The Local 12 ABC12 Flint Chose not to say any thing about the TEA

imported post

The Local 12 ABC12 Flint Chose not to say any thing about the TEA party in Brighton.

I called and asked the News Dept about it and their reply was that is not in our area of coverage. What they don't cover State news. Well that is not quite true. That same time they covered three stories from around Detroit. The UAW parade. Some thing about Detroit schools and stop signs. I was astounded by their blatent bias. If they didn't want to lather prase over it at least a 10 second voice over and a one paragraph on their internet site would have been appropriate.

I have decide to boycot, a boycot of one ABC12. It may not do any good but it makes me feel better. They are not in my channel selection any more they are shunned.



PS WNEM from Saginaw/Flint was there and did a nice neutral job of reporting.


With the money we may save we could buy more ammo and guns.
There were quite of pro gun sign and banners there. It think these two ARE linked together, less government for all

imported post

Brighton is considered a small city, and there's not much around it (that's usually news worthy anyway), where as Detroit is obvioulsy a large city. It's up to them what they want to cover I guess. They could also just be biased.

imported post

Plymouth Canton Oberver (Letters Section)

Tea'd off

I am very disappointed with the Plymouth Observer publication. As a matter of fact, I am (tea'd) off. There have been three tea parties in our area (Plymouth, Northville and Canton) and not one word was printed in the Plymouth Observer concerning these meetings.
Your paper is not an honest, unbiased publication. You are picking and choosing what information we can read. There seems to be no place left for the conservative point of view.
I am canceling my subscription to the Observer and this is one good reason you are losing subscribers. I am sure I won't see this letter in your newspaper.
This is a sad thing to say in a free country.
B.A. McGurk
Plymouth, Michigan

imported post

The Local 12 ABC12 Flint Chose not to say any thing

And they never will, unless it's....negative...shock and awe! In the last two years I have contacted them more than once for news coverage. I can't say who I talked to..could have been the janitor for all I know. The last time I called was about two weeks prior to my Hopkins lake event. The guy I talked two gave a similar answer, not in our area of reporting BS. I started to challenge him in the same way. With agitation in his voice....I quote...."We're not interested in you gun nuts"....and proceeded to hang up on me. I have'nt watched abc 12 since.

imported post

Lib bias ... There is only 1 channel left where you can really see both sides. The bias can be expected. Just as how the networks one sided reporting of the election unfolded. That one station now has higher ratings then all the major networks combined.

imported post

WARCHILD, kinda makes you wish you would have recorded your conversation with the anti at the station, doesn't it? If you had, you could call his or her supervisor and play him the recording, for all the good it would do, might make you feel better though.springerdave.

imported post

Most definately not....recording without notifying them the conversation is being recorded, is against the law.
And I would never do anything illegal.....

imported post

WARCHILD wrote:

Most definately not....recording without notifying them the conversation is being recorded, is against the law.
And I would never do anything illegal.....

Click to expand...

I'm not sure that is true. If Iremember correctly only one of the parties has to know there is a recording going on.

imported post

The party being recorded must be notified. If you have ever been in a phone call with some businesses, they have a recording which states...
"This call may be recorded for quality assurance and training purposes".
This applies to all phone conversations and has not been changed by the FCC as far as I know.

imported post

mikestilly wrote:

Lib bias ... There is only 1 channel left where you can really see both sides. The bias can be expected. Just as how the networks one sided reporting of the election unfolded. That one station now has higher ratings then all the major networks combined.

Click to expand...

If this is correct. WJRT 12 ( abc12) is owned buy ABC and that is owned by General Electric. And GE is extremely left wing. I'm sure orders have filtered down from the top as to what to say. Maybe not on paper but in company meetings and their Corp culture. THE WORD gets out. If you had 25 years in and 5 to 10 to retirement you don't rock the boat. "You says wha the masta tellsya."

imported post

WARCHILD wrote:

The party being recorded must be notified. If you have ever been in a phone call with some businesses, they have a recording which states...
"This call may be recorded for quality assurance and training purposes".
This applies to all phone conversations and has not been changed by the FCC as far as I know.

Click to expand...

Only one party to the conversation needs to know it is being recorded. I'm at work right now so I can't do the searches to provide the MCLs.

In the situation quoted above, you are the party being notified that you may be recorded. The worker on the other end of the phone doesn't know whether he's being recorded or not.

