Regulations

Survey of Broadcasting: Assignment 1, Question 3: Describe in detail the four “core” departments usually found at most radio stations.

Posted on June 20, 2011. Filed under: Law, Music, News, Public Relations, Radio, Regulations, Technology, Uncategorized | Tags: , , , , , , |

3: Describe in detail the four “core” departments usually found at most radio stations.

http://www.ablongman.com/stovall1e/chap06/radioorgchart.html

The four “core departments” usually found at most radio stations are sales, operations, engineering, and programming.

The sales department  led by a sales manager is responsible for the sale of all commercial time to local, regional, and national sales advertisers. Larger stations may have a sales manager for local advertisers and a national sales manager of spot advertising accounts. The sales department usually includes a promotions director and research manager.

The operations department or traffic department led by an operations manager is responsible for placing the advertising on the air in compliance with the contracts executed with advertisers. This can be a complicated and difficult task in that there may be dozens of different contracts each requiring scheduled air time, position and length. Therefore many stations have automated their traffic functions to varying degrees using computer applications and systems.

The engineering department led by the chief engineer is responsible for keeping the station on the air with the best signal possible. The improvement of electronic equipment, competition from other businesses for engineering talent, and relaxed Federal regulations has led to smaller or streamlined engineering departments at most stations. Some stations also employ a part-time consulting engineer to keep the station operating optimally.

The programming department led by the program director is responsible for the audio sound and format of the station including news, music and public affairs coverage. Stations with a news/talk format may have a news director to coordinate news and public affairs coverage. Stations with a music format may have a music director to coordinate the development and implementation of the station’s music format.

The general manager or station manager has overall responsibility for  leading the four “core departments” and the day-to-day operation of the radio station. The general manager must hire the department heads and establish their goals and monitor and evaluate their performance. The general manager has overall responsibility for the station’s business performance including profits and losses, business and financial matters, budgeting, and forecasting revenues and expenses. The general manager must maintain the station’s reputation in the community. Finally the general manager must run the station in compliance with all local, county, state and Federal government laws and regulations.

 

Background Articles and Videos

CBS Tour- On Air at WCBS Radio -Part1

 

Google Radio Automation Product Tour

 

Presenter Radio Automation Demo from ENCO Systems

 

iMediaTouch Radio Automation Broadcast Software by OMT Technologies

Advertisements
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

News Journal: Number 29, October 26, 2010: American People’s No Confidence Voting Wave Wipes Out Democrats–It’s The Economy Stupid!–Videos

Posted on October 26, 2010. Filed under: Communications, Ethics, Issues, Law, Magazines, News, Newspapers, Politics, Print Media, Radio, Regulations, Society, Television, Web | Tags: , , , |

Republican Governors 35

Republican Senators 51

Republican Representatives 255

 

The Republicans will pickup a net total of 77 seats in House of Representatives for a total of 255.

The Republicans will also pickup a net total of 10 seats in the Senate for a total of 51 seats.

The American people want to stop the massive Government spending, deficits and bailouts and rising National debt of the Obama Administration.

Stop Spending Our Future – The Crisis

Issue number 1 is jobs and the economy with nearly thirty million Americans looking for a full-time job and continuing high rates of unemployment.

www.shadowstats.com

Issue number 2 is massive Federal Government spending, deficits, bailouts and a rising National debt.

The National Debt Road Trip

The Trillion $$$ Dollar U.S. Economic Deficit Caused By Our Government

U.S. Debt Clock

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

Issue number 3 is Obamacare– the American people want it repealed as soon as possible and no money bills or appropriations to fund Obamacare.

Fight Obamacare Texas

Issue number 4 is illegal immigration–the American people want it stopped by immigration law enforcement and a completed border fence that is heavily patrolled.

What Are True Costs And Benefits Of Illegal Immigration?

Stop Illegal Immigration

 

The American people expect the Republican Party to balance the Federal Budget by significantly reducing Government spending and permanently closing Federal Departments including Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, Labor, and Transportation.

The number of Federal employees should be cut from over 2,000,000 to less than 1,000,000.

3 Reasons Public Sector Employees are Killing the Economy

 

The American people expect the Republican Party to make the Bush tax cuts permanent for all taxpayers and pass the FairTax–it is time!

The FairTax: It’s Time

Should the Republican Party fail to balance the budget and cut the size and scope of the Federal Government by permanently shutting down the above departments, these Republicans will be wiped out by the 2012 wave of tea party patriots.

Background Articles and Videos

Editor in Chief Insights: Obama’s Job Approval Trajectory

 

President Obama Heads into Midterms at Lowest Approval Rating of Presidency

Two-thirds of Americans believe country going off on the wrong track

“…Currently, two-thirds of Americans (67%) have a negative opinion of the job President Obama is doing while just over one-third (37%) have a positive opinion. This continues the president’s downward trend and he is now at the lowest job approval rating of his presidency.

These are some of the results of The Harris Poll of 3,084 adults surveyed online between October 11 and 18, 2010 by Harris Interactive.

It’s perhaps not surprising that nine in ten Republicans (90%) and Conservatives (89%) give the job the president is doing negative ratings. What may be surprising is that one-third of Democrats (34%) and Liberals (33%) also give him negative ratings, as do seven in ten Independents (70%) and six in ten Moderates (60%).

Americans who give the president the highest positive ratings are those with a post-graduate education (48%), a college education (47%), and those living in the West (42%). On the other end of the spectrum, almost three-quarters of those with a high school education or less (72%) and two-thirds of Midwesterners (66%) and Southerners (66%) give the President negative marks on his overall job.

While the president is at a low point, there is a political body with ratings much lower than his. Just one in ten Americans (11%) give Congress positive ratings on the job they are doing while nine in ten (89%) give them negative marks. While Congress may be under Democratic control, even four in five Democrats (81%) give them negative ratings.

Part of this negativity may have to do with the way Americans believe the country as a whole is going. Just one-third of U.S. adults (34%) say the country is going in the right direction while two-thirds (66%) say it is going off on the wrong track. While not close to the low it was before the 2008 election (11% said things were going in the right direction), this is one of the lower points of this year. …”

http://www.harrisinteractive.com/Hi_assets/TopHitPageNews.html

Rasmussen Reports

Trust on Issues

Voters Trust Republicans More on Eight of 10 Key Issues

“…Voters now trust Democrats over Republicans in only two areas – government ethics and corruption by a 41% to 36% margin and education where Democrats have a slight 42% to 40% edge.

The economy continues to be the most important issue on voters’ minds this election, and 49% place their trust in Republicans to handle this issue. Thirty-nine percent (39%) trust Democrats more. These findings show little change from early June 2009.

On the issue of health care, which voters place second on the list of important issues, Republicans hold a modest 47% to 40% advantage. Democrats were trusted more on this issue until the debate over a proposed national health care bill began to heat up in early September of last year.

Most voters continue to favor repeal of the national health care law, but the number of voters who expect the law to increase the deficit has fallen to the lowest point since its passage by Congress in March.

(Want a free daily e-mail update? If it’s in the news, it’s in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter or Facebook.

Two surveys of 1,000 Likely U.S. Voters each were conducted October 12-13 and October 14-15, 2010 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/- 3 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.

Government ethics and corruption rate number three in terms of overall importance, but voters have been narrowly divided for the past several months over which party to trust more on this issue. Democrats have held small leads since February.

As for education, both parties have held very modest leads on the issue at different times for months now.

Forty-eight percent (48%) of voters nationwide place their trust in the hands of Republicans when it comes to the issue of taxes. Thirty-nine percent (39%) would rather the Democrats handle this issue. The GOP has held a solid lead over Democrats on this issue since early July 2009.

But most voters believe that Democrats in Congress want to raise taxes and spending, while Republicans in Congress want to cut taxes and spending.

When it comes to immigration, 45% trust Republicans, while 33% trust the Democrats more. The gap between the two parties has widened since the beginning of January as the debate over the immigration law in Arizona intensified. At the beginning of the year, voters were essentially evenly divided on which party to trust.

Voters feel more strongly than ever that the federal government is encouraging illegal immigration and that states like Arizona have the answer to the problem, but the Obama administration is challenging the Arizona law in federal court.

Republicans continue to be trusted more on national security issues and the war on terror, with 49% of voters trusting the GOP versus 39% who trust the Democrats more. When it comes the war in Afghanistan, Republicans hold a six-point advantage, 42% to 36%.

Similarly, voters trust Republicans more than Democrats to handle the war in Iraq, 43% to 37%. …”

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/trust_on_issues

Historical Federal Workforce Tables

Executive Branch Civilian Employment Since 1940

(end-of-fiscal-year count, excluding Postal Service, in thousands)

Fiscal Year Total Executive Branch Department of Defense Civilian Agencies
Total Agriculture HHS, Education, Social Sec. 1 Homeland Security Interior Justice Transportation Treasury Veterans Other
1940 699 256 443 98 9 18 46 11 45 40 176
1941 1,081 556 525 91 10 20 50 15 52 43 244
1942 1,934 1,291 643 95 11 20 49 22 55 44 348
1943 2,935 2,200 735 109 11 21 43 23 69 53 406
1944 2,930 2,246 683 78 11 21 42 21 81 51 378
1945 3,370 2,635 736 82 11 20 45 19 84 65 409
1946 2,212 1,416 795 97 12 20 51 17 95 169 335
1947 1,637 859 777 88 12 20 53 17 82 217 288
1948 1,569 871 698 82 13 18 57 20 79 196 233
1949 1,573 880 694 87 12 19 59 19 77 195 226
1950 1,439 753 686 84 13 20 66 20 76 188 219
1951 1,974 1,235 738 81 16 21 65 25 79 183 269
1952 2,066 1,337 729 79 15 22 61 25 75 175 278
1953 2,026 1,332 694 78 35 22 59 23 71 178 226
1954 1,875 1,209 666 76 35 21 56 24 67 179 207
1955 1,860 1,187 673 86 40 21 54 24 65 178 206
1956 1,864 1,180 684 89 46 20 53 24 64 177 210
1957 1,869 1,161 708 96 53 20 55 24 65 174 222
1958 1,817 1,097 720 101 55 20 56 24 64 172 227
1959 1,805 1,078 727 97 59 20 55 23 63 171 238
1960 1,808 1,047 761 99 62 21 56 24 62 172 265
1961 1,825 1,042 782 103 70 20 59 25 67 175 265
1962 1,896 1,070 827 111 77 20 63 25 69 177 284
1963 1,911 1,050 861 116 81 21 73 25 73 173 300
1964 1,884 1,030 855 108 83 21 70 26 72 172 302
1965 1,901 1,034 867 113 87 21 71 27 74 167 307
1966 2,051 1,138 913 119 100 21 75 27 76 170 324
1967 2,251 1,303 949 122 106 24 77 27 52 79 173 289
1968 2,289 1,317 972 123 117 23 78 29 56 79 176 292
1969 2,301 1,342 960 125 113 21 75 30 58 79 175 283
1970 2,203 1,219 983 118 112 23 75 33 62 84 169 308
1971 2,144 1,154 989 120 115 25 72 38 66 86 180 288
1972 2,117 1,108 1,009 118 114 29 72 40 65 90 184 295
1973 2,083 1,053 1,030 113 128 29 74 43 66 90 198 289
1974 2,140 1,070 1,070 116 142 30 77 46 68 97 202 292
1975 2,149 1,042 1,107 121 147 31 80 47 69 101 213 297
1976 2,157 1,010 1,147 128 155 32 82 48 71 105 222 303
1977 2,182 1,009 1,173 132 159 32 87 48 70 107 224 313
1978 2,224 1,000 1,225 138 161 37 84 49 70 110 229 348
1979 2,161 960 1,201 128 161 40 78 48 67 102 226 352
1980 2,161 960 1,201 129 163 40 77 48 66 102 228 346
1981 2,143 984 1,159 129 162 38 76 47 54 100 232 321
1982 2,110 990 1,121 121 153 38 79 48 57 98 236 291
1983 2,157 1,026 1,131 124 152 39 80 50 57 104 239 286
1984 2,171 1,044 1,127 119 150 39 79 53 57 109 240 283
1985 2,252 1,107 1,145 122 147 40 80 55 56 110 247 286
1986 2,175 1,068 1,108 113 138 39 74 56 56 114 240 277
1987 2,232 1,090 1,142 117 132 44 74 60 57 125 250 284
1988 2,222 1,050 1,172 121 128 48 78 63 58 135 245 297
1989 2,238 1,075 1,162 122 127 49 78 66 60 126 246 289
1990 2,250 1,034 1,216 123 129 49 78 71 61 132 248 326
1991 2,243 1,013 1,230 126 135 50 82 77 64 139 256 302
1992 2,225 952 1,274 128 136 56 85 82 64 133 260 329
1993 2,157 891 1,266 124 135 56 85 82 63 127 268 326
1994 2,085 850 1,235 120 133 55 81 83 59 128 262 315
1995 2,012 802 1,210 113 132 56 76 87 58 128 264 297
1996 1,934 768 1,166 110 130 62 71 88 58 118 251 279
1997 1,872 723 1,149 107 131 64 71 93 59 112 243 270
1998 1,856 693 1,163 106 130 68 72 95 59 112 240 281
1999 1,820 666 1,155 105 130 69 73 97 58 113 219 290
2000 1,778 651 1,127 104 126 70 74 98 58 113 220 265
2001 1,792 647 1,145 109 129 73 76 99 59 117 226 258
2002 1,818 645 1,173 98 130 76 77 96 96 118 223 258
2003 1,867 636 1,231 100 131 153 72 102 58 132 226 257
2004 1,882 644 1,238 111 130 153 77 104 57 111 236 257
2005 1,872 649 1,224 108 131 147 76 105 56 108 235 258
2006 1,880 653 1,227 105 129 154 72 107 54 107 239 260
2007 1,888 651 1,237 103 129 159 72 107 54 104 254 254
2008 1,960 670 1,289 104 132 172 76 109 55 106 274 261
2009 2,094 737 1,357 104 139 180 75 113 57 109 297 283

http://www.opm.gov/feddata/HistoricalTables/ExecutiveBranchSince1940.asp

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Heritage Foundation 2010 Budget Charts–Federal Spending

Heritage Foundation 2010 Budget Charts–Federal Revenue

Heritage Foundation 2010 Budget Charts–Federal Debt and Deficits

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

News Journal: Number 24, October 5, 2010: President Obama’s Massive Tax Hikes Will Wreck The Economy, Destroy More Jobs and Kill The American Dream–Stop Stupidity, Spending, and Socialism!–Videos

Posted on October 5, 2010. Filed under: Communications, Digital Communication, Issues, Law, Mass Media, Newspapers, Politics, Print Media, Radio, Regulations, Society, Television, Web | Tags: , , , , , , , |

Obama vs. JFK on taxes

Richard Rahn: Double-Dip Recession Imminent, If Bush Tax Cuts Arent Renewed

Keynesian Economics Is Wrong: Bigger Gov’t Is Not Stimulus

Who Pays Income Taxes and how much?

Tax Year 2007

Percentiles Ranked by AGI

AGI Threshold on Percentiles

Percentage of Federal Personal Income Tax Paid

Top 1%

$410,096

40.42

Top 5%

$160,041

60.63

Top 10%

$113,018

71.22

Top 25%

$66,532

86.59

Top 50%

$32,879

97.11

Bottom 50%

<$32,879

2.89

Note: AGI is Adjusted Gross Income
Source: Internal Revenue Service

http://www.ntu.org/tax-basics/who-pays-income-taxes.html

Obama: Raise Taxes, Capital Gains – “For Purposes of Fairness”

Dan Mitchell discusses the Bush Tax Cuts

Dan Mitchell on Taxes

Glenn Beck Part 1 – Do Your Own Homework 10/5/2010

Glenn Beck Part 2 – Do Your Own Homework 10/5/2010

Glenn Beck Part 3 – Do Your Own Homework 10/5/2010

Dan Mitchell–Videos

It is not the Federal Government’s money, it is the money or income of the American people.

President Obama wants to increase taxes on the top 3% of U.S. tax payers that currently pay over 50% of all taxes and create most new jobs.

By increasing taxes on the wealth and job creators–small and medium size businesses, the Federal Government is destroying jobs in the private business sector to pay for more government spending.

The Federal Government should stop spending and close down permanently entire Federal Departments and agencies.

Milton Friedman on Libertarianism (Part 4 of 4)

Instead, President Obama is expanding the Federal Government while those in the private sector cannot find jobs or are losing their jobs.

Cutting spending by closing down whole departments and agencies is what needs to done–not borrowing or taxing the American people to pay a monster Federal Government.

President Obama’s economic policies have been a disaster.

Increasing taxes on the job creators when there are over 25,000,000 Americans looking for a full time jobs is simply crazy and irresponsible.

How dare President Obama do this?

He actually believes he can lie to you and you are stupid and not paying attention.

On November 2, 2010 vote all the Democrats out of office and do the same in November 2012.

Send a message to President Obama by giving the Republicans majorities in the House and Senate and in the state houses and governor offices.

BAAAMM!!—Rush Limbaugh Calls Obama a ‘Jackass’, an ‘Economic Illiterate’ 

Stop stupidity.

Stop spending.

Stop socialism.

Presidents Kennedy and Bush tax cuts were right.

President Obama and Keynes stimulus spending were wrong.

Free markets and small government produce economic growth, prosperity and job creation.

Free Markets and Small Government Produce Prosperity

Background Articles and Videos

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Dan Mitchell–Videos

Heritage Foundation 2010 Budget Charts–Federal Spending

Heritage Foundation 2010 Budget Charts–Federal Revenue

Heritage Foundation 2010 Budget Charts–Federal Debt and Deficits

The Wisdom of The Founding Fathers–Videos

Glenn Beck On James Madison–The Father Of The United States Constitution–Videos

Glenn Beck On Founding Father Benjamin Franklin–Videos

Glenn Beck On The History of Black Americans In The American Revolution And Civil War–Videos

Glenn Beck–A Forgotten Founding Father–George Whitefield–Videos

Glenn Beck On The Indispensable Founding Father–George Washington–Videos

The Black Founding Fathers–Videos

The Founding Mothers–Videos

Glenn Beck On The Founding Fathers, Samuel Adams and The First American Revolution–Videos

Glenn Beck Faith, Hope, Charity and Honor–Videos

How Many Americans Will Attend The Restoring Honor Rally at the Lincoln Memorial, Washington, D.C., Saturday, August 28, 2010? Answer? 1 to 3 Million!

Glenn Beck Previews The Restoring Honor Rally–Saturday, August 28, 2010–The Lincoln Memorial, Washington, D.C—Videos

The American People March on Washington D.C.–August 28, 2010–At The Lincoln Memorial! Mark Your Calendar–Be There–Three Million Minimum–Join The Second American Revolution

Glenn Beck On Revolutionary Leaders–Jesus, Gandhi, King–Videos

Glenn Beck–Government Intervention In The Economy Is The Problem!–Videos

Glenn Beck’s Message And Thoughts About The Restoring Honor Rally–Videos

Glenn Beck Crash Course Day 1–Economic Transformation–Videos

Glenn Beck Crash Course Day 2–On Radicals Surrounding Barack Obama–Videos

Glenn Beck Crash Course Day 3–Revisionist American History–Videos

Glenn Beck Crash Course Day 4–Message Control–Videos

Glenn Beck Crash Course Day 5–On Civil Rights and The Rights

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 2 so far )

News Journal: Number 15, September 18, 2010: Shariah The Threat To America, An Exercise In Competitive Analysis, Report of Team ‘B’ II–Videos

Posted on September 18, 2010. Filed under: Books, Communications, Issues, Law, Mass Media, News, Newspapers, Politics, Print Media, Radio, Regulations, Television, Web | Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |

“…This study is the result of months of analysis, discussion and drafting by a group of top security policy experts concerned with the preeminent totalitarian threat of our time: the legal-political-military doctrine known within Islam as “shariah.” It is designed to provide a comprehensive and articulate “second opinion” on the official characterizations and assessments of this threat as put forth by the United States government. 

The authors, under the sponsorship of the Center for Security Policy, have modeled this work on an earlier “exercise in competitive analysis” which came to be known as the “Team B” Report. That 1976 document challenged the then-prevailing official U.S. government intelligence estimates of the intentions and offensive capabilities of the Soviet Union and the policy known as “détente” that such estimates ostensibly justified. 

As with the original Team B analysis, however, this study challenges the assumptions underpinning the official line in the conflict with today’s totalitarian threat, which is currently euphemistically described as “violent extremism,” and the policies of co-existence, accommodation and submission that are rooted in those assumptions. …” 

http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/p18523.xml 

Center Launches ‘Team B II’ Report on the Shariah Threat

 

Fox News attended the Center for Security Policy’s unveiling of the new Team B II Report: Shariah the Threat to America. More on this to follow. For the full report, see http://www.shariahthethreat.org 

Andy McCarthy: Shariah, the Threat (Introducing the Team B II Report)

 

David Yerushalmi: Is Shariah the Same as Jewish Law?

 

This report needs to be required reading by those who cherish their liberty for Shariah like Communism before it is a clear and present danger to the United States of America and its people. 

The report will be a wake up call for most Americans who know nothing or very little about Shariah and the Muslim Brotherhood’s agenda for America. 

First read the report. 

Then share your concerns with other Americans. 

The threat of Sharia is real. 

What needs to be done is the implementation of the report’s recommendations. 

This will require a national debate about the threat posed by Shariah. 

Newt Gingrich: Ban Sharia – It is” totally abhorrent to the Western World”

 

Newt Gingrich: Jihadist = Person who seeks to impose Sharia

 

Unfortunately, I do not see this happening under the Presidency of Barack Obama. The Federal government is presently engaged in Muslim community outreach to Muslim Brotherhood front organizations. These front organizations actively promote a stealth jihad for the establishment of Islam as the nation’s religion, Shariah as the law of the land and a theocracy lead by a caliphate. 

The Center for Security Policy’s 177 page report entitled Shariah The Threat to America, An Exercise in Competitve Analysis Report of Team ‘B’ II concluded with eight recommendations on pages 142-143 quoted in full below: 

• U.S. policy-makers, financiers, businessmen, judges, journalists, community
leaders and the public at large must be equipped with an accurate understanding
of the nature of shariah and the necessity of keeping America shariah-free. At a
minimum, this will entail resisting – rather than acquiescing to – the concerted
efforts now being made to allow that alien and barbaric legal code to become established
in this country as an alternate, parallel system to the Constitution and
the laws enacted pursuant to it. Arguably, this is already in effect for those who
have taken an oath to “support and defend” the Constitution, because the requirement
is subsumed in that oath.
• U.S. government agencies and organizations should cease their outreach to
Muslim communities through Muslim Brotherhood fronts whose mission is to
destroy our country from within as such practices are both reckless and counterproductive.
Indeed, these activities serve to legitimate, protect and expand
the influence of our enemies. They conduce to no successful legal outcome that
cannot be better advanced via aggressive prosecution of terrorists, terrorfunders
and other lawbreakers. It also discourages patriotic Muslims from providing
actual assistance to the U.S. government lest they be marked for ostracism
or worse by the Brothers and other shariah-adherent members of their
communities.
• In keeping with Article VI of the Constitution, extend bans currently in effect
that bar members of hate groups such as the Ku Klux Klan from holding positions
of trust in federal, state, or local governments or the armed forces of the
United States to those who espouse or support shariah. Instead, every effort
should be made to identify and empower Muslims who are willing publicly to
denounce shariah.
• Practices that promote shariah – notably, shariah-compliant finance and the establishment
or promotion in public spaces or with public funds of facilities and
activities that give preferential treatment to shariah’s adherents – are incompatible
with the Constitution and the freedoms it enshrines and must be proscribed.
• Sedition is prohibited by law in the United States. To the extent that imams and
mosques are being used to advocate shariah in America, they are promoting seditious
activity and should be warned that they will not be immune from prosecution.
• Textbooks used in both secular educational systems and Islamic schools must
not promote shariah, its tenets, or the notion that America must submit to its
dictates.
• Compounds and communities that seek to segregate themselves on the basis of
shariah law, apply it alongside or in lieu of the law of the land or otherwise establish
themselves as “no-go” zones for law enforcement and other authorities must
be thwarted in such efforts. In this connection, assertion of claims to territory
around mosques should be proscribed.
• Immigration of those who adhere to shariah must be precluded, as was previously
done with adherents to the seditious ideology of communism. 

http://www.centerforsecuritypolicy.org/p18523.xml 

Threat Of Islam In The West

Is Shariah Constitutional?

Wake up, America

Stealth Jihad: Islam’s War against the West – Robert Spencer (1 of 6)

 

Stealth Jihad: Islam’s War against the West – Robert Spencer (2 of 6)

 

Stealth Jihad: Islam’s War against the West – Robert Spencer (3 of 6)

 

Stealth Jihad: Islam’s War against the West – Robert Spencer (4 of 6)

 

Stealth Jihad: Islam’s War against the West – Robert Spencer (5 of 6)

 

Stealth Jihad: Islam’s War against the West – Robert Spencer (6 of 6)

 

Background Articles and Videos

Islam: What the West Needs To Know 1

Islam – What the West Needs to Know 2

Islam – What the West Needs to Know 3

Islam – What The West Needs To Know 4

Islam – What the West Needs to Know 5

Islam – What the West Needs to Know 6

 

Islam – What the West Needs to Know 7

 

Islam – What the West Needs to Know 8

 

Islam – What The West Needs To Know 9

 

Islam – What The West Needs To Know 10

 

What the West needs to know pt 11 The last part

 

bill whittle PJTV Obama censors threat

 

  

The Islamic Infiltration, Part 1: Inside Our Government, Armed With Our Secrets (PJTV)

 

The Islamic Infiltration, Part 2: From Influence to Insurrection (PJTV)

 

Andrew C. McCarthy III 

“…Andrew C. McCarthy III is a former Assistant United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York. A Republican, he is most notable for leading the 1995 terrorism prosecution against Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman and eleven others. The defendants were convicted of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing and planning a series of attacks against New York City landmarks.[1] He also contributed to the prosecutions of terrorists who bombed US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. He resigned from the Justice Department in 2003. …” 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_C._McCarthy 

Center for Security Policy

“…The Center for Security Policy (CSP) is a Washington, D.C. think tank that focuses on national security issues. The Center was founded in 1988 by Frank Gaffney, Jr., a Reagan-era Defense Department official and former aide to Senator Henry “Scoop” Jackson. The CSP advocates neoconservative and Wilsonian policies based on a philosophy of “Peace through Strength”. CSP states that this belief emerges from their claim that “international peace is most likely achieved, and America most secure, when our nation is strong and engaged with our key allies in ensuring freedom and democracy throughout the world.” 

CSP is a non-profit organization and describes itself as non-partisan. CSP specializes in identifying policies, actions, and resource needs that it believes are vital to American security and then seeking to ensure that such issues are the subject of both focused examination and effective action. 

Projects

The CSP’s operations are organized into project areas that correspond to what it sees as the principal national security challenges facing the United States. Each project is designed to inform policymakers and the public about what the CSP sees as near and long range threats, devise appropriate actions, and then promote those ideas within the government, Capitol Hill, newspapers, radio, the internet, and television. 

The following is a partial list of the CSP’s projects: 

  • Divest Terror – The primary objective of Divest Terror is to force governments to choose between their sponsorship of terrorism and critical partnerships with publicly traded firms. To achieve this goal, it aims at encouraging companies to divest from those regimes designated by the State Department as state sponsors of terrorism.
  • The Strategic Defense and Deterrence Project – Through this project, the Center advocates the creation of a national missile defense system, the modernization of America’s nuclear capabilities, and the abrogation of U.S. participation in arms control treaties.
  • The War of Ideas Project – The War of Ideas project has the goal of educating policymakers about the political and ideological realms of international relations. It seeks to equip decision makers with the understanding they need to use the tools of influence of and persuasion to confront and defeat foreign ideological adversaries.
  • Menges Hemispheric Security Project – The Hemispheric Security project focuses on threats to the Western Hemisphere.
  • The Islamist Project – The Islamist Project is aimed at publicising what CSP sees as the growing influence of radical Islam within the United States, and highlighting the voices of moderate, non-violent Muslims.
  • The Security and Democracy in Asia Project – This project is a reflection of the Center’s belief that Asia has the potential to be an area of substantial geostrategic conflict in the 21st Century.

Methods

The Center does most of its advocacy work behind the scenes. However, its fellows routinely appear in the media for radio and TV interviews, and all publish widely in newspapers, journals, and other online news outlets. 

CSP’s official publications fall into a number of different categories: 

  • Decision Briefs – These policy papers reflect the Center’s official position on a wide range of policy issues. After publication, they are distributed to national leaders and the media for immediate action.
  • Security Forums – These publications are part of the Center’s effort to ensure that important, timely articles on national security issues are given the proper attention and consideration. They reflect the views of the author, and not the Center for Security Policy
  • CSP Occasional Papers – This series of papers is intended to function as timely and incisive original research. Preference is given to topics relevant to the national security of the United States and broadly congruent with CSP’s research agenda and its motto “peace through strength.” Occasional Papers are published with a minimum of editing and do not reflect the views of the Center for Security Policy.

Funding

CSP is a 501(c)(3) organization. It gets funding from private individuals and an assortment of philanthropic foundations.[1] …” 

“…Prominent members 

  • Richard Perle – Former Chair of the Defense Policy Board
  • Douglas J. Feith – Former Undersecretary of Defense for Policy
  • James G. Roche – Former Secretary of the United States Air Force
  • Frank Gaffney – Project for the New American Century
  • Jack Dyer Crouch, II – current Deputy National Security Advisor
  • Monica Crowley – talk radio host
  • Laura Ingraham – talk radio host[3] …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Security_Policy 

Frank Gaffney, Coalition to Stop Shariah

Newt Gingrich: Ban Sharia – It is” totally abhorrent to the Western World”

 

Newt Gingrich: Jihadist = Person who seeks to impose Sharia

 

‘Team B’ Gaining Traction: Time For An Independent Study of Jihad & Shariah

 

Frank Gaffney with Glenn Beck: Shariah & Stealth Jihad

 

Dick Morris: Shariah in America (And How We’re Funding It)

 

Shariah’s Brotherhood

 

Book TV: Nonie Darwish “Cruel and Usual Punishment”

Frank Gaffney: Jihad with Money

 

Shariah Financing-Wall Street-selling our souls for $$$

#2 Shariah Islamic Law in America and Europe: What the West Needs To Know

 

#3 Shariah Finance: Securities Fraud?

 

Gingrich: I’m deeply worried

 

No mosque at Ground Zero

 

Militant Islam in the US – Steven Emerson (1 of 7)

 

Militant Islam in the US – Steven Emerson (2 of 7)

 

Militant Islam in the US – Steven Emerson (3 of 7)

 

Militant Islam in the US – Steven Emerson (4 of 7)

 

Militant Islam in the US – Steven Emerson (5 of 7)

 

Militant Islam in the US – Steven Emerson (6 of 7)

 

Militant Islam in the US – Steven Emerson (7 of 7)

 

 

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

News Journal: Number 06, August 3, 2010–Cordova Community Center With Mosque Approved For Ground Zero–Videos

Posted on August 5, 2010. Filed under: Communications, Digital Communication, Ethical Practices, Ethics, Issues, Law, Mass Media, News, Newspapers, Policies, Politics, Print Media, Regulations, Society, Television, Web | Tags: , , , , , , , , |

 
Opponents plan lawsuit on Mosque near ground zero

 

Ground Zero Islamic Center Debate

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NJRMsxEgyK0&feature=fvst

9/11 Mosque Fury

‘Ground Zero’ mosque approved

Ground Zero Mosque Sparks Fight

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nV4owcjKJuc&feature=related

Tim Brown Takes on CAIR & the Ground Zero Mosque

Mosque At Ground Zero Approved by Comunity Board despite massive protests

 

Mosque at 9/11 site – Must be stopped

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPKf4BOgG8A&feature=related

 

No mosque at Ground Zero

Mosque Built at Ground Zero…

Ground Zero Mosque in NYC

“Government being, among other purposes, instituted to protect the consciences of men from oppression, it certainly is the duty of Rulers, not only to abstain from it themselves, but according to their stations, to prevent it in others.

~ George Washington, letter to the Religious Society called the Quakers, September 28,1789,

quoted from Albert J Menendez and Edd Doerr, The Great Quotations on Religious Freedom, also in Gorton Carruth and Eugene Ehrlich, The Harper Book of American Quotations (1988)

 

Just because you can do something, does not mean you should do it.

There are over2,000mosques in the United States and over 200 in New York City and New York State.

The United States of America is a very religious tolerant nation with a strong tradition of separating state from religion.

The United States is the exception.

In many countries around the world, there is no  separation of state and religion nor is there toleration of other religions.

In Saudi Arabia only the Islam religion can be practiced and no other religion ares tolerated:

Religious Freedom Saudi Arabia? – CBN.com

 

Islamic Saudi Textbooks Teach Students to Hate

 

Saudi Arabia does not permit the building of churches in their country.

The building of a 15 story, $100 million Islamic community center, only three blocks from ground zero, is perfectly legal but completely insensitive to the family and friends of those who died on September 11, 2001.

Early plans call for a 15-story building Islamic community center that would have an art  studio, auditorium, basketball court, cullinary school, library, meditation rooms, swimming pool, mosque and a memorial dedicated to the victims of the 9/11 attacks.  

The community center should not be built so close to ground zero.

Relocate the community center to another location several miles away from ground zero.

Background Articles and Videos 

Controversial ‘Ground Zero Mosque’ Gets Green Light From NYC Landmarks Commission

By AARON KATERSKY and SARAH NETTER

“…The controversial Islamic center proposed to be built near the site of the 9/11 terrorist attacks won a major victory today when a New York City board voted unanimously to allow the demolition of a building to make way for construction.

Approval to build a Muslim community center a half block from WTC sparks debate.The city’s Landmarks Preservation Commission’s vote rejected the landmarking of a 19th century building with its Italian Renaissance Palazzo style that most recently served as a Burlington Coat Factory. That designation would have prevented its demolition and foiled plans to build a 13-story Islamic community center that includes a prayer room.

The vote was the last municipal approval needed to start development on the site. Developer Shanif al-Gamal declined to give a date for construction to start, but said they still have $100 million to raise. …”

http://abcnews.go.com/US/controversial-ground-mosque-greenlight-nyc-landmarks-commission/story?id=11312791

John Esposito, Islamophobia, and the Ground Zero Mosque

By Stephen Schwartz

“…Esposito asks, “Why should Muslims who are building a center be any more suspect than Jews who build a synagogue or center or Christians who build a church or conference center?” Answer: Neither Jewish nor Christian houses of worship are overwhelmingly financed from outside U.S. borders, and neither the Jewish nor Christian faith communities in America are overwhelmingly dominated by radicals. But too many of the major mosques in America are financed by Saudi Arabia’s ultra-radical, fundamentalist, and supremacist Wahhabi sect, while the “Wahhabi lobby” of extremist groups — the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), and the Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA) at the forefront — crush American Muslims, suppressing any dissent from radical ideology. For these reasons, as I wrote in the Canadian National Post in April 2010, American Islam is intellectually impoverished. Esposito, as an academic chieftain in Middle East studies, has contributed to this sad condition.

Esposito prefers to ignore reality: The massive structure planned by property owner Sharif Al-Gamal, with Feisal Abdul Rauf of the “Cordoba Initiative” as the imam of its Islamic prayer space, and with the support of former diplomatic and financial operatives for the Iranian clerical regime, has caused doubt among both American Muslims and non-Muslims. While some non-Muslims believe the choice of “Cordoba” — a city in Spain — was intended to evoke Muslim reconquest, it is better known, even among Muslims, as an exaggerated but important symbol of interfaith cooperation.

 

I have been a Sunni Muslim since 1997. I have been denounced repeatedly by radical Muslims and by opponents of Islam. I have expressed my opposition to the Ground Zero Islamic center project in interviews and articles. My criticism of the proposal is based on three issues:   

 

  • Insensitivity toward non-Muslims. American Muslims — especially their leaders and the large body of Islamophile academics led by Esposito — have a great deal of work to do to convince a significant share of non-Muslims that Islam can function alongside other faiths in the panorama of American religious communities. Traditional Islamic guidance calls on Muslims living in societies with a non-Muslim majority to avoid giving offense to their neighbors. The Koran states (29:46), “Be considerate when you debate with the People of the Book” — i.e., Jews and Christians. Could anything appear more offensive and less considerate of American non-Muslims than erecting a large Islamic building close to Ground Zero?
  • Disregard for the security of American Muslims. Islam teaches that a Muslim’s first interest is to obtain security for his or her family and fellow Muslims. Al-Gamal and Rauf have argued that the intent of the Ground Zero project is to further understanding of Islam and to help heal the collective wound inflicted on 9/11. But rather than a patient, calm effort to advance conciliation, the Ground Zero mosque project appears to be a heedless venture that will inexorably increase suspicion of Muslims. What could do more to undermine the security of American Muslims than an insult, intended or not, to the memory of the dead of 9/11?
  • Radical and otherwise suspect associations maintained by Rauf. It has become widely known that Rauf is a leading figure in the so-called Perdana Global Peace Organisation, which is headed by one of the Islamic world’s most offensive Jew-haters, former Malaysian prime minister Mahathir bin Mohamad. Perdana was instrumental in organizing the Turkey-based attempt to run the Israeli naval embargo of Hamas-run Gaza at the end of May. The group’s roster of “Role Players & Contributors” begins with Mahathir, listing Rauf as second below him. Incredibly, the same list includes Michel Chossudovsky, a Canadian leftist professor known for his ardent defense of Slobodan Milosevic, the late Serbian demagogue. What could be more Islamophobic than to join in a public enterprise with such an individual?
Perdana is clearly an alignment of differing extremists, brought together by hatred of America, Israel, and globalization. In that regard, it much resembles Middle East studies in America as guided by Esposito. It includes defenders of Hamas and defenders of Milosevic. How can anybody active in such an effort claim to seek mutual understanding between Muslims and non-Muslims at a location near Ground Zero? ..”

http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/08/john_esposito_islamophobia_and.html

Group to Fight Ground Zero Mosque Ruling

“…Plans for an Islamic community center and mosque near ground zero moved forward as a city panel opened the way for developers to tear down a building that was struck by airplane debris on Sept. 11.

Even as the project’s backers celebrated the decision, a conservative advocacy group founded by the Rev. Pat Robertson announced it would challenge the panel’s vote in state court Wednesday.

Brett Joshpe, an attorney for the American Center for Law and Justice, said the group would file a petition alleging that the city’s Landmarks Preservation Commission “acted arbitrarily and abused its discretion.”

The panel voted unanimously on Tuesday to deny landmark status to a building two blocks from the World Trade Center site that developers want to tear down and convert into an Islamic community center and mosque. The panel said the 152-year-old lower Manhattan building isn’t distinctive enough to be considered a landmark. …”

http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/US-Ground-Zero-Mosque/2010/08/04/id/366528?s=al&promo_code=A6C2-1

Controversy over Mosque at Ground Zero- Fox and Friends [AIFD]- Fox News Channel, May 26, 2010

SAUDI ARABIA – UNDER THE VEIL

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Unit 5, Part 1–Ethics in Advertising

Posted on August 5, 2010. Filed under: Advertising, Bandwagon, Communications, Digital Communication, Ethical Practices, Ethics, Issues, Law, Mass Media, Policies, Politics, Regulations, Television, Web | Tags: , , , , |

Unit 5 ASSIGNMENT & FINAL- ADVERTISING

Advertising students:

Unit 6 has two parts
Part 1 is “Ethics in Advertising”
Part 2 is YOUR FINAL- Career exploration
I am giving you both at the same time so you can work on them at the same time.
Ethics Reading material:
Attached to this content is a pdf of several advertising cases against companies who either have made false claims and have gotten caught or who produced questionable advertisements. In addition, a word document that contains the lesson information on fallacies in advertising.
Unit 6, Assignment part 1:   Read the attached material and links.
[2 parts] In a 1-page (12 pt. font, double spaced) discuss a time you have been misled by an advertisement (whether print, video or audio). If possible, attached a link to an example of this product/ person. Attach your paper into your ecampus blog. Secondly, find 5 samples of ads that correlate with one of the top 10 fallacies in advertising (attached sheet). 
This is due Tuesday, August 10 at 5 p.m.
 
During the 2008 Presidential campaign, candidate Barack Obama ran the following television advertisement that mislead the American people as to the transparency and influence of special interests and their  lobbyists would have in his administration should he be elected President of the United States:
 
Barack Obama’s New TV Ad “Toughest” Aired 3/21

Fortunately I investigated both Presidential candidates on their positions on many issues and by September noticed a fairly consistent pattern of deception and lying on the part of candidate Barack Obama.

This pattern only continues and has gotten  much worse.

Many of those who voted for Barack Obama are now experiencing what in sales is called buyer’s remorse.

The sheer hypocrisy and deception are so palpable that even his supporters on the left are commenting upon it.

Once you lie or deceive a customer, it is very difficult, if not impossible for them to ever trust you again and buy your products and services.

More and more Americans are waking up to the fact that voting for Obama was a one big awfull mistake America.

No amount of political campaign advertisements will be able to overcome this basic lack of trust.

The American people do not like to be lied to and mislead.

Even the best advertising campaign cannot re-elect or sell damaged goods.

The following videos document the broken promises of Barack Obama on transparency and the influence of special interest and their Washington lobbyists in his administration:

 

Obama Already Breaking Promises On No Lobbyists In Administration

Major Garrett reports on the Obama Administrations transparency and lobbyist regulations

Cavuto Blasts Obama’s Transparency Claims: “People Have Had It With Phonies!”

Jack Cafferty Rips Obama on Failed Openness Pledge: ‘Just Another Lie Told for Political Expediency’

 

Obama Speech Followed By Lobbyist Visit?

Barack Obama on Lobbyists and His Campaign

THE GREAT DECEIVER

Many politicians are underestimating the impact that web sites such as YouTube are having with the voters.

Any politician’s position on an issue can be easily checked by using Google and YouTube to read and to view what a candidate stated position on an issue is.

A comparison of what was said during a political campaign can be compared with their actions once elected and in office.

Background Information

Former lobbyists in senior Obama administration positions

By: Timothy P. Carney
Examiner Columnist
February 2, 2010

“…Although Barack Obama promised lobbyists would not serve in his White House, and issued executive orders restricting former lobbyists, more than 40 ex-lobbyists now populate top jobs in the Obama administration, including three Cabinet secretaries, the Director of Central Intelligence, and many senior White House officials.

Below is our working list of ex-lobbyists in the Obama administration:

   Appointee    Agency  Administration position  Former employer  Selected former lobbying clients
. Barnes, Melody Domestic Policy Council Director Raben Group ACLU; Center for Reproductive Rights
. Barrien, Jacquelin Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Commissioner NAACP Legal Defense Fund NAACP Legal Defense Fund
. Beliveau, Emmett White House Deputy Assistant for Advance Patton Boggs PriceWaterhouseCoopers; Worldwide Medical Technologies; Shaw Group
. Butts, Cassandra White House Deputy Counsel Center for American Progress Center for American Progress
. Corr, William Health and Human Services Deputy Secretary Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids Campaign for Tobacco-Free Kids
. Coven, Martha White House Special Assistant Center on Budget & Policy Priorities Center on Budget & Policy Priorities
. Crowley, Phillip J. State Department Assistant Secretary for Public Affairs Center for American Progress Center for American Progress
. Donilon, Thomas National Security Agency Deputy National Security Advisor Fannie Mae Fannie Mae
. Douglas, Derek White House Special Assistant for Urban Affairs O’Melveny & Myers; Center for American Progress Public Transportation Safety Int’l Corp.; Center for American Progress
. Frye, Jocelyn Office of the First Lady Director of Policy and Projects Nat’l Partnership for Women & Families Nat’l Partnership for Women & Families
. Gaspard, Patrick White House Political Affairs Director SEIU SEIU
. Gomez, Gabriella Department of Education Assistant Secretary American Federation of Teachers American Federation of Teachers
. Harden, Krysta Department of Agriculture Assistant Secretary Gordley Associates National Barley Growers Association; National Sunflower Association; American Soybean Association; U.S. Canola Association
. Harris, Scott Department of Energy General Counsel Harris, Wilshire & Grannis Microsoft; Cisco; Dell; Sprint
. Hayes, David Interior Department Deputy Secretary Latham & Watkins Sempra Energy; San Diego Gas & Electric; General Cigar Holdings
. Hirschhorn, Eric L. Department of Commerce Under Secretary for Export Administration Winston & Strawn Lockheed Martin; Sun Chemicals
. Hoffman, Alan Office of the Vice President Deputy Chief of Staff Timmons & Co.; RAND Corporation RAND Corporation, Unocal
. Holder, Eric DOJ Attorney General Covington & Burling Global Crossing; Large Scale Biology Corporation
. Kennedy, Sean White House Special Assistant AT&T AT&T
. Klain, Ron Office of the Vice President Chief of Staff O’Melveny & Myers Time Warner; ImClone; Fannie Mae
           
. Liebowitz, Jon Federal Trade Commission Chairman Motion Picture Association of America Motion Picture Association of America
. Litt, Robert Office of the Director of National Intelligence General Counsel Arnold & Porter Recording Industry Association of America
. Lynn, William J. Department of Defense Deputy Secretary Raytheon Raytheon
. Marantis, Demetrios J. U.S. Trade Representative Deputy USTR Akin Gump Lucent Technologies
. McDonough, Dennis White House Deputy Assistant to the President Center for American Progress Center for American Progress
. Munoz, Cecilia White House Director of Intergovernmental Affairs National Council of La Raza National Council of La Raza
. Panetta, Leon CIA Director Cassidy & Associates Seismic Safety Coalition
. Patterson, Mark Treasury Department Chief of Staff Goldman Sachs Goldman Sachs
. Perciasepe, Robert Environmental Protection Agency Deputy Commissioner National Audubon Society National Audubon Society
. Perrelli, Thomas J. Department of Justice Associate Attorney General Jenner & Block American Survivors of 8/7/98 Bombings of Embassies in Kenya and Tanzania
. Poneman, Daniel Department of Energy Deputy Secretary Hogan & Hartson Payless Shoe Source
. Punke, Michael U.S. Trade Representative Deputy USTR, WTO Mayer Brown Time Warner
. Rundlet, Peter White House Deputy Assistant Center for American Progress Center for American Progress
. Sapiro, Miriam U.S. Trade Representative Deputy USTR VeriSign VeriSign
. Sebelius, Kathleen Health and Human Services Secretary Kansas Trial Lawyers Association Kansas Trial Lawyers Association
. Sher, Susan Office of the First Lady Chief of Staff University of Chicago Hospitals University of Chicago Hospitals
. Siddiqui, Isi U.S. Trade Representative Chief Agricultural Negotiator CropLife America CropLife America
. Singiser, Dana White House Special Assistant to the President for Legislative Affairs Akin Gump AT&T; Motion Picture Association of America; Apollo Advisors; American Express; Mortgage Insurance Companies of America; Pfizer; Bank of New York
. Stoner, Nancy Environmental Protection Agency Deputy Assistant Administrator for Water Natural Resources Defense Council Natural Resources Defense Council
. Strautmanis, Michael White House Office of Intergovernmental Affairs Chief of Staff Association of Trial Lawyers of America Association of Trial Lawyers of America
           
. Strickland, Thomas Department of the Interior Assistant Secretary Hogan & Hartson Amgen
. Sussman, Robert M. Environmental Protection Agencye Senior Policy Counsel Latham & Watkins Amphastar Pharmaceuticals, Navistar, Business Roundtable
. Sutphen, Mona White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stonebridge Int’l Angliss Int’l
. Taylor, Michael Food & Drug Administration Deputy Commissioner for Foods Monsanto Monsanto
. Thompson, Karl R. Department of Justice Lawyer, Office of Legal Counsel O’Melveny & Myers Hess, Occidental Petroleum
. Trasvina, John Department of Housing and Urban Development Assistant Secretary Mexican American Legal Defense Fund Mexican American Legal Defense Fund
. Turton, Dan White House Deputy Director of Legislative Affairs Timmons & Co. Freddie Mac; Chrysler; American Medical Association; Visa
. Varney, Christine DOJ Assistant Attorney General for Antitrust Hogan & Hartson  
. Verma, Richard State Department Assistant Secretary Steptoe & Johnson Cigna; National Association of Convenience Stores; U.S.-India Business Council
. Vilsack, Thomas U.S. Department of Agriculture Secretary Dorsey & Whitney; SELF National Education Association
. Wilkins, William J. IRS Chief Counsel Wilmer Cutler Swiss Bankers Association;

//

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/Former-lobbyists-in-senior-Obama-administration-positions-83362902.html#ixzz0vlR3rVDt

Secondly, find 5 samples of ads that correlate with one of the top 10 fallacies in advertising (attached sheet):

The 10 most frequently used fallacies are

1.         Ad hominem (meaning “against the person”)—attacks the person and not the issue

2.         Appeal to emotions—manipulates people’s emotions in order to get their attention away from an important issue

3.         Bandwagon—creates the impression that everybody is doing it and so should you

4.         False dilemma—limits the possible choices to avoid consideration of another choice

5.         Appeal to the people—uses the views of the majority as a persuasive device

6.         Scare tactic—creates fear in people as evidence to support a claim

7.         False cause—wrongly assumes a cause and effect relationship

8.         Hasty generalization (or jumping to conclusions)—draws a conclusion about a population based on a small sample

9.         Red herring—presents an irrelevant topic to divert attention away from the original issue

10.       Traditional wisdom—uses the logic that the way things used to be is better than they are now, ignoring any problems of the past

An example of a false cause fallacy of assuming a cause and effect relationship between robots dropping an auto part and everybody obsessed with quality including the robot:

GM Robot Super Bowl Commercial

An example of an appeal to emotions in order to get your attention away from an important issue that you are watching too much television on both a television set and computer:

Hulu Alec Baldwin Commercial

 

An example of a false dilemma fallacy that limits choices between a silly breakfast and a serious breakfast:

Denny’s – Serious Breakfast

An example of a hasty generalization that if you use E*TRADE you will have a diversified investment portfolio.

NEW E*TRADE Baby – Girlfriend 

An example of  ad hominem fallacy political attack ad of Jon Corzine targeted against Chris Christie who is overweight. Chris Christie won the election and is now Governor of New Jersey.

 Jon Corzine – If

An example of  a bandwagon fallacy ad of every day should feel this good provided you eat Quaker oats high fiber hot cereal breakfast.

1992 TV Commercial: Wilford Brimley Quaker Oats

An classic example of a scare tactic to create fear that you better use one company’s computer then another company’s computer.

1984 Apple Commercial

 

Background Information

Huckabee Weighs In On Corzine’s “Fat Attack” On Christie

 

Corzine: ‘Probably A Good Idea’ To Not Say Christie ‘Threw His Weight Around

1992 TV Commercial: Wilford Brimley Quaker Oats

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 1 so far )

News Journal: Number 02–July 18, 2010 Unemployment Benefit Extension and Raising Taxes

Posted on August 3, 2010. Filed under: Communications, Issues, Law, News, Politics, Radio, Regulations, Television, Web | Tags: , , , |

BREAKING NEWS Politics News Economy Jobs President Obama Wants to Extend Unemployment Benefits

Bill O’Reilly: Extension of unemployment being blocked by GOP –

 

“Who should pay?”

Paul Ryan on Washington’s Borrow and Spend Spree

 

Democrats Move to Extend Unemployment Benefits as Goodwin Casts First Vote

Hatch CNBC Unemployment Benefits

Rob Shapiro on Fox News re Unemployment Benefits

Daniel J. Mitchell talks unemployment benefit extensions on CNN Newsroom

http://www.cato.org/mediahighlights/index.php?highlight_id=1382

 

Both political parties support the extension of unemployment benefit to 99 weeks or almost two years.

The Republicans have recommended that the  unspent stimulus package funds be used to pay for the extension of unemployment benefits instead of funding the benefits by issuing more Federal Government debt.

Should the Democratic Party let the Bush tax cuts expire at the end of the year, the result will be a tax increase for those who pay taxes and create most of the jobs, namely small and middle size business.

This will only prolong the current recession/depression and increase those Americans who are unemployed.

When the first extension to unemployment benefits was passed last November, President Obama stated they were fully paid for and as a result did not require deficit spending and incurring more debt to pay for the benefits.

Now upwards of $30 billion of new debt must be issued to pay for this new extension of unemployment benefits.

Paul Ryan is right, the Democrats are out of controll in spending money and increasing deficits and the national debt.

This is simply irresponsible and the American people are waking up and will throw them out of office.

 Background Articles and Videos

The Heritage Foundation

Heritage Foundation 2010 Budget Charts–Federal Spending

Heritage Foundation 2010 Budget Charts–Federal Revenue 

Heritage Foundation 2010 Budget Charts–Federal Debt and Deficits

Heritage Foundation 2010 Budget Charts–Federal Entitlements

 

Pres. Obama regarding Unemployment and Economy

Keynesian Economics is a Failure – Why is Obama trying it again? Repeal the Stimulus Package

Obama Changes Tune on Paying for Unemployment Benefits Extension

Posted by Mark Knoller

“…In signing the bill restoring unemployment benefits to 2 ? million Americans jobless for more than 26 weeks, President Obama is also adding $34 billion to the deficit and the National Debt.  

That’s the reason nearly all Republicans voted against the measure. They wanted the cost of the benefits paid for with unspent government funds or by other budget cuts. 

The White House dismissed GOP concerns as partisan game-playing. 

In two speeches over the last week, Mr. Obama argued that in the past, presidents and Congresses of both parties have treated unemployment insurance for what it is: an emergency expenditure. 

“Suddenly, Republican leaders want to change that,” he said.

He portrayed Republicans as hypocrites for demanding that jobless benefits be paid for but not applying the same standard to their call for an extension of Bush Administration tax cuts that will expire this year. 

“So after years of championing policies that turned a record surplus into a massive deficit, including a tax cut for the wealthiest Americans, they’ve finally decided to make their stand on the backs of the unemployed,” the president said last Saturday in his radio/internet address. 

But Republicans were quick to remind Mr. Obama what he said after signing a previous extension of unemployment benefits on November 6th of last year. 

“Now, it’s important to note that the bill I signed will not add to our deficit. It is fully paid for, and so it is fiscally responsible,” he said. 

So eight months ago, he said paying for the benefits was the right thing to do, but now he sees no need to do so. 

Asked about the contradiction, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said he needed to examine what Mr. Obama said last November and would get back to this reporter. He didn’t. …”

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20011420-503544.html

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Unit 2 Advertising–History of Advertising

Posted on July 16, 2010. Filed under: Advertising, Communications, Ethics, Issues, Law, Magazines, Mass Media, Newspapers, Politics, Print Media, Radio, Regulations, Television, Web | Tags: , , , , , |

Unit 2 Advertising_ History of Advertising .ContentGo to the following link and answer the questions in your Assignment Blog

Title: Unit 2_ Assign 1

A Brief History of Advertising:
A. Go to the following link and read through the brief history of advertising.

http://historymatters.gmu.edu/mse/ads/intro.html

-Complete the quiz “Match the Ad to its Purpose.”

-Answer the following questions in your blog:
 

1. What three devices did Benjamin Franklin use in his publication the Pennsylvania Gazette to reach out to readers?
The three device that Benjamin Franklin used in his Pennsylvania Gazette to reach out to reader were headlines, illustrations, and advertising placed next to editorial material. 

Franklin also published stories on politics, political cartoons to illustrate these stories, the community’s weather and current events, foreign affairs,  and under Pennsylvania Gazette header used the tagline–“Containing the freshest Advices Foreign and Demestick”.

 

Background Information

History of Advertising 2/9

 

“…This political cartoon (attributed to Benjamin Franklin) originally appeared during the French and Indian War, but was recycled to encourage the American colonies to unite against British rule. From The Pennsylvania gazette, 9 May 1754. Abbreviations used: South Carolina, North Carolina, Virginia, Maryland, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New York, and New England. This is a somewhat odd division: New England was four colonies, and Delaware and Georgia are missing …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Benjamin_Franklin_-_Join_or_Die.jpg

http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/past/past.html

 

“…Selections, 1730-1743

In 1750 in New England, almost 70 percent of white men and 45 percent of white women could read; in the southern colonies, about 50-60 percent of men and 40 percent of women. With a literacy rate greater than Britain, the colonies by mid century hosted more newspapers than the mother country.1 A sample of this expansive output is this collection of brief items from Benjamin Franklin’s newspaper, The Pennsylvania Gazette, “containing the freshest Advices Foreign and Domestick.” Together they offer a window into life in the middle colonies in the mid 1700s: fire, earthquake, weather extremes, smallpox, the revival tour of Rev. George Whitefield, the king’s birthday, the mayor’s feast for the city’s citizens, fundraising for a “Negro school,” return of a castaway, the birth of triplets, the exhibition of a live camel from Arabia, a fraudulent marriage, spousal abuse, a false charge of rape, the murder of an enslaved boy, death by alcohol, a hunting accident, robberies, obituaries, advertisements, and Franklin’s announcement of his editorial policy. …”

http://nationalhumanitiescenter.org/pds/becomingamer/ideas/text5/pennsylvaniagazette.pdf

Benjamin Franklin

“…Franklin’s Pennsylvania Gazette provided information about politics to the people. Ben Franklin used political cartoons to illustrate news stories and to heighten reader appeal. The May 9, 1754 issue included Join, or Die, which is widely considered the first American political cartoon. Devised by Franklin, the cartoon reflected concern about increasing French pressure along the western frontier of the colonies.

Statesmen

To protest the Stamp Act provisions, which required newspapers be printed on imported, stamped paper, Franklin had the November 7, 1765 edition of the Pennsylvania Gazette printed without date, number, masthead, or imprint. In doing so, he highlighted the impact of royal policies on colonial freedom and exerted colonists’ autonomy.

http://inventors.about.com/od/fstartinventions/a/Franklin.htm

2. What does the article say was a particularly disturbing form of advertisements in the 18th and 19th century?

A disturbing form of advertisement were notices of slave sales or appeals for the capture of escaped or runaway slaves with  rewards for their return. (see photos below)

Background Information

Collecting 19th Century Authentic Newspapers

Rare News  Papers

http://rarenewspapers.com/

 

3. How did mass production of goods in the 1880’s affect advertising revenues and methods?

The mass production of goods in the 1880s such as canned food, soap, and cigarettes in great quantities required these businesses to first find buyers and second persuade the buyers to purchase their products.

In addition to the manufactures of mass produced goods, other businesses such as large retail department stores in rapidly growing cities turned to advertising to sell their goods.

As a result the total advertising volume increased from $200 million dollars in 1880 to nearly $3 billion in 1920.

Advertising agencies that before 1880 primarily sold advertising space in local newspapers and a limited number of magazines, expanded their service for national advertisers by designing copy and artwork and positioning the advertisements to attract buyer attention. Advertising agencies and their employees sought legitimacy and public approval with many in the advertising business dissociating themselves from the fraud and swindles of the patent medicine peddlers.

Background Information

History of Advertising 3/9

4. What character, introduced in 1955, changed one cigarette company’s target and launched the company into becoming the best-selling brand? What changed?

Marlboro cigarettes were originally targeted for woman as being “Mild as May”.

In 1955 the  Philip Morris & Co. targeted the Marlboro brand of cigarettes at men in the  ”Tatooed Man'” campaign.

The character was became known as The Marlboro Man.

The target of the advertising campaign changed from women to men.

In 1955 a number of medical research studies found that cigarettes may cause lung cancer.

In response to this, a number of cigarette companies added filters to their cigarettes.

Philip Morris used this opportunity to expand its customer base by adding men who were concerned about cancer by switching them to the Marlboro brand whose tobacco flavor was mild but now also had a filter and came in a flip top box.:

“Man-sized taste of honest tobacco comes full through. Smooth-drawing filter feels right in your mouth. Works fine but doesn’t get in the way. Modern Flip-top box keeps every cigarette firm and fresh until you smoke it.” –

~Phillip Morris Marlboro Advertisement

Background Information

The Marlboro Man

History of Advertising 1/9

 

 

The Marlboro Man

“…The Marlboro Man is a figure used in tobacco advertising campaign for Marlboro cigarettes. In the United States, where the campaign originated, it was used from 1954 to 1999. The Marlboro Man was first conceived by Leo Burnett in 1954. The image involves a rugged cowboy or cowboys, in nature with only a cigarette. The ads were originally conceived as a way to popularize filtered cigarettes, which at the time were considered feminine.

The Marlboro advertising campaign, created by Leo Burnett Worldwide, is said to be one of the most brilliant ad campaigns of all time. It transformed a feminine campaign, with the slogan “Mild as May”, into one that was masculine, in a matter of months. Although there were many Marlboro Men, the cowboy proved to be the most popular. This led to the “Marlboro Cowboy” and “Marlboro Country” campaigns.[1] …”

 

The Marlboro Man Meets the Surgeon General

“…Philip Morris saw its chance to reintroduce Marlboro in the early fifties when the first studies linking cigarette smoking to lung cancer were released. Consumers began feeling mislead by the established brands and dropped their old allegiances. They were willing to try other brands but were unable to break away from smoking completely, due to what would later be attributed to nicotine addiction. Disillusioned consumers turned to Marlboros, the new “safer” filtered brand. Ross B. Millhiser, president of Philip Morris in 1968, looked back on Marlboro’s window of opportunity and explained that “the filter revolution caused more switching than all the cigarette manufacturers with all their money could have induced.”(White 121) Unfortunately for Marlboro, formerly known to be “Mild as May”, the new filters were considered effiminate. The dilemma would be to appeal to the attitudes of an old group of customers with a new concern, addicted men who feared lung cancer.

Philip Morris took the challenge to a midwestern agency, the Leo Burnett Company of Chicago, and reintroduced Marlboro to the nation in 1955 with the “Tattooed Man” campaign. Joseph Cullman, then president and chief executive officer of Philip Morris Inc., explained, “We felt that West of the Alleghanies we could secure a better understanding and feel of grass-roots America and what it wanted in a cigarette.”(Esquire 8/60 146) The resulting campaign assured buyers, with television commercials and printed pages, that “You get a lot to like with Marlboro, filter, flavor, flip- top box.” The image of the “new Marlboro smoker as a lean, relaxed outdoorsman–a cattle rancher, a Navy officer, a flyer–whose tattooed wrist suggested a romantic past, a man who had once worked with his hands, who knew the score, who merited respect,”(Esquire 6/60 146) proved that there was nothing sissy or feminine about these filtered cigarettes. The first advertisements spoke directly to the masculine audience suggesting in a descriptive paragraph that they try “old fashioned flavor in a new way to smoke.” They reassured men that the filter did not change Marlboro quality and the

    Man-sized taste of honest tobacco comes full through.  Smooth-
     drawing filter feels right in your mouth.  Works fine but doesn’t
     get in the way.  Modern Flip-top box keeps every cigarette firm
     and fresh until you smoke it. (Made in Richmond, Virginia, from
     a new Marlboro Recipe)  …”

 

“…Philip Morris, with the Marlboro cowboy, has capitalized on what the cigarette advertising industry realized as an unique quality in its products. “The physical characteristics of the standard brands are nearly identical and their individual demands are highly elastic, yet despite close similarity, consumers are not indifferent to the choice of brands but show enduring loyalties based upon very slight physical differences or upon irrational grounds.”(Tennant 163). The irrational appeal of the strong individual is bolstered by the strong geometric design of the red, white and black-lettered flip-top package. It was designed by Frank Gianininoto in 1954 and carefully tested through consumer surveys by Elmo Roper&Associates and the Color Research Institute.(Advertising Age 11/9/88) When displayed on open cigar counters consumer reaction was gauged on hidden cameras as their eyes settled on the bright packaging(Esquire 6/60). Like a cowboy’s holster for his favorite gun the packaging makes a statement. It is estimated that the average smoker removes his or her cigarettes 20-25 times a day. In 1987, Thirty-two years after the box was designed, Forbes magazine(2/9/87) polled smokers and offered them Marlboro cigarettes unaltered except in a generic brown box and at half price. Only 21% were interested. The public embraced the red box as a symbol of membership to the club that recognized the Marlboro Man as their spokes-person. A 1959 ad showed the Flip-top box as a unifying element “From the Klondike to Key West…. Every man is a ‘Marlboro Man’ once he discovers that Marlboro is for real smoking.” [Image 3]. The box is a carrying card available to everyone. It is visable proof of participation in or appreciation for a certain idealized way of life that not many actually get to experience. Consumers carrying the box were now investing themselves and their reputation in the positive image of the Marlboro Man. …”

http://xroads.virginia.edu/~class/marlboro/mman3.html

Marlboro Cigarettes

“…Since Marlboro filtered cigarettes were previously oriented mainly to the female smoking audience, Phillip Morris decided to extend the range of customers, touching the group of addicted male smokers who were afraid of acquiring lung cancer. Therefore advertising strategies were completely revised.

As a result the “Tattooed Man” campaign got under way in 1955. The new advertisements popularized the image of rugged men (a cattle rancher, a Navy officer, a flyer), – “whose tattooed wrist suggested a romantic past, a man who had once worked with his hands, who knew the score, who merited respect”. The new Marlboro smokers were portrayed smoking while performing manly tasks. “Man-sized taste of honest tobacco comes full through. Smooth-drawing filter feels right in your mouth. Works fine but doesn’t get in the way. Modern Flip-top box keeps every cigarette firm and fresh until you smoke it.” – Phillip Morris Marlboro Advertisement.

The campaign proved that there was nothing feminine about the filtered cigarettes and tripled sales by 1957. In 1954, the cowboy image was introduced and became the most popular Marlboro advertisement character ever. By 1963, the Marlboro cowboy became the only character in the marketing of Marlboro cigarettes. The geometric design of the red, white and black-lettered flip-top Marlboro package boosted the appeal of a strong independent individual.

By 1972, Marlboro cigarettes had become the most popular world-wide and have stayed that way for majority of years that have followed. By 1992, Financial World ranked Marlboro the world’s No. 1 most valuable brand, with a market worth of $32 billion. Currently, Philip Morris’ tobacco brands are in 180 markets, have a 38% market share in the US, are the top-selling cigarettes in the world, and the tenth-most valuable product brands overall.

http://www.cigoutlet.net/cigarettes/marlboro-cigarettes.html

Trivia: Marlboro Was a Woman’s Cigarette

“…Filtered cigarettes were considered feminine as reflected by Marlboro’s original slogan “Mild as May.” In the 1930s, Marlboro even changed the cigarette tips from ivory to red so they wouldn’t smear ladies’ lipstick.

In 1955 Philip Morris & Co. tried to change Marlboro’s feminine image with the “Tattooed Man” campaign, where a rugged cattle rancher, a Navy officer, and a flyer (all with muscular, tattooed hands) were shown holding a cigarette. Supposedly the tattoo was suggestive of “romantic past.” Later, ad genius Leo Burnett used the image of a cowboy to prove that the cigarettes weren’t for sissies, and thus “The Marlboro Man” was born. ..”

Marlboro

“…Marlboro (US: /ˈmɑrb(ə)roʊ/[1]) is the largest selling brand of cigarettes in the world. It is made by Philip Morris USA (a branch of Altria) within the US, and by Philip Morris International (now separate from Altria) outside the US. It is famous for its billboard advertisements and magazine ads of the Marlboro Man.

The brand is named after Great Marlborough Street, the location of its original London Factory. Richmond, Virginia is now the location of the largest Marlboro cigarette manufacturing plant.

Philip Morris, a London-based cigarette manufacturer, created a New York subsidiary in 1902 to sell several of its cigarette brands, including Marlboro. By 1924 they were advertising Marlboro as a woman’s cigarette based on the slogan “Mild As May”.

The brand was sold in this capacity until World War II when the brand faltered and was temporarily removed from the market. At the end of the war, three brands emerged that would establish firm holds on the cigarette market: Camel, Lucky Strike, and Chesterfield. These brands were supplied to US soldiers during the war, creating an instant market upon their return.

During the 1950s Reader’s Digest magazine published a series of articles that linked smoking with lung and other cancers. Philip Morris, and the other cigarette companies took notice and each began to market filtered cigarettes.[citation needed] The new Marlboro with a filtered end was launched in 1955. In the early 1960s Philip Morris invented “Marlboro Country” and distilled their manly imagery into the rugged cowboys known as the “Marlboro Men”. The famous slogan used on radio and television during the mid-’60s was, “Come to where the flavor is…come to MARLBORO COUNTRY”, backed by Elmer Bernstein’s theme from The Magnificent Seven.

In the USA, in order to comply with new regulations prescribed by the Food and Drug Administration, Marlboro had until June 22, 2010 to rebrand tobacco products marketed as “Lights”, “Ultra-Lights”, “Medium”, “Mild”, or any similar designation that yields an impression that some tobacco products are comparatively safe. Similar restrictions were applied in the European Union some years ago. …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marlboro_(cigarette)

Now visit this link and answer these questions in your Blog:
http://adage.com/century/timeline/index.html

1. What newspaper printed the first known advertisement?

In 1702 The Boston News-Letter’s printed the first known advertisement in the United States.

2. What magazine was the first magazine to carry $100 million annually in advertising?

Life magazine was the first magazine to carry $100 million annually in advertising.

3. What year did Congress prohibit broadcast advertising of cigarettes?

In 1971 Congress prohibited broadcast advertising of cigarettes.

4. What was The Associated Advertising Clubs of America?

In 1904 a group of advertising agencies, advertiser and media representatives formed The Associated Advertising Clubs of America.
Assignment 1 is due Monday, July 19 at 5 p.m.

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 1 so far )

When Radio Was–Videos

Posted on June 19, 2010. Filed under: Books, Communications, Issues, Law, Movies, Music, Radio, Recordings, Regulations, Television | Tags: , , , , |

 

When Radio Was #1

When Radio Was #2

When Radio Was #3

When Radio Was #4

When Radio Was #5

When Radio Was #6

When Radio Was #7

Background Articles and Videos

Dick Cavett

“…Richard Alva “Dick” Cavett (born November 19, 1936) is a former American television talk show host known for his conversational style and in-depth discussion of issues. Cavett appeared regularly on nationally broadcast television in the United States in five consecutive decades, the 1960s through the 2000s.

In recent years, Cavett has written a blog for the New York Times, promoted DVDs of his former shows, and hosted replays of his classic TV interviews with Groucho Marx, Katharine Hepburn, and others on Turner Classic Movies channel.[1][2] …”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_Cavett

Radio History

The History of Radio

Related Posts On Pronk Palisades

Orson Welles–War of The Worlds–Videos

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 1 so far )

Chapter 14—Law and Regulations

Posted on June 11, 2010. Filed under: Communications, Law, Mass Media, Regulations | Tags: , , , |

1. Cite the major events/legal decisions in the evolution of the interpretation of the First Amendment in America from its beginnings to today.

2. According to what you know about broadcast regulation, why were broadcasters likely to follow the 1943 Code of Wartime Practices for American Broadcasters?

3. Why was New York Times v. Sullivan such a precedent-setting case for the American media?

4. List and describe the four elements necessary to prove libel.

5. Although the Sharon and Westmoreland cases did not result in libel awards, what did the cases reveal about the media?

6. How are the V-chip and the Children Online Protection Act designed to protect children? Explain each with specific details.

7. Why is Roth v. United States important in the history of censorship in America?

8. Discuss four of the most critical elements of the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and explain how each significantly changes U.S. communications law or policy.

9. Why are the courts generally so reluctant to use prior restraint to stop publication? List two cases in which the courts did invoke prior restraint.

10. How did the decision in the Sheppard v. Maxwell case affect the issue of fair trial and free press?

11. List two things the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) makes illegal. Why do supporters claim it is a good law? Why do opponents object to it?

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Liked it here?
Why not try sites on the blogroll...