Thursday, September 22, 2016
KEEP PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES CLEAN-HONEST. CHECK FOR EARPIECES.
THE KUHNS REPORT
CALIF: Hello America, and how is the world treating you?
Matt Lauer's interview with Hillary Clinton was questionable in regards to "if" Clinton was wearing a covert earpiece during the interview. There are reports from social and certain media organizations that she did wear the hidden earpiece on September 7, 2016. A flesh-colored earpiece can be easily concealed so that Hillary Clinton could receive information, answers, and responses to questions by the moderator.
What's that say about cheating? The opponent, without an earpiece, in any debate, would be at a severe disadvantage. The other person answering questions without the help of someone whispering in their ear versus Clinton being fed stock answers and responses by her campaign staff via a covert earpiece ---WOW!
I would suggest to the sponsors and moderators of the upcoming debate between Clinton and Trump on September 26, 2016, to have each of the candidate's ears checked for earpieces and listening devices before the debate starts and during breaks.
If these candidates cannot speak for themselves, what good is a dog and pony show advertised as a debate? Neither of these presidential candidates should be fed answers and responses to questions in any way, shape or form. Keep the debate clean. And, -- that's my opinion. Make your own decisions. You decide.
BRADLEY W. KUHNS, Ph.D., O.M.D.
________________________________
Dr. Kuhns can be reached by email at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com
Sunday, September 11, 2016
CHECK ALL DEBATE PARTICIPANTS FOR COVERT EARPIECES. KEEP ELECTIONS HONEST.
THE KUHNS REPORT
CALIF: Hello America,and how is the world treating you?
The other day, a television forum was held featuring Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Each candidate took separate turns before the cameras. However, it was insinuated that candidate Hillary Clinton was wearing an earpiece during her interview. What? The Clinton camp denies the accusation but people on the Internet and social media are buzzing with stories that she did wear a listening device.
If, in fact, that is the case, and she was wearing a listening device throughout her interview. I call it "dirty pool." Can you imagine the uproar there would have been from the Clinton campaign if Trump was seen or alleged to have been wearing a listening device?
If she was wearing a listening device she had an enormous advantage. Wow! Her team and staff could feed her answers to the questions being asked by the moderator. They could also instruct her when to sit or stand to emphasize a point in the interview. Fact is, the interview could be manipulated in her favor.
To be on the safe side, I would suggest to the television networks, the moderators and the sponsors of any political forum, town hall or debate to actually check each person taking part in the debate for earpieces or listening devices immediately before the start of any debate or interview. In addition, following each and every break , prior to returning to the stage, each individual should be checked again so as to prevent any one of the debaters from obtaining a listening device during their breaks.
For those doubters that say a person involved in a debate cannot be equipped with such a device. I say, "grow up." As an example, at the present time most news anchors, moderators, and commentator on television already wear very sophisticated earpieces as they report each and every day. Their production directors are always talking in their ear telling them when to break or what to do or say.
Some devices are so small they are near undetectable. And is not unthinkable that aides, handlers, and managers from both the Democrat and Republican campaigns have access to some of the most sophisticated electronics out there. And, I wouldn't put it past either campaign to try to secure an edge in the presidential debates. Hell, the Democrats have already manipulated electronics by setting up secret private servers off and away from governmental sites, altering and destroying electronic emails and destroying Blackberry's and mobile devices, (with hammers.). So what would make a reasonable person think that some of these same people would not try to find a way to manipulate and covertly use other electronic aids.
If in fact, Clinton was wearing a listening device, all she was doing was parroting what some campaign aide was whispering in her ear and telling her what to say in response to the questions being asked. So all Clinton would have been doing was acting like a puppet, with someone else pulling her strings. If that's the case, that's sad -- and it's cheating.
NO ONE taking part in a debate, especially a political or presidential debate, should be allowed to wear an earpiece of any kind during the event. In any political or presidential debate, the viewing audience should be assured and guaranteed that they are hearing only the words coming out of the mouths of the individuals standing on the stage,without the help or assist of anyone else feeding them material.
It is obvious the advantage a person has who may be wearing an earpiece and/or listening device against a person who is not wearing one. So, let's keep our political and presidential debates HONEST and ABOVE BOARD. The audience has an absolute right to know, who, if anyone, is using an earpiece on stage during debates. -- And, that's my opinion. Make your own decisions. You decide.
BRADLEY W. KUHNS, Ph.D., O.M.D.
________________________________
Dr. Kuhns can be reached by email at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com
THE KUHNS REPORT
CALIF: Hello America,and how is the world treating you?
The other day, a television forum was held featuring Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Each candidate took separate turns before the cameras. However, it was insinuated that candidate Hillary Clinton was wearing an earpiece during her interview. What? The Clinton camp denies the accusation but people on the Internet and social media are buzzing with stories that she did wear a listening device.
If, in fact, that is the case, and she was wearing a listening device throughout her interview. I call it "dirty pool." Can you imagine the uproar there would have been from the Clinton campaign if Trump was seen or alleged to have been wearing a listening device?
If she was wearing a listening device she had an enormous advantage. Wow! Her team and staff could feed her answers to the questions being asked by the moderator. They could also instruct her when to sit or stand to emphasize a point in the interview. Fact is, the interview could be manipulated in her favor.
To be on the safe side, I would suggest to the television networks, the moderators and the sponsors of any political forum, town hall or debate to actually check each person taking part in the debate for earpieces or listening devices immediately before the start of any debate or interview. In addition, following each and every break , prior to returning to the stage, each individual should be checked again so as to prevent any one of the debaters from obtaining a listening device during their breaks.
For those doubters that say a person involved in a debate cannot be equipped with such a device. I say, "grow up." As an example, at the present time most news anchors, moderators, and commentator on television already wear very sophisticated earpieces as they report each and every day. Their production directors are always talking in their ear telling them when to break or what to do or say.
Some devices are so small they are near undetectable. And is not unthinkable that aides, handlers, and managers from both the Democrat and Republican campaigns have access to some of the most sophisticated electronics out there. And, I wouldn't put it past either campaign to try to secure an edge in the presidential debates. Hell, the Democrats have already manipulated electronics by setting up secret private servers off and away from governmental sites, altering and destroying electronic emails and destroying Blackberry's and mobile devices, (with hammers.). So what would make a reasonable person think that some of these same people would not try to find a way to manipulate and covertly use other electronic aids.
If in fact, Clinton was wearing a listening device, all she was doing was parroting what some campaign aide was whispering in her ear and telling her what to say in response to the questions being asked. So all Clinton would have been doing was acting like a puppet, with someone else pulling her strings. If that's the case, that's sad -- and it's cheating.
NO ONE taking part in a debate, especially a political or presidential debate, should be allowed to wear an earpiece of any kind during the event. In any political or presidential debate, the viewing audience should be assured and guaranteed that they are hearing only the words coming out of the mouths of the individuals standing on the stage,without the help or assist of anyone else feeding them material.
It is obvious the advantage a person has who may be wearing an earpiece and/or listening device against a person who is not wearing one. So, let's keep our political and presidential debates HONEST and ABOVE BOARD. The audience has an absolute right to know, who, if anyone, is using an earpiece on stage during debates. -- And, that's my opinion. Make your own decisions. You decide.
BRADLEY W. KUHNS, Ph.D., O.M.D.
________________________________
Dr. Kuhns can be reached by email at:
bradleykuhns@gmail.com
Thursday, September 1, 2016
FOX NEWS! A RIP-OFF NETWORK: THEY RUN INFOMERCIALS OF COMMERCIALS.
THEY'RE NOT INTERESTED IN NEWS.
THE KUHNS REPORT
I refuse to watch FOX NEWS NETWORK anymore. Why? Easy! Because the FOX NEWS NETWORK is nothing but an "Infomercial" sales force. When you watch FOX you are watching an infomercial of "Commercials,", that's all. I'm not an expert with a stopwatch but I have been timing the commercial breaks with my trusty Timex wrist watch.
I dare and challenge anyone that is watching FOX to time the commercial breaks versus the supposed news they offer. I have found over and over again, night after night, that FOX shows, O'Reilly, Kelly File, Hannity, and Justice start their hour with FIVE MINUTES of commentary/news, etc. then, FIVE minutes later they say, "We'll be right back." "Stay with us."Guess what? They run FIVE minutes of commercials. In that, five minutes of commercials they run approximately TEN commercials, sometimes more. Then the shows host returns and talks to guests or rattles on themselves for another FIVE minutes. Then again, FIVE minutes worth of commercials. And folks, this goes on like this throughout the entire hour show. "FIVE MINUTES of supposed news or commentary and FIVE minutes of commercials. So, out of the entire hour we viewers only get THIRTY minutes of events, news, etc.
And, if you notice, FIVE minutes before the show ends, at the top of the hour, the host, (for example,) HANNITY always says something like this, "Well be right back, stay with us. We need your help." Then it goes to commercial for four-and- a- half-minutes, or 4-minutes, forty-five seconds . Again approximately TEN commercials are run and he comes back about 15 seconds before the hour and says, "That's all the time we have, thanks for watching. O'Reilly Kelly and the other hosts do the same thing.
When I first caught on to this commercial rip-off, I thought it was a fluke, but after watching for a couple weeks I found it was the norm for FOX news. In fact, you can hear Kelly, O'Reilly, or Eric (his fill-in host), or the Judge, often say to the guest. ":We have to go, we have a hard break coming up. And sometimes the guests and host are automatically cut off mid-sentence for the commercial breaks. Apparently, the network has the commercials set on a computer.
People, I REFUSE to watch "infomercials" of commercials. If FOX or any other network wants to saturate us viewers with commercials, they should PAY us to watch them.
____
I'm old enough to remember when cable shows came on the scene. Back then all TV viewers had to watch was ABC, NBC, and CBS. When the cable companies asked us television viewers to pay for cable, we asked, "WHY, should we pay to watch television?" The cable companies answer, "Because there are no commercials. Cable is commercial free."And, that, folks, is what people paid cable companies for - commercial free television programming. Now look how things have gotten out of hand.
Through the years, the cable companies greased the hands of politicians, special interests, and lobbyists and began running commercials on cable shows.
Even when commercials were being run on the major networks and cable shows the viewer could watch FIFTEEN MINUTES of the show, Example: In a half -hour show when they broke for commercial, the commercial was only three minutes in length, then the show returned to allow us to watch the remainder of the half-hour show. If it were an hour show, the commercials were approximately THREE minutes, every FIFTEEN minutes of the show.
However, through the years, the television networks, in collusion with their sponsors, now have TEN MINUTES of the actual show followed by a full FIVE minutes of commercials. So, in a half-hour show we only see 20 minutes of the show. TEN minutes of commercials. In an hour show, we see only 40 minutes of the show and a LONG, LONG 20 minutes of commercials. That's wrong folks. But it appears that is the norm for television programs now. TEN minutes of show, FIVE minutes of commercials (approximately TEN) commercials.
BUT REMEMBER- The GREEDY FOX NETWORK only wants the viewer to have FIVE minutes of a supposed show and FIVE minutes of commercials (Ten or more commercials in that FIVE minutes.)
So, that is why I am boycotting and refusing to watch FOX NEWS. In the past their shows like O'Reilly and, Hannity were good informative platforms, but now, these hosts just fill in FIVE-minute segments with a bunch of babble, just to get to the FIVE minutes of commercials. RIP OFF! You bet.
I submit, what informative information can you, the viewer get in a FIVE-minute segment, especially when they have three guests at once yelling and talking over one another, offering their party line. And sometimes the host of the FOX show joins in trying to be heard over the other three shouting guests. That leaves the viewer with a bunch of garbage.
I thought moderators and/or the host's job was to have control of the show but instead of telling each guest, "You'll all get equal time and get your turn," these nitwits allow the guests to run amok. And then the hosts have the arrogance to say, "Great debate." Are you kidding me! Debate? What FOX is offering is not a debate. All Fox guests do is offer an "opinion" and give a dissertation on the party line of whatever party they represent. What a joke. And, if you watch carefully, you'll see the same old worn out talking heads most every night and you know in advance what they're going to say before they say it because FOX puts the same ol', same ol' on the show most every day.
If you, the television viewer feels like I do about commercials being rammed down our throats by greedy FOX NEWS, I would suggest you get your news and information from other sources like I am doing now. I have always read newspapers and magazines,(at least in those venues you can skip the ads and only read the important events,) You can read your tablet or phone, like I do. And, you can listen to radio for your news. A side note: Even on my tablet I refuse to click or tap on items that have a video with a commercial attached.
Folks, the TV networks, and cable companies make billions of dollars. The sponsors putting out these commercials make billions. I suggest that what the networks and cable companies should do is charge the sponsors more money to place their ads on the television shows and then, --- give us viewers back out viewing time (FIFTEEN MINUTES OF SHOW and THREE MINUTES of commercial.)
If there is a reason for the people of this country to protest and march on Washington I would say it is this issue. Television is the only entertainment some households can afford. They should not have to be exposed to over-saturation of commercials interrupting their viewing pleasures.
When the average television household is paying well over ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS a month to watch TV , commercials should be at a minimum. Fact is, if these cable companies and networks want the viewers to watch commercials, THEY SHOULD BE PAYING US.
I mention FOX because I have been watching that network throughout the election cycle, But enough is enough. NO MORE! I haven't taken the time to time CNN and other cable channels but I do suspect they too are cheating us television viewers. It's bad enough watching most networks that offer TEN minutes of the television show and then FIVE minutes of commercials (which amount to TEN or more.)
Now that I refuse to watch FOX NEWS I'll look at other shows to see which ones I'll cease to watch. I am also going to contact my Congressman and would suggest those that share my views about these greedy networks, sponsors, and cable companies do the same. It's about time our representatives step up and protect us from this outrageous gouging. And, that's my opinion. Make your own decisions. You decide.
BRADLEY W. KUHNS, Ph.D., O.M.D.
_________________________________
You can reach doctor Kuhns at bradleykuhns@gmail.com
THEY'RE NOT INTERESTED IN NEWS.
THE KUHNS REPORT
CALIF: Hello America and how is the world treating you?
I refuse to watch FOX NEWS NETWORK anymore. Why? Easy! Because the FOX NEWS NETWORK is nothing but an "Infomercial" sales force. When you watch FOX you are watching an infomercial of "Commercials,", that's all. I'm not an expert with a stopwatch but I have been timing the commercial breaks with my trusty Timex wrist watch.
I dare and challenge anyone that is watching FOX to time the commercial breaks versus the supposed news they offer. I have found over and over again, night after night, that FOX shows, O'Reilly, Kelly File, Hannity, and Justice start their hour with FIVE MINUTES of commentary/news, etc. then, FIVE minutes later they say, "We'll be right back." "Stay with us."Guess what? They run FIVE minutes of commercials. In that, five minutes of commercials they run approximately TEN commercials, sometimes more. Then the shows host returns and talks to guests or rattles on themselves for another FIVE minutes. Then again, FIVE minutes worth of commercials. And folks, this goes on like this throughout the entire hour show. "FIVE MINUTES of supposed news or commentary and FIVE minutes of commercials. So, out of the entire hour we viewers only get THIRTY minutes of events, news, etc.
And, if you notice, FIVE minutes before the show ends, at the top of the hour, the host, (for example,) HANNITY always says something like this, "Well be right back, stay with us. We need your help." Then it goes to commercial for four-and- a- half-minutes, or 4-minutes, forty-five seconds . Again approximately TEN commercials are run and he comes back about 15 seconds before the hour and says, "That's all the time we have, thanks for watching. O'Reilly Kelly and the other hosts do the same thing.
When I first caught on to this commercial rip-off, I thought it was a fluke, but after watching for a couple weeks I found it was the norm for FOX news. In fact, you can hear Kelly, O'Reilly, or Eric (his fill-in host), or the Judge, often say to the guest. ":We have to go, we have a hard break coming up. And sometimes the guests and host are automatically cut off mid-sentence for the commercial breaks. Apparently, the network has the commercials set on a computer.
People, I REFUSE to watch "infomercials" of commercials. If FOX or any other network wants to saturate us viewers with commercials, they should PAY us to watch them.
____
I'm old enough to remember when cable shows came on the scene. Back then all TV viewers had to watch was ABC, NBC, and CBS. When the cable companies asked us television viewers to pay for cable, we asked, "WHY, should we pay to watch television?" The cable companies answer, "Because there are no commercials. Cable is commercial free."And, that, folks, is what people paid cable companies for - commercial free television programming. Now look how things have gotten out of hand.
Through the years, the cable companies greased the hands of politicians, special interests, and lobbyists and began running commercials on cable shows.
Even when commercials were being run on the major networks and cable shows the viewer could watch FIFTEEN MINUTES of the show, Example: In a half -hour show when they broke for commercial, the commercial was only three minutes in length, then the show returned to allow us to watch the remainder of the half-hour show. If it were an hour show, the commercials were approximately THREE minutes, every FIFTEEN minutes of the show.
However, through the years, the television networks, in collusion with their sponsors, now have TEN MINUTES of the actual show followed by a full FIVE minutes of commercials. So, in a half-hour show we only see 20 minutes of the show. TEN minutes of commercials. In an hour show, we see only 40 minutes of the show and a LONG, LONG 20 minutes of commercials. That's wrong folks. But it appears that is the norm for television programs now. TEN minutes of show, FIVE minutes of commercials (approximately TEN) commercials.
BUT REMEMBER- The GREEDY FOX NETWORK only wants the viewer to have FIVE minutes of a supposed show and FIVE minutes of commercials (Ten or more commercials in that FIVE minutes.)
So, that is why I am boycotting and refusing to watch FOX NEWS. In the past their shows like O'Reilly and, Hannity were good informative platforms, but now, these hosts just fill in FIVE-minute segments with a bunch of babble, just to get to the FIVE minutes of commercials. RIP OFF! You bet.
I submit, what informative information can you, the viewer get in a FIVE-minute segment, especially when they have three guests at once yelling and talking over one another, offering their party line. And sometimes the host of the FOX show joins in trying to be heard over the other three shouting guests. That leaves the viewer with a bunch of garbage.
I thought moderators and/or the host's job was to have control of the show but instead of telling each guest, "You'll all get equal time and get your turn," these nitwits allow the guests to run amok. And then the hosts have the arrogance to say, "Great debate." Are you kidding me! Debate? What FOX is offering is not a debate. All Fox guests do is offer an "opinion" and give a dissertation on the party line of whatever party they represent. What a joke. And, if you watch carefully, you'll see the same old worn out talking heads most every night and you know in advance what they're going to say before they say it because FOX puts the same ol', same ol' on the show most every day.
If you, the television viewer feels like I do about commercials being rammed down our throats by greedy FOX NEWS, I would suggest you get your news and information from other sources like I am doing now. I have always read newspapers and magazines,(at least in those venues you can skip the ads and only read the important events,) You can read your tablet or phone, like I do. And, you can listen to radio for your news. A side note: Even on my tablet I refuse to click or tap on items that have a video with a commercial attached.
Folks, the TV networks, and cable companies make billions of dollars. The sponsors putting out these commercials make billions. I suggest that what the networks and cable companies should do is charge the sponsors more money to place their ads on the television shows and then, --- give us viewers back out viewing time (FIFTEEN MINUTES OF SHOW and THREE MINUTES of commercial.)
If there is a reason for the people of this country to protest and march on Washington I would say it is this issue. Television is the only entertainment some households can afford. They should not have to be exposed to over-saturation of commercials interrupting their viewing pleasures.
When the average television household is paying well over ONE HUNDRED DOLLARS a month to watch TV , commercials should be at a minimum. Fact is, if these cable companies and networks want the viewers to watch commercials, THEY SHOULD BE PAYING US.
I mention FOX because I have been watching that network throughout the election cycle, But enough is enough. NO MORE! I haven't taken the time to time CNN and other cable channels but I do suspect they too are cheating us television viewers. It's bad enough watching most networks that offer TEN minutes of the television show and then FIVE minutes of commercials (which amount to TEN or more.)
Now that I refuse to watch FOX NEWS I'll look at other shows to see which ones I'll cease to watch. I am also going to contact my Congressman and would suggest those that share my views about these greedy networks, sponsors, and cable companies do the same. It's about time our representatives step up and protect us from this outrageous gouging. And, that's my opinion. Make your own decisions. You decide.
BRADLEY W. KUHNS, Ph.D., O.M.D.
_________________________________
You can reach doctor Kuhns at bradleykuhns@gmail.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)