I think that all should keep in mind that, at least until the present administration, the FCC can and has only investigated obscenity and indecency at the request of individuals within the general public. As noted elsewhere, radio stations have in the past played music selections with very strong language without running afoul of the FCC because nobody complained about it.
-
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
National Advertisers and 55+ radio audiences
- Thread starter davideduardo
- Start date
I think that all should keep in mind that, at least until the present administration, the FCC can and has only investigated obscenity and indecency at the request of individuals within the general public. As noted elsewhere, radio stations have in the past played music selections with very strong language without running afoul of the FCC because nobody complained about it.
The Who's "Who Are You" and Pink Floyd's "Money" are the main "offenders." Classic rock stations from coast to coast routinely air them uncensored, especially after 10 p.m., and no one ever complains.
There is no harm in making patients of those doctors aware of the kinds of medications available. If I see an ad for a new product that replaces one that I have been using... whether it be shampoo or a prescription medication... I find that I benefit from knowing how it might improve my life.
Bernie Sanders does not understand business. At all. If drug companies are not allowed to advertise to consumers on radio and TV, they will not "save the money and pass it on to consumer" but, instead, find other ways to promote their products. "Getting the word out" is part of every business, going back to the town criers in merry old England to the internet today.
Many politicians have never worked in the private sector, so they need to understand that advertising is a key part of developing new products and innovations.
In Puerto Rico, USA, we have had hard liquor advertiser since before I went to become a GM at a station there in 1970. Originally, it was considered that rum was such an important part of the local economy, it should be advertised. The importers of other hard liquors protested, and it was decided to only allow such ads later at night.
For this reason, no Puerto Rican station could say they followed the NAB Code at the time. It was the Code that prohibited hard liquor ads. Eventually, the Code was dropped for trade practices reasons, and this became a moot point.
And there we have a place in the country where hard liquor ads have been on radio and TV for over 60 years.
If you have a pension or retirement plan, an IRA or 401k, you benefit as well because essentially every fund invested in by those plans owns stock in drug companies. It also benefits the drug stores that sell pharmaceuticals, as well as the medical profession in general.
And the legislation been presented only covers prescription drugs. If you go to over the counter items, where do you stop? Aspirin? Toothpaste? Suntan lotion?
I think that both Wadio and his/her critics are correct. Wadio is correct in that if you push to get a prescription drug that you heard about on a radio advertisement and it turns out that you as an individual are allergic to chemicals in that prescription medicine--an allergy that you didn't know about until you took that prescription drug--the consequences for you as an individual could range from mild allergic reactions to death. So, having a ban on prescription drug advertisements over radio and TV might save some lives.
But it also might not. Pharmaceutical companies actually advertise their prescription medicines on both ends; that is, they advertise to consumers through radio and television and they advertise to doctors through various medical journals and by personal visits by salespeople from the major drug companies to those doctors. The proposed ban would only take consumer advertising off the table for those drugs *but not* the advertising to medical practitioners. As a consumer, you still might end up receiving a prescription for a medication that you are allergic to because not even your doctor knows that you have the allergy in the first place.
So, if I were in Senator Sanders' or RFK's shoes and I wanted to promote safer habits among pharmaceutical companies, doctors, and consumers, I think that I would raise the stakes by holdin the stockholders of pharmaceutical companies accountable for any spikes in severe allergic reactions, including death, that a specific prescribed medication caused.
Of course, that has two sides. Allergies can come from the individual's DNA structure; similar reactions can occur if you are taking prescribed medications that actually counteract each other due to different illnesses which you may be suffering at the same time. And, of course, such a law might make pharmaceutical companies less likely to develop new prescription medications out of fear of being sued if the new drugs either cause severe allergic reactions or even death in some individuals.
So even my proposal to fix the system would have issues, and, unless a substantial number of people are having severe reactions to prescription drugs, regardless of how they heard about them, I would probably recommend leaving the current system alone with maybe some tinkering around the edges to ensure drug safety.
But it also might not. Pharmaceutical companies actually advertise their prescription medicines on both ends; that is, they advertise to consumers through radio and television and they advertise to doctors through various medical journals and by personal visits by salespeople from the major drug companies to those doctors. The proposed ban would only take consumer advertising off the table for those drugs *but not* the advertising to medical practitioners. As a consumer, you still might end up receiving a prescription for a medication that you are allergic to because not even your doctor knows that you have the allergy in the first place.
So, if I were in Senator Sanders' or RFK's shoes and I wanted to promote safer habits among pharmaceutical companies, doctors, and consumers, I think that I would raise the stakes by holdin the stockholders of pharmaceutical companies accountable for any spikes in severe allergic reactions, including death, that a specific prescribed medication caused.
Of course, that has two sides. Allergies can come from the individual's DNA structure; similar reactions can occur if you are taking prescribed medications that actually counteract each other due to different illnesses which you may be suffering at the same time. And, of course, such a law might make pharmaceutical companies less likely to develop new prescription medications out of fear of being sued if the new drugs either cause severe allergic reactions or even death in some individuals.
So even my proposal to fix the system would have issues, and, unless a substantial number of people are having severe reactions to prescription drugs, regardless of how they heard about them, I would probably recommend leaving the current system alone with maybe some tinkering around the edges to ensure drug safety.
Excellent points.
Maybe something that would help is setting some sensible guidelines on disclaimers. For example:
- Read at normal speaking speed (x words/minute)
- Not muffled (as I've heard lately)
- On TV, read with the words on the screen in large type (size TBD) in white on a plain black background with the brand's logo at the bottom.
Last edited:
I agree, especially about Sanders. Maybe tighter guidelines (as I mentioned above) would be the right compromise.
Ted and wadio, I have never seen two guys argue harder with faultier logic to keep people---potentially including themselves---ignorant about FDA-approved treatments available to them by prescription in my life.
Where do I start?
How about "if you push to get a prescription drug that you heard about on a radio advertisement and it turns out that you as an individual are allergic to chemicals in that prescription medicine..."
Let me counter that with another "if":
If your doctor will just fold when you "push" for a prescription medication and not either know or test for allergic reactions you personally may have to that medication, you need to get a new doctor.
And if your doctor only gets his or her information about prescription medication from trade ads and medical journals and the company rep who drops by every few months with coffee cups and pens with the drug's logo on them, instead of from the FDA database with literally every known thing about the drug in question, you need to get a new doctor and report your old one to your state medical licensing board.
Pharmaceutical companies are sued every day. Verdicts for the plaintiff or settlements affect the bottom line, which affect the stock price, which affect the stockholders, who include not only fat cats, but public employee pension funds and 95-year-old widows. What more do you want to do to them?
And again, if it's a severe allergic reaction, not a defect in the synthesis of the drug itself, that's more appropriately a malpractice case against the prescribing doctor who did not know the knowable---is my patient allergic to an element of this medication?
Uh---yeah.
This, by the way, is the point at which, had it been me, I would have backspaced and deleted everything before the word "unless", all the way to the beginning of the post.
Last edited:
See, here's how I react to those disclaimers at the end:
"Holy shit, that sounds like a lot of stuff that can go wrong.
I know----I'll do the other thing they said: I'll ask my doctor if (drug name) is right for me."
And then I go to my doctor and I say, "Hey, doc---I've seen these ads for (drug name), which they say could help my (condition) but it sounds like a long list of side effects."
And then my doctor and I will have a conversation. My doctor knows my medical history, including allergies and any previous reactions to medication that I might have had at any time in my life.
My doctor will also have opinions as to whether my condition would be better treated by lifestyle changes ("maybe you should stop spending so much time on that radio board, take more walks and lay off the nachos, pal."), or (and because he/she has been to med school and knows his/her way around the FDA database) by taking a different medication.
My part of this is being smart enough not to walk into my doctor and demand a drug with a rushed disclaimer of side effects because I saw an ad and thought I'd like to have dual bathtubs in my backyard overlooking the Pacific for up to four hours.
Really? I thought it was quite civil.
Annoying as they can be, I don't have an issue with pharmaceutical companies advertising. I'm not one to be screaming to my doctor every time I see one. The few times I have asked, I feel somewhat embarrassed, but I'll ask if it's something.....or something like it....could help. I take the no from he/she. It is weird that I was seeing ads for a certain eye treatment that sounds like a treatment you would never want because of how it's administered. Lo and behold, a few months later, I needed that treatment. Of course my retinal guy knows the right medicine (and what insurance will cover).
Not with each other, for the ban.
What chance does this piece of legislation have of becoming law? Sanders marches to his own drummer and has few close allies in the Senate, and there would certainly seem to be enough lobbyist money from the drug and communications sectors to ensure this bill's early demise.
Yes, but...
This is a rare intersection of Bernie and the current administration, whose HHS director likes this idea:
K.M. Richards
Program Director, The Eighties Channel™
See, that's the point. "Ask your doctor if (drug) is right for you."
Mike's two posts above (#129 and #130) are precisely why Sanders' proposal is overreacting.
All of my doctors have my prescription history. Most of them are in the same network so it comes up alongside my chart; two are in a different network and I always update my history with them when anyone in the network prescribes something new, and vice versa.
If patients don't hold up their end of the doctor/patient relationship, then they run the risks of their doctors making mistakes simply because they do not have a complete picture. Removing pharmaceutical ads is not going to remove that basic potential for error.
I like Bernie ... but I strongly disagree with him on this.
I do take the highly advertised Kerendia, and was pleased that my doctor told me it's going generic next year (My doc and I have had to jump through hoops to get me the branded version at an affordable price)
K.M. Richards
Program Director, The Eighties Channel™
Any proposal by the latter is one that I will immediately reject. That man should never have become Secretary of Health and Human Services, and IMNSHO doesn't even deserve the last name of Kennedy.
However, the HHS director doesn't get a vote in congress. There are no repub co-sponsors of this bill, so I think it's DOA.