Take this radio show away from this hack and hypochondriac. I'm emailing Premiere to complain about Jorch and his snake oil shilling 'guests'. Doesn't the FCC have rules against broadcasters not disclosing that a show or guest is a paid for infomercial rather than a legitimate guest?
Yes, it does. But it takes a number of complaints to act upon and investigate a suspected case of what we call "payola." It's been on our books since the advent of radio in the 1930s -- an attempt to make a supposed "news, editorial or program matter" broadcast attempt to disguise itself when it's actually a sponsor-paid bit without full disclosure.
Citing U.S. law:
"Section 317 of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47 U.S.C. § 317, requires broadcasters to disclose to their listeners or viewers if matter has been aired in exchange for money, services or other valuable consideration. The announcement must be aired when the subject matter is broadcast. The Commission has adopted a rule, 47 C.F.R. § 73.1212, which sets forth the broadcasters' responsibilities to make this sponsorship identification
Section 507 of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C. § 508, requires that, when anyone provides or promises to provide money, services or other consideration to someone to include program matter in a broadcast, that fact must be disclosed in advance of the broadcast, ultimately to the station over which the matter is to be aired. Both the person providing or promising to provide the money, services or other consideration and the recipient are obligated to make this disclosure so that the station may broadcast the sponsorship identification announcement required by Section 317 of the Communications Act. Failure to disclose such payment or the providing of services or other consideration, or promise to provide them, is commonly referred to as ``payola'' and is punishable by a fine of not more than $10,000 or imprisonment for not more than one year or both. These criminal penalties bring violations within the purview of the Department of Justice.
Thus, for example, if a record company or its agent pays a broadcaster to play records on the air, those payments do not violate these provisions of the law if the required sponsorship identification information is timely aired by the broadcast station. If it is not aired as required by the Communications Act and the Commission's rules, the station and others are subject to enforcement action.
If record companies, or their agents, are paying persons other than the broadcast licensee (such as the station's Music Director or its on-air personality) to have records aired, and fail to disclose that fact to the licensee, the person making such payments, and the recipient, are also subject to criminal fine, imprisonment or both, for violation of the disclosure requirements contained in Section 507."
In simple terms, if George Noory, his staff or the network is receiving anything of value -- even "free" supplements, in exchange for airing such "news, editorial or program matter" that must be disclosed. Simply stating someone is a "sponsor" may not cover Premiere Networks.
Further, at no time does George Noory or Premiere Networks air the required Food And Drug Administration disclaimer to listeners and its roughly 600 affiliates. To cover themselves. Noory and Premiere forgets to state: "These statements have not been evaluated by the FDA. These products are not meant to prevent, treat or cure any type of disease."
Without such disclaimers, that puts things under the examination of the Federal Trade Commission. For perhaps misleading consumers about unproven medical claims. Know they don't act on single or few complaints about possible wrongdoings -- but if enough people suspect wrongdoings and express such concerns to federal agencies, they will probably act on it.