It is illegal to record a conversation that you are not part of without at least one of the participant's consent. To do so is eavesdropping which is illegal.

Bronson

ETA: Found the applicable laws in another post by Zig.

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(yunuhcqlfajcoozju2iy4d55))/mileg.aspx?page=GetObject&objectname=mcl-750-539a

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(nwbtqo554prjs455zbw20n55))/mileg.aspx?page=GetObject&objectname=mcl-750-539c

imported post

Thanks Bronson, I didn't know where to find it.

(2) “Eavesdrop” or “eavesdropping” means to overhear, record, amplify or transmit any part of the private discourse of others without the permission of all persons engaged in the discourse. Neither this definition or any other provision of this act shall modify or affect any law or regulation concerning interception, divulgence or recording of messages transmitted by communications common carriers.
The red portion is what I have based my statement on. I was quoted this in Genessee county circuit court a number of years ago. Long story short, I was getting threatening phone calls and recorded them. Since I did not inform him he was being recorded they were not admissible as evidence.

The person being recorded MUST be told such since he is a party to the conversation.

imported post

WARCHILD wrote:

Thanks Bronson, I didn't know where to find it.

(2) “Eavesdrop” or “eavesdropping” means to overhear, record, amplify or transmit any part of the private discourse of others without the permission of all persons engaged in the discourse. Neither this definition or any other provision of this act shall modify or affect any law or regulation concerning interception, divulgence or recording of messages transmitted by communications common carriers.
The red portion is what I have based my statement on. I was quoted this in Genessee county circuit court a number of years ago. Long story short, I was getting threatening phone calls and recorded them. Since I did not inform him he was being recorded they were not admissible as evidence.

The person being recorded MUST be told such since he is a party to the conversation. 

Click to expand...

Since this issue came up already in another thread I'm going to quote DrTodd here below:

"Yep, Michigan law makes it illegal to use any device to eavesdrop upon a conversation without the consent of all parties. However, the Michigan Court of Appeals has ruled that a participant in a private conversation may record it without violating the statute; "eavesdrop" refers only to overhearing or recording the private conversations of others. (Sullivan v. Gray, 342 N.W. 2d 58, 60-61, Mich. Ct. App. 1982). The point being: if you record a conversation to which you are not a party , you have violated the law unless you get the consent of everyone involved."

imported post

Thanks Mike, I was not aware of this ruling. Works for me.

imported post

WARCHILD wrote:

The party being recorded must be notified. If you have ever been in a phone call with some businesses, they have a recording which states...
"This call may be recorded for quality assurance and training purposes".
This applies to all phone conversations and has not been changed by the FCC as far as I know.

Click to expand...

I don't think you are correct. Those businesses do it to cover their ass because they talk with people from all over the country/world and some states you do have to inform. So it' is just stander for them to state it may be recorded.

imported post

WARCHILD wrote:

Thanks Bronson, I didn't know where to find it.

(2) “Eavesdrop” or “eavesdropping” means to overhear, record, amplify or transmit any part of the private discourse of others without the permission of all persons engaged in the discourse. Neither this definition or any other provision of this act shall modify or affect any law or regulation concerning interception, divulgence or recording of messages transmitted by communications common carriers.
The red portion is what I have based my statement on. I was quoted this in Genessee county circuit court a number of years ago. Long story short, I was getting threatening phone calls and recorded them. Since I did not inform him he was being recorded they were not admissible as evidence.

The person being recorded MUST be told such since he is a party to the conversation.

Click to expand...

Also you can't record in courts without permission and recordings have a rough time being used as evidence in trials.

imported post

WARCHILD wrote:

Thanks Bronson, I didn't know where to find it.

(2) “Eavesdrop” or “eavesdropping” means to overhear, record, amplify or transmit any part of the private discourse of others without the permission of all persons engaged in the discourse. Neither this definition or any other provision of this act shall modify or affect any law or regulation concerning interception, divulgence or recording of messages transmitted by communications common carriers.
The red portion is what I have based my statement on. I was quoted this in Genessee county circuit court a number of years ago. Long story short, I was getting threatening phone calls and recorded them. Since I did not inform him he was being recorded they were not admissible as evidence.

The person being recorded MUST be told such since he is a party to the conversation.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

of others....