The Increased Subtlety of the Spammers

Out of the blue, I received two flattering comments on my Popoff rant (see ... Responds…, which will open in a new window). They were in Russian. Translated into English, they read:

“Thanks for the post. Informative.”

and

“Well written. Despite the lack of good news, I read it in one breath”

(The last is idiomatic – something like “A Page-Turner”).

Associated with each post was a URL. Because the comments were flattering (and harmless), I naively accepted them both, not bothering to check the URL.

My very sharp friend Boris translated the comments for me, and noticed weird domain names. Turns out the URLs (now removed, by the way) are to junk-webs (see my up-coming post for an elaboration on that term).

For all I know, the comments were automated – WordPress does not offer Captcha protection for comments.

One has to admire the ingenuity of the approach. Lets see if some spammer tries to Spam this post.

The Canadian Broadcasting Standards Association responds to my complaint

One day after their deadline, and two days after I withdrew my complaint (see post below), I received a response from the Canadian Broadcasting Standards Association, which I reproduce in full below.

Re: Vision TV re Peter Popoff Ministries
CBSC File 07/08-1307

Dear Mr. XXX,
Further to your complaint in the above-mentioned matter, the CBSC Secretariat has reviewed all of the correspondence, including your complaint of February 27, 2008, Vision TV’s response dated March 17 and your Ruling Request of March 17. The CBSC Secretariat has also viewed the episode of Peter Popoff Ministries that aired on February 25.

Although the CBSC Secretariat understands your perspective, it is the view of the Secretariat that your complaint does not disclose any matter for adjudication by a CBSC Adjudicating Panel. For the reasons discussed at greater length below, the Secretariat does not believe that there has been a breach of any CBSC-administered Code. Permit me to explain. Peter Popoff Ministries is a religious program featuring American televangelist Peter Popoff, who claims to be able to perform miracles and to heal people’s ailments. The episode in question included numerous scenes of Popoff preaching, during which he touched people’s heads, following which they claimed to be free of pain. It also included other remarks from individuals who credited Popoff’s interventions with resolving their financial or physical difficulties. In addition, Popoff encouraged viewers to order his free “Miracle Manna” by calling a toll free telephone number.

You objected to the appearance of Peter Popoff on Vision TV because he has been accused of fraud in the past and his claims about the effects of “Miracle Manna” are “offensive”, “inappropriate” and “have no basis in theology.”

The CBSC Secretariat has examined your complaint under Clause 8 of the Canadian Association of Broadcasters’ (CAB) Code of Ethics, which reads in pertinent part as follows:

Broadcasters should endeavour to make available to the community adequate opportunity for presentation of religious messages and should also endeavour to assist in all ways open to them the furtherance of religious activities in the community. […J

The ultimate purpose of that portion of Clause 8 is to encourage broadcasters to provide opportunities for different types of religious expression and messages. The CBSC Secretariat readily understands your scepticism about Popoff’s style of preaching and alleged curative powers; however, Canadian broadcasters are entitled to air that type of programming. Moreover. the CBSC Secretariat has no means to assess the veracity of Popoff’s claims with respect to his own healing powers or those of his “Miracle Manna”, That Popoff’s followers attribute their good fortune or improved situations to divine intervention may be unbelievable to many viewers, but there is no prohibition against broadcasting those types of religious testimonials. It must also be acknowledged that the program was preceded by a viewer advisory which clearly stated “The testimonials featured in this program are specific to those who have given them. Individual outcomes may vary.”

With respect to your concern that the program was nothing more than a scam, the CBSC Secretariat notes that at no time during the program did Popoff directly solicit money. He encouraged viewers to call to order a package of free “Miracle Manna”. The CBSC Secretariat has no way of determining whether callers to the number are then encouraged to purchase other products or services, but, more importantly, the CBSC’s jurisdiction relates solely to what was broadcast on air. In addition, actual “fraud” is a criminal offence and falls outside the jurisdiction of the CBSC. The CBSC administers the codes of standards established by Canada’s private broadcasters; it does not enforce municipal, provincial or federal laws. The CBSC also does not administer Vision TV’s own Code of Ethics, which you mentioned in your Ruling Request. It thus cannot assess whether the program violated that Code’s rule regarding the amount of time within each half hour that may be devoted to “free offers”.

In the end, Mr. XXX, the Secretariat can see no aspect of this file that it considers would require adjudication by the National Specialty Services Panel. If there is, however, anyway in which the CBSC may be of help regarding any future issue, please do not hesitate to be in touch.

Sincerely,

XXXX
National Chair
cc: Vision TV

I withdraw my complaint

(September 18, 2008)

Dear Ms Courteau

After waiting patiently as requested, it has become obvious to me that the Canadian Broadcasting Standards Council (CBSC) is not the appropriate body to deal with my complaint. I am therefore withdrawing it. In the unlikely event that you are actually in the process or reviewing the complaint or the accompanying material, you may stop at this time.

Just to remind you, the essence of my complaint was that a known scam-artist has been permitted to conduct his scam almost every night on one of your member’s station. I don’t know if you ever watched the final episodes of Jerry Seinfeld, where Jerry and his friends were convicted of violating a good-Samaritan law because they stood by and did not intervene when someone was being robbed. Although Mr. Popoff’s thefts are each probably quite small (in some instances he asks for $17), nevertheless, the principal is the same: by not doing anything, we are complicit in his crimes. It is ironic that it is a religious channel that is the largest culprit in this. I am therefore particularly disappointed that both your organization and your member station chose not to conduct a proper investigation.

XXXXXX

On Mar 18, 2008, at 7:55 AM, Solange Courteau wrote:

Dear Mr. XXX,

The Canadian Broadcast Standards Council (CBSC) has received your request for a ruling on your complaint concerning Peter Popoff’s program.

The CBSC Secretariat will be reviewing your file in the near future to determine whether adjudication by a panel of industry and public members is appropriate in the circumstances of this complaint. The CBSC’s examination of any complaint includes a review of all of the correspondence in the file as well as our own viewing or listening of the broadcast in question. Accordingly, it can take up to six months for this process to be completed.

Sincerely,

Solange Courteau
CBSC Correspondence Officer

It is Almost Time….

On thursday next week, 6 months will have passed since the Canadian Broadcast Standards Association told me that they would take “up to six months” to review my complaint about Peter Popoff and Vision TV.

The question, dear readers, is what strategy should I take now? As I said below, I expect either to get a brush off, or nothing at all by next thursday. As I see it, I have two choices:

1. email the CSBC and ask them when I can expect to hear from them.

2. email the CSBC telling them I am withdrawing my complaint.

The advantage of #2 is that I can then complain again to the CRTC. What do you suggest?

Canadian Broadcasting Standards Council, Vision TV and Peter Popoff

My guess is that the CSBC have no interest in intervening on my side against S-VOX (the owners of Vision TV). Therefore, I predict the following possible outcomes:

1. An email within one or two days of September 18th, telling me that they decided not to convene a CBSC panel, or if they did, that the panel decided that Vision TV responded adequately to my complaint.

2. No email, unless I email them first, in which case, see 1.

The suspense mounts!

Peter Popoff: My part in his downfall

Let me start by saying that this post is not really about Peter Popoff. It is about how the CRTC and the broadcasting industry deal with the pesky people who choose, for some reason or other, to object to what they see on TV.

By chance I watched a Peter Popoff on TV late one evening. At first, I was amused, but it struck me that the entire program was really aimed at getting me to phone his number rather than enhancing my spiritual life. The product on offer (Miracle Manna, whatever that is), was apparently free, and, if used correctly, will lead to large unsolicited cheques arriving in your mailbox. (And if you think this is far fetched, I encourage you to watch one of his shows and see for yourself).

Now Mr. P. did not strike me as a generous and giving man. So I did some research, and discovered that the basic scam is this: the mark phones, and says “Yes, I want to receive a large cheque soon. Please send me the Miracle Manna.” They do. It includes detailed personalized instructions, including instructions on sending money back to Popoff enterprises. Wikipedia has a nice entry on the man and his methods.

It is pretty obvious that he runs a scam. It is also completely obvious that his progarm is not about religion, and completely violates the code of ethics published by Vision TV. So I why should a scarce, valuable and regulated Canadian resource (TV time) be given to a crook? And why should Vision TV be allowed to own a channel if they were profitting from criminal activities? If I did nothing about this, I would be complicit in the crime. So I went to the CRTC website to see how to lodge a complaint.

This is where it gets interesting. The CRTC encourage you to first file your complaint with the industries’ own regulating body, the grandly named Canadian Broadcast Standards Council. Actually, they do more than encourage: they warn you that CRTC filings will be made public on the Web (including your name and contact information), whereas the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council filings will remain private. Well, the last thing I wanted was one of Mr. Popoff’s thugs breathing down my neck, so I happily (and, as it turned out, stupidly) complied.

I will put the correspondence in a separate post for those who must have all the details. But basically, I received a very nice reply from Canadian Broadcast Standards Council, saying that they took all complaints seriously, and would give Vision TV 30 days to respond to my complaint. Thus started the clock.

Almost exactly 30 days later, I got a letter back from Vision – it looked like the same form letter they probably send to all people who complain. And I am certain they wait until the last minute before they send it. There was certainly no evidence that they actually read my complaint. They did not, for example, respond to my allegation that the program violated their own published code of ethics.

With the reply, the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council told me I could ask for a ruling on my complaint after I heard from Vision. So I did. Then I got another letter back (a few days later) which in essence said “Gosh, we are so darn busy responding to Joe and Josephine Q. Public, that it may take us a while to review your complaint”. A while was defined to be “up to 6 months”. Hmmm. How many people will still give a Rats Ass six months later?

I mulled this over for a while, and decided that I was complicit in fraud. Canadian Taxpayers should not permit TV airtime to be given to con-artists, no matter how ugly they are.

So I hopefully lodged a complaint with the CRTC. Let Mr. P send boils and frogs on my house if he must. He needs to be stopped. I will allow the CRTC to post my name.

Surprise, surprise: turns out I had fallen for a CRTC con game: I received a letter back from the CRTC noting that I had complained to the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council, and telling me something not stated on their web site: their policy is to refuse to investigate complaints while they are being investigated by the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council. If I am unhappy with the response I (eventually) get from the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council, then I can submit a complaint to them (the CRTC).

It is now 5 months since I saw Popoff on Vision, and I am still waiting to hear from the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council. Obviously they and the CRTC hope that I will be so bored by August (assuming that they don’t find another excuse to delay responding), that I will just drop the entire matter. And maybe they are right, but at least you have been warned. If you are really seriously concerned about a broadcast matter, skip the Canadian Broadcast Standards Council and go straight to the CRTC.

The correspondance

Dear Vision TV:

I would like to register my objection to your decision to allow Peter
Popoff to have a segment on Vision TV.
(Peter Popoff, Vision Channel, 11:30PM PST, Monday February 225, 2008 )

He has been exposed in the past, and apparently lay low for a while,
and now he is back. More details can be found on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Popoff

This entry includes details of how his schemes work. While I have no
direct evidence of any wrong doing on his part, I do think that
“testimonials” about receiving large cheques after using “Miracle
Manna” are offensive and inappropriate for your station. They have no
basis in theology. In fact, I do not see how his show is in any way
consistent with the core values you claim to be guided by.

If you decide not to remove him from Vision, I would appreciate it if
you at least let me know the reasoning behind your decision.

XXX

(Look at the comments below for the rest of the correspondance)