Legendary Broadcaster Pat Burns' Hotline Debuts in Vancouver 49 Years Ago Today
By Glen Livingstone
An outspoken defender of freedom of speech and freedom in general, the Runyunesque Burns - with his hard-right conservative views and a voice that suggested he began his morning ablutions by gargling with Drano - was the talk show host who gave Western Canadians a voice. He was fearless, thoughtful, and possessed a great sense of humour to boot.
Cited
The "dolls" as Burns liked to refer to the female members of his listening audience -loved him - as did the station's advertisers who clamoured for airtime on his show.
Cited
But in 1963 Pat himself was far too busy sifting through the personal death threats and fighting off the myriad of Board of Broadcast Governors ultimatums against him to pay any attention to the comings and goings of Jack Webster, a.k.a. "The Oatmeal Savage."
Cited
"And when I say any topic under the sun I mean precisely that. For it doesn't matter to me if what you want to talk about is of a purely local nature, regional, provincial, state wide, national, international, philosophic, outer space or sports."
Sort of like my weekly (tonight for example) Zoom meetings. Saturday (or Sunday) night open topic Zoom meetings.
Cited
Sure, he could sometimes be a little rude to the "dolls" who called in, but along with his impeccable journalistic skills Pat knew that showmanship was also a part of the package and his brusque language and barbed insults added entertainment value to the show.
I am prayerfully not rude to anyone on Zoom. But, yes, I realize Mr. Burns added some drama for effect...
Paraphrased statements and my analysis from the You Tube video
Part 2
Roughly 4: 00 minute mark
Burns: Because the emotion comes in play, not reason.
PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.
Emotional appeals as fallacy occur when 'it becomes the means of deciding the soundness of an argument.' (87). Emotions being used to influence what is determined as fact. This fallacy can be triggered by a person (s) abusing the emotions of the determined audience. To play on the emotional disposition of such an audience. (88).
The author writes that 'sentimens is a clever fallacy.' (89). Perhaps this should be documented as 'sentiments'; a more common usage. If someone does not play along with this sentimental philosophical approach, he or she may be considered 'cold'. (89). This can lead to an abandonment of reason. (89). In contrast, emotional fallacy should be abandoned. Not emotions, but the abuse of emotions should not be used in attempts to determine reasonable arguments and truth.
Roughly 14: 00 minute mark
Mr. Burns discusses (the eventually failed) Meech Lake Accord.
The Meech Lake Accord (French: Accord du lac Meech) was a series of proposed amendments to the Constitution of Canada negotiated in 1987 by Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and all 10 Canadian provincial premiers. It was intended to persuade the government of Quebec to symbolically endorse the 1982 constitutional amendments by providing for some decentralization of the Canadian federation.
The proposed amendments were initially popular and backed by nearly all political leaders. However, former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, feminist activists, and Indigenous groups raised concerns about the lack of citizen involvement in the Accord's drafting and its future effects on Canadian federalism, and support for the Accord began to decline.
Cited
Failure to pass the Accord greatly increased tensions between Quebec and the remainder of the country. The Quebec sovereignty movement gained renewed support for a time. The general aims of the Accord would be addressed in the Charlottetown Accord (1992, my add), which failed to gain a majority vote in a referendum.
Roughly 15: 30 minute mark
Bizarre UFO/Aliens caller story is told...
Roughly 26: 30 minute mark
Burns: (Hearsay evidence) You can know something is true, from first-hand knowledge, but cannot prove it in a court of law.
Agreed. Hearsay evidence, often will not serve as documented evidence.
All evidence presented in a trial must be “admissible”. The word “admissible” means that the law of evidence will permit the judge to admit it as evidence in the trial and consider it when deciding your case.
Although there are exceptions, evidence that is considered “hearsay evidence” is normally not admissible – it’s “inadmissible” and won’t be allowed at a trial.
Although, with my skill-set and with God's help, I have been able to combine first-hand, hearsay evidence with documented evidence from online chats to successfully support and defend myself in a (non-court) dispute where I was slandered and libeled.
No comments:
Post a Comment