Thanks Eddie - I'll sleep better now.

But there is still one thing I don't get... how can someone be too busy to comment? It's only Monday and deadlines don't have to be met until Friday...

Ren e W ebb, former Telecommunications Minister, and responsible for "updating" the current broadcast laws in 2003, says in todays RG:  "Hott is breaching broadcast laws."... and "the United Bermuda Party is right to complain about the pro-Government bias on Hott 107.5." There ya go Thaao... from your own people.   

if that isn't a BIG middle finger up from Renee to her party i don't know what is..

wish she was a member here so i could give her karma


still have a crush on you though Thaao 

hokay.

something else:

hi back. and front. and the part of the side where the hipbone gets all dangerous and necessary.

smokes:

ok. you've clearly drawn your idelogical line in the sand with the hardest part of your head, so there's not a hell of a lot i can do short of saving your first born from a grease fire to convince you i'm a standup guy. that said, i'm an ass, so i'll give it one more shot.

the timing of this only coincides with the election period is because we only noticed the issue during the election period, since this is the only period when it is at all relevant. that's it. no motivation beyond a general logical and moral distaste for the regulations. ok? christ.

lif:

thanks for understanding. i do understand why the timing of all this could and should have people's eyebrows knocking into their hairlines. but, after having the conversation and getting some clarity, i'm not sure why they're still left all askew. *shrugs*. what're y'gonna do, y'know?

as for my auntie renee's comments in the paper today. 3 things y'gotta remember.

a) this article was a byproduct of monday's more thorough piece on her election perspective. it's not like she called the paper clamoring for her perception on the matter to be shared with the nation. matt asked her a question, she answered it. because of the perceived relevance of the issue, he saved that nugget for a separate story. no big whoop.

b) she's completely correct on the issue. well, then again, maybe not. the regulations are so gotdang vague, it's kinda hard to figure out what side of the argument to come down on, but i can understand why she said what she said and can't responsibly inform it with any malice.

c) she was directly involved with amending the regulations, so her pooh-poohing 'em in anyway would be kinda weird, even 4 years on.

beyond all that, i still have a gargantuan crush on her for all the wrong reasons and some of the right ones. growf.

deuces.

keep reading.

there are also items designated as spot broadcasts, which are not limited to members of the legislature/candidates. their only restriction is that they be under 60 seconds. which all our spots were/are. y'dig?

believe me, i know you're not particularly open to the concept, but we're not being dicks about this. it really is some foolish ass business.

i'd like to suggest that all plp supporters protest the fact that their government has to win the next election by public vote by... not voting !

Just curious Thaao, do you see yourself ever running for election?

ue - nope. not for political gain. i mean, based on the premise you're presenting if it WAS for shameless political gain, then we wouldn't be breaking the law to let the opposition on the air and run more spots than is legal. again, it's not being done simply to push a biased message. if it was, gina and louise would've been prevented from appearing on the station on that core principle. however, since they did get about 2 hours total time and wouldn't be turned away from appearing again, then that obviously isn't the core principle we're operating on.

we WANT ubp supporters/members to call the station and interact and holler and argue and join the dialogue. anyone that's ever listened to the morning show with any kind of regularity would be aware of that freedom and desire. it broadens the conversation, and gives folks a chance to think about information they ordinarily wouldn't consider. BUT, under the current legislation that is illegal. which is wrong, which is why we're demonstrating as much in this way.

dude. c'mon. even though we're not doing this specifically for either of the groups since they've been getting equal access, of course people would be hollering if a station was doing it "for" the ubp. just like you/y'all are hollering now, right? just like there have been press conferences called to fuss on it, right? just like our liscence has been challenged, right? don't act like this is getting universally co-signed, 'cause it's clearly not. shoot, the commissioners met to discuss the matter today, y'know? it's not happening in a vaccum of social approval, and i have absolutely no idea why you'd imply that it was. if that wasn't your implication, forgive my misinterpretation.

other media entities and their bias does bug me, but i'd NEVER suggest that they're obligated to get more balanced. say whatever you want to whoever you want, however you want to. it'd be nice fjust give us the same latitude. i mean, if you really think that it's important to manage how information is shared, ok. that's cool. let's make it plain, then.

in a country 10 radio stations deep vs just the 1 daily paper, your focus on preserving regulations preventing on-air bias as opposed to developing some to apply to in-print leanings is kinda weird, frankly. or does that waxy ball of hypocrisy not feel as comfortable rolling around your palms? and that isn't a strawman, i'm not changing the conversation. just asking why this annoys you so much, or, rather, why do you get all this subtext from?

yeesh. forgive the tone, i'm just not understanding why you're informing this with more intent than it has. be pissed that we're breaking the law, but don't add the political gains/biased message/ubp alternate hypothesis stuff. it muddys things up in a way that they absolutely shouldn't be.

reality - almost certainly not. i'm too committed/comfortable with being silly and honest and, well, odd to ever be successful in the current context of elected office/public service. i think, anyway. *shrugs*. who knows. it's not sketched out anywhere in my life-plan, i can definitely tell you that. and my life plan includes 3 chapters dedicated to my on-again/off again relationship with phylicia rashad circa 1983. so, if politics is too fanciful to be included in a plan that features me and claire huxtable fighting crime and picking out china patterns in eastern latveria 24 years ago, it really ain't that likely.

something else - ha. not bad. well done you.