN SWINDLING THE PUBLIC?! EVERYBODY PANIC!!!"
 
I agree with you, Mister Simi. I think we should all end this tiresome debate regarding Chris Little and eFax and move on to a discussion of all those sponsor logos that appear on racecars. For instance, does Dale Earnhardt Jr. really like Ritz crackers? Does Denny Hamlin really ship packages via FedEx? Did Casey Mears really buy insurance from the company with that annoying talking gecko? http://auto.howstuffworks.com/auto-racing/nascar/nascar-basics/nascar-sponsorship2.htm
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom