"I heard Thao yesterday morning after a long exchange with a caller who told him that he was tremendously biased," she said. "And then he said 'We realise we might be a little greasy around the rules however we do not like or agree with the rules and that is the reason we do not abide by them'.

It seems like the attitude of the PLP... we're above the law has now rubbed off on HOTT107.5's radio Personalities.

Mr Dill, care to comment? These are Laws! Not rules!!!!

A classic quote from Homer Simpson:
"I didn't lie, I was writing fiction with my mouth."

Is mighy haid massed hup? I don't see a post here by Thaoo. Am I missing sumtin?

Rummy?

I like Thaao, he's pretty funny a lot of the time and probably people take him a bit too seriously sometimes. I don't agree with breaking this law but much of the problem is less with Thaao and more with those charged with implementing said law. If nobody is ever stopped for speeding, pretty much everyone does it unchecked. if nobody is reined in for political bias on the radio coming up to an election.... this is what happens. Not good but just about inevitable.

The commission that oversees content will be meeting and discussing this at the beginning of the week. Lets see what they do. Here the radio station would cop a heavy fine and the presenter would be punished similarly. I suspect that Bermuda will take a far softer approach.

Ok...detz cool Let. I was just reffering to the first sentence of your post. "Pretty disapointing Thaao"...detz all. I guess you had to "Mislead" me.

Gotta run...................Smokinggun (notice the 'gg')......horn dee lyne....Yah Yah...Salmon...smoked? No No.............deceived salmon.......yah yah....muss be det 'pink' skin dee salmon was wurin................

Nooo you misunderstand Rum, I do not want him to be punished, because I personally believe he is a descent person, but if he has broken the law then he should be.  I am just saying that I think he is being used and may be too young or naive to realise it, I could be wrong. He is intelligent, but that would make it a willful and premeditated breach of the law, and I am trying to give him the benefit of the doubt. ANd perhaps, just maybe...he was misled.

that was a misquote. ruth did reach out to get the clarification. i appreciate her doing so and told her as much, but since we have the latitude and, well, um, muscle to clarify things on the air ourselves rather than through other outlets, there's no need to do so.

the context of the statement i made wasn't so general/offhand. rather, it was slightly tongue in cheek as is my general wont, while specifically referring to the ubp chair's questioning of our liscence.

this was pretty much it, as near to verbatim as i can bang together. forgive the run-on sentences, but i'm trying to keep it more accurate, less concise:

"sure, we talk a little greasy politically, but is it worth challenging whether or not we as an entity should be on the air? 'cause that's what a liscence challenge amounts to, when you get right down to it. obviously, we go harder and further than any other media entity on the big issues, and that makes folk uncomfortable enough to forget about EVERYTHING else we accomplish and compartmentalize our connection with the community into being solely this political mouthpiece when that's clearly not the case.

in 3 years, we've donated tens of thousands of dollars to charity, given i dunno how many kids school supplies, given i dunno how many needy families clothes and necessities, paid bills for folks, put bermudian artists on the radio as often as any international superstar, put bermudian artists on the same stage as international superstars, sent bermudian artists to perform on international platforms and be schooled by international experts, gave bermudian teenagers compensated employment and experience in the industry at every level,  held an anti-violence rally, organized a literacy push for bermudian kids with the bling book club, and that's just the stuff i can think off of the top of my HEAD.

so, sure, if you hinge your assessment on the current and clearly inane legal framework, we talk a bit greasy about the political mess that goes on locally. that's a given. but, when you weigh it all out, everything we've done, are doing and will do, this is the issue you want to base a liscence challenge on? seriously?"

that was what i said, in a nutshell.

beyond that, as i've said on the air, the legislation limits free speech. not profane speech, not libelous speech, just the expression of opinion. it's based on 2 initial assumptions; the first being that broadcasters are less worthy of communicating this stuff than print media folk, which is a weirdly elitist concept. the second is that the listeners are idiots, it treats y'all like toddlers specifically at the time when you should behave in the most mature manner possible; intrepreting information from all perspectives about this huge choice until you land on a decision you're comfortable with. why in god's name does that process need to get managed? frankly, how can it? the board managing the messages has their own inherent biases and subjective preferences that will articulate themselves in the adminstration of the laws.

if we're just talking mandated equal time, so be it. despite that still being more than slightly disrespectful to the audience's intelligence, i guess it's hamfistedly fair. beyond that, the more diverse the conversation/points of view presented, the better for everyone. shoot, we just today gave the shadow health minister 90 minutes or so on the air to discuss the state of health care. giving the candidates equal access, not an issue. demanding broadcasters discuss the candidates equally i.e. faux or forced objectivity on people who make their living examining and explaining their subjective opinions, now THAT's just plain wrong.

far as i can tell, this is the only democratic country that has any legislation that limits what broadcasters can say/produce regarding political candidates. seriously. the reason it was slung back in the states is because there were enough outlets with diverse points of view for the folk running to find a way to the constituents without forcing the broadcasters to help 'em too much. in a country with 10 radio stations and 40 thousand and change bermudians(4 thousand people per station!), clearly, there are listening options. we do have the lion's share of the audience, but not because of a lack of options like in years gone by when this legislation was built. as such, we shouldn't be penalized just because people pay more attention to us than the 9 other options. forgive us for...being dominant, i guess.

anyway. i'm rambling, but this is all stuff i've said and will continue to on the air. we're not journalists, and have never pretended to be. listeners and the the law shouldn't, or rather, can't hold us to those sort of standards. beyond that, comparing this law to any effective/necessary law is ridiculous. speeding saves lives, impeding free speech is regressive and counter-productive/intuitive. clearly different.

thanks for listening.

ps this isn't a party thing, this is a principle thing.

BAWAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA