• 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

S.E.I.U (State Employees Union) Deceptive Radio Ad

D

DennyCrain

Guest
The state employees union S.E.I.U. is currently running a deceptive political ad on radio [ heard it on 96.9 ]. It is essentially an anti Kerry-Healy/Republican Party ad. That is not the problem.

However, the context of the ad says that there has never been a "Two-term/four year" Republican Governor in the history of Massachusetts. While that is "technically" correct it is deceptive.

In the 1970's the term of a governor changed from a "two-year term" to a "four year term."

Frank Sargent, John Volpe and Leverett Saltonstall are just three Republican Governors from Massachusetts who served two consecutive terms as Governor, but they were 'two-year' terms.

So, while 'technically' correct S.E.I.U. is attempting to portray the state Republican Party as NEVER winning consecutive terms for governor. That is not true and S.E.I.U. should know better.

Also, the radio stations should know better and call that union to task for presenting historically incorrect information. Then again, most radio executives knowledge of Massachusetts state government may be severely limited.
 
This is sort odd. With the exception of Eagan and Braude, isn't it mainly a "we love Republicans" station?
 
> This is sort odd. With the exception of Eagan and Braude,
> isn't it mainly a "we love Republicans" station?

Imus? Barnicle?

In any event, the SEIU is presumably advertising where the voters are. I hear political advocacy ads from time to time on WRKO and other stations that tend to go against what one would assume to be the prevailing political view of those stations as well.

As evidenced by this board, there are plenty of masochists who listen to talk show hosts they despise just to have something to whine about. Maybe that's who the SEIU is going after.
 
> > This is sort odd. With the exception of Eagan and Braude,
>
> > isn't it mainly a "we love Republicans" station?
>
> Imus? Barnicle?
>
> In any event, the SEIU is presumably advertising where the
> voters are. I hear political advocacy ads from time to time
> on WRKO and other stations that tend to go against what one
> would assume to be the prevailing political view of those
> stations as well.
>
> As evidenced by this board, there are plenty of masochists
> who listen to talk show hosts they despise just to have
> something to whine about. Maybe that's who the SEIU is
> going after.
>
Well, if you read my post correctly, you'll see I pose it as a question "Isn't it mainly...." let me explain. That means I am not 100% sure, so therefore I'm not making any widespread accusations. The shows that I know for a FACT are "We love Republicans"
-O'Reilly
-Severin
-Ingraham

The others, I do not know, which..I'll say it again, that's why I put it in the form of a ???????

And no, I'm not a masochist, I don't listen to shows I hate...I stopped doing that a long time ago with another radio hypocrite, ya know, the good ol' Dr (who isn't actually a doctor) who ripped women who wanted to leave their husbands and preached sanctity and wholesomeness, after she had an affair with a married man who took naked pics of her......

...but I digress
 
> And no, I'm not a masochist, I don't listen to shows I
> hate..

I was not referring to you specifically.



.I stopped doing that a long time ago with another
> radio hypocrite, ya know, the good ol' Dr (who isn't
> actually a doctor)

She did have a doctorate and therefore is as eligible for the title as anyone else with similar credentials.

Whether or not she was a hypocrite I have no idea as I never listened to her show and know little about her.
 
You responded to my post, so naturally I assumed you were talking to me, how silly of me.

Yeah, technically Miss Schlessingburgestein is a doctor having the doctorite, but her being on the air putting herself out their as a licensed Doctor is misleading to the poeple who trust her.

But, not to hijack a thread, back to the original topic....
 
> This is sort odd. With the exception of Eagan and Braude,
> isn't it mainly a "we love Republicans" station?
>
...and Imus...
...and Barnicle...
...and Severin is anti-Bush at the moment but he loves Romney
 
Re: S.E.I.U Deceptive Radio Ad

FYI:

The S.E.I.U. is not, for the most part, a union of state emplopyees. As far as I know, nearly all unionized state employees in Massachusetts belong to the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME).

Most S.E.I.U. members are maintainance and janitorial workers. While some of them may indeed work for state government, most members are probably employed in the private sector. In recent years, the S.E.I.U. has been one of the most agressive labor unions in terms of political advocacy.
 
> You responded to my post, so naturally I assumed you were
> talking to me, how silly of me.

I may have been "talking" to you, but I was not "talking" about you. Sheesh.

>
> Yeah, technically Miss Schlessingburgestein is a doctor
> having the doctorite, but her being on the air putting
> herself out their as a licensed Doctor is misleading to the
> poeple who trust her.

How is referring to yourself as a doctor when you are in fact a doctor "misleading"?
 
Re: S.E.I.U Deceptive Radio Ad

> FYI:
>
> The S.E.I.U. is not, for the most part, a union of state
> emplopyees. As far as I know, nearly all unionized state
> employees in Massachusetts belong to the American Federation
> of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME).
>
> Most S.E.I.U. members are maintainance and janitorial
> workers. While some of them may indeed work for state
> government, most members are probably employed in the
> private sector. In recent years, the S.E.I.U. has been one
> of the most agressive labor unions in terms of political
> advocacy.
>
3 points:

I doubt there are but a handful of folks working at any Boston radio station who even know who "Sarge" was!

Fact-checking is much harder than burger-flipping, so I ass-ume that radio stations don't fact check advertisements unless they are waaaay "out there".

The good "Doctor" looked pretty hawt in those nude picture! Her show sucks, as does her sanctimonious advice.

MR
On the Miller's River
 
> How is referring to yourself as a doctor when you are in
> fact a doctor "misleading"?
>
In my book, a doctor is one of two things.

1. A medical person who is licensed to help heal the physically sick.

2. A licensed person who is licensed to help the "mentally" sick, who need psychological help and counseling.

She is neither of these things. She went to college and got a degree, I don't think (IMO) that earns the person the right to be called "Doctor" I know it does, but I don't have to agree with it.
 
> She is neither of these things. She went to college and got
> a degree, I don't think (IMO) that earns the person the
> right to be called "Doctor" I know it does, but I don't
> have to agree with it.

One does not get to have his own private definitions of words. If you know that what she did earns her the right to call herself doctor, regardless of how much you personally dispute the tradition, then calling herself doctor is not being misleading.
 
Re: S.E.I.U Deceptive Radio Ad

If that is the case why are they running a deceptive and really incorrect ad.
Their strength should come out of their mission statement not out of stupid and misleading ads.


> FYI:
>
> The S.E.I.U. is not, for the most part, a union of state
> emplopyees. As far as I know, nearly all unionized state
> employees in Massachusetts belong to the American Federation
> of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME).
>
> Most S.E.I.U. members are maintainance and janitorial
> workers. While some of them may indeed work for state
> government, most members are probably employed in the
> private sector. In recent years, the S.E.I.U. has been one
> of the most agressive labor unions in terms of political
> advocacy.
>
 
> > She is neither of these things. She went to college and
> got
> > a degree, I don't think (IMO) that earns the person the
> > right to be called "Doctor" I know it does, but I don't
> > have to agree with it.
>
> One does not get to have his own private definitions of
> words. If you know that what she did earns her the right to
> call herself doctor, regardless of how much you personally
> dispute the tradition, then calling herself doctor is not
> being misleading.
>
Actually, I do get to have my own private definition, that's what's called an opinion, and we are all allowed to have them. What I can't do, is contact Webster and have them change the definition in the dictionary. And actually, yes..she is misleading her listeners by calling herself a doctor. Her average listener is the "desperate" woman in some form of crisis/situation who seeks her advice. Someone in that state isn't going to stand there and say "Yeah, I know she's not technically a psychiatrist, but I'll call anyway" They hear the term "doctor" and believe they are getting the help they need.
 
> Actually, I do get to have my own private definition, that's
> what's called an opinion, and we are all allowed to have
> them.

One is not entitled to an opinion that is not based on facts, unless you are comfortable being a fool and having your arguments dismissed immediately.




> yes..she is misleading her listeners by calling herself a
> doctor.

If she is a doctor, calling herself one is not misleading.




> Her average listener is the "desperate" woman in
> some form of crisis/situation who seeks her advice.

Whether or not that is true has no bearing on whether or not she is deceiving people. If she is a doctor, which she is, then saying so is not deceptive. Does she claim to have some other type of doctorate than she actually has? If so, then you would have an argument of some merit.




> Someone
> in that state isn't going to stand there and say "Yeah, I
> know she's not technically a psychiatrist, but I'll call
> anyway" They hear the term "doctor" and believe they are
> getting the help they need.

Did she ever claim to be providing psychiatric therapy? Not that I am aware of, but I am not a listener of the show.

You are assuming that for one to give advice, and it is my understanding that Dr. Laura gives advice based on ethics rather than psychology, one must be a psychiatrist. That is an false conclusion on your part.
 
I'm gonna go out on a BIG OL' LIMB and say you are a Republican.

Funny, when you quoted me, you only took part of my post to try and further your point without using my whole point, which of course if you did, it would invalid your statement.

Typical.
 
...Two Words.....

> The good "Doctor" looked pretty hawt in those nude picture!
> Her show sucks, as does her sanctimonious advice.

///////"Winter-Bush!"......See Ya! ;)
 
> I'm gonna go out on a BIG OL' LIMB and say you are a
> Republican.

Wrong again.


>
> Funny, when you quoted me, you only took part of my post to
> try and further your point without using my whole point,

I took nothing out of context. If you wish to argue the point, do so, but don't pretend I didn't address your statements because you presumably lack a rational response.



>Typical.

Typical of what? You don't know me and as such have no basis on which to make a determination of this nature.
 
> I took nothing out of context. If you wish to argue the
> point, do so, but don't pretend I didn't address your
> statements because you presumably lack a rational response.
>
I didn't say you took it out of context, I said you responded to part of my sentence and not the whole sentence.

That's like me saying the sentence "I hate shopping on December 24th"

And then you responding to the part of the sentence that says "I hate shopping" Then you try to make it look like I hate shopping period (which I actually do, but just making an example)

This is stupid. end of subject for me.
 
> I didn't say you took it out of context, I said you
> responded to part of my sentence and not the whole sentence.

I responded to the entire sentence, I simply didn't leave all of your content quoted in my message.




> That's like me saying the sentence "I hate shopping on
> December 24th"
>
> And then you responding to the part of the sentence that
> says "I hate shopping"

Well, thanks for explaining what "out of context" means. As I stated, I addressed the full context of your message. That I didn't simply repost all of it and waste bandwidth is irrelevant.




> This is stupid. end of subject for me.

Since you've stopped addressing the argument and don't appear to have a strong grasp of logic, that's probably for the best.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom