Hudson River Radio dot com. It beats listening to nothing. Being Frank.
We're the only way to be is Frank. Hello everyone, and welcome to
Being Frank. We're the only way to beating is Frank. I'm your host,
Frank Lebono, and we'd like to thank you for joining us here on
what we like to call the Intelligent Conversation Podcast. We know that your time
is valuable, and let's face it, competition is fierce. Lots of podcasts
out there, but we also like to think of ourselves as an alternative to
all that noise, so we really appreciate you sharing some of your day with
Beating Frank. We stream from Hudson River Radio dot com, where the mailman,
mister Neil Richter is our engineer. We call him that because he always
delivers for us. Now, remember Hudson River Radio dot com is our home
base, but you can download us wherever and whenever you listen to your favorite
podcasts, and that includes iHeartRadio, Apple, Spotify, Speaker and all the
others. You can find the links on the Being Frank Facebook page. Please
think about becoming a subscriber and leaving us a comment or two, as well
as I mentioned though, we have our own Facebook page Being Frank. It's
public, so check it out and follow the page for more information about the
podcast. We bring our audience a new topical program every week as I work
hard on finding topics and guests to talk about them so that we can come
to you fresh. As I said, every week usually begins late on Thursday
nights, certainly by a Friday of every week we have a new program for
you. But remember you can listen at your convenience, and every program as
archives, so you can listen to any Being Frank virtually anytime that you want.
We think it's the intelligent thing to do. We're taping this program on
four twenty, the twentieth of April. We all know this magnificance. Well,
most of us know the significance of four to twenty. I certainly do.
Anyway, be that as may that's not our topic for this evening.
The Buddhas says three things cannot be long hidden, sun, the moon,
and the truth. Well, Fox News Corporation can no longer officially hide its
lies. Personally, I've called them phoe News as in f a ux for
years because in my opinion, that's what they are fake. They hide behind
the First Amendment, but now they can no longer pass their drivel on as
mere opinion, at least not without consequences, not when they know the truth
to be different. We're want to talk about that with our guests this evening.
Just this week, in an out of court settlement, Fox agreed to
pay Dominion Voting Systems a record seven hundred and eighty seven point five million dollars
for damaged caused by the networks false targeted programming claiming that Dominion had deliberately altered
the results of the twenty twenty presidential election. By settling, Fox was forced
to admit its role in the false narrative against Dominion, but did avoid a
lengthy trial that would have proven to be very embarrassing by forcing their anchors as
well as high level executives, to admit that they willingly lie to satisfy its
core audience ie Donald J. Trump's supporters. As part of the settlement,
Fox does not have to actually apologize for its malfeasans Not a single statement regarding
the case was issued by any Fox reporter or host, and I'm pretty sure
they will not lose a single core viewer because This is the nature of both
the network and its loyal supporters. They seem to be not interested in the
truth, but only in what suits their narrative. But they aren't out of
the woods yet. Smart Madock, another Florida based company, is now suing
the corporation for basically the same reasons, and to the tune of two point
seven billion dollars. Fox continues to cry they have a right to their opinions
as protected by the First Amendment. What is willingly deceiving the public truly protected?
Well, we have the man here to help us sort it out.
He's a regular contributor to Being Frank. He's my colleague at Fordam where he's
a media professor. He's also the author of a new radio play, It's
Real Life, which we'll talk about in the second half of the program.
And as I said, he's been a regular contributor. He always is my
go to guy in media matters, and that's doctor Paul Levinson. Paul,
thank you once again for joining us here. I'm being Frank. My pleasure
is always let's get to it first. I think we have to understand what
this particular case was all about, which was dominion versus Fox broadcasting. What
was the crux of this case, Paul, Well, it's important to keep
in mind this was a civil case, meaning nobody could have been thrown in
prison. And that's very significant because there are cases out there which have resulted,
at least in part from Foxes knowing broadcasting of outright lies, which could
indeed become criminal cases. Because if you think about what happened in the January
twenty twenty one resurrection, the attack on the Capitol, lives were lost and
that's certainly criminal. But in this case, Dominion was suing Fox because in
Fox's many lies, one of the biggest aspects of those lies was the repeated
nonsense that somehow Dominion, in their vast evil genius AI programming, had figured
out how to steal the election from Donald Trump. And so you had people
like Rudy Giuliani babbling on that. You know, the Democrats were counted three
times in some states. And it's one thing if Giuliani is saying that,
It's quite another when the Fox hosts are shaking their heads and agreeing with that
and saying that. And I'm talking about Tucker Carlson, I'm talking about Sean
Hannity, and many more of the people at Fox. And let me say,
you know, last summer, I actually filed a formal complaint as a
professor at Fordham University, and by the way, as someone who had been
on Fox several times. I was on The O'Reilly Factor at least four or
five times, and some other Fox shows, and I wrote a serious complaint
to the FTC, the Federal Trade Commission that they should oblige Fox to change
its name from Fox News to Fox Propaganda. And that's what you are talking
about when you say it's Fox Phone News, because it isn't news. News
is not lies. This is not to say that obviously reporters are human beings.
They make mistakes all the time. But there's a big difference between making
a mistake and knowingly and repeatedly saying things that are not true. And one
of the reasons why Fox had no choice but to reach a settlement because they
would have lost far more than three quarters of a billion dollars, which is
what these settlement was. Had this case gone to trial, there was a
possibility of punitive damages that they could have. That case could have put Fox
and Rupert Murdock permanently out of business. That's how high the damages would have
been. And the reason that that was the case is what came out in
the depositions. The pre trial depositions were Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity, everyone
and their grandmother who was working at Fox knew that these were lies. There
are statements in which they say, Rudy Giuliani is out of his mind.
This is complete nonsense. And yet having said that, behind the scenes,
they go on camera and they not only say it, but they repeat it
over and over and over again. Well, I think that's a key element.
Well, because there's beauty in the First Amendment. You know what,
I was thinking about it when I was writing my opening today and I said,
well, I'm going to be allowed my opinion, which will be very
iCal a Fox, that's my opinion. Uh, And I was thinking,
well, what if what if they sued? What if fake went after me
and said I'm I'm disparaging them, et cetera. Yet I still felt I
have a protection under the First Amendment that that is my opinion of them.
So where then lies the difference between a Fox host saying, well, you
know, I was I'm not putting words in their mouth. I'm just hosting
them and that was their opinion, and opinions are allowed. So what is
what is the what is the difference there between us? Said? The protection
of me saying something like hey, they're phonos faux, their fake their phony.
That's very critical. Uh, I don't necessarily I could that, I
could perhaps produce proof, as I said, this was a statement that was
made that we know to be false. But yet as to say, time
they hire, they hide under the guise of well, it's my opinion,
and you hear that offered an arguments, Well, you know, I respect
your opinion, but this is my opinion. What's what's the what's the real
hard difference there? Paul? So there are three things. Actually there are
many more than three things in the world, but there are three things that
have relevance to your question. And the three things are facts, lies,
and opinions. And what the First Amendment protects, as you have said,
is opinions, no matter how much we hate those opinions, no matter how
reprehensible those opinions are. I'll give you an example of an opinion that I
find absolutely disgusting, and I would do everything in my power to reduce those
opinions because they're so dangerous. But the opinion that the safest way to be
in America is to carry a loaded weapon, that's an opinion. It's not
a fact. It's an opinion. People are protected under the First Amendment to
say that and to think that, I don't want to hear that. I
would oppose that with every ounce of my being. But I would not say
that those people who were saying that were committing something certainly not a crime and
certainly not something that they could be sued for in a civil court. Because
it's an opinion. But what Fox did over and over again didn't offer an
opinion offered as fact that basically dominion did things to rig the vote counting in
the twenty twenty election. And they did this when they're won o experts on
there. They did this when they had demented experts like Rudy Julian. They
just did it all the time. And again, furthermore, they themselves knew
it. It wasn't as if like someone had hypnotized them and they didn't know
what they were doing, because when they were off camera, they were saying,
these people are crazy. And that is why the case went against them
because it's ipso facto clear that they were lying. Sometimes it's not clear,
you know, a person might be mistaken, but here you couldn't ask for
better proof that they were lying and they knew they were lying about facts.
That brings us to another interesting case that you know I discussed actually a few
months ago, Sarah Palin versus The New York Times, where the reverse the
New York Times one just to refresh people's memories. Sarah Palin was suing The
Times for an article that planed something that she was deliberately. I don't remember
the exact details, but what it turned out to be basically was a mistake,
if you will. But the court allowed for the paper to make a
quote unquote honest mistake and therefore ruled against Palin and said, no, the
paper is protected. And I think people have to understand that the First Amendment
protection is like on steroids when it comes to the media, you have extra
protection so that we can speak freely and can voice opinions. But what's interesting
about that is the Times was allowed to make a mistake, if you will,
and it was seen as a honest mistake. But obviously that's a very
different issue. Here explained that a little bit better than than I did.
What are you explained it very well? Let's say somebody says on some newscasts
that Professor Lewison is an atrocious teacher, and I've heard of many students who
have dropped his class, and it's a shame that Fordham University keeps Professor Lewison
teaching its students. So I basically come out and I say, you know
what that's that sounds a lot like Levinson. You know, Professor Levinson,
I'm gonna sue you. You are damaging my reputation. There is no Professor
Lewison at Fordham University. So who else were you talking about? Chances are
in that situation the person who was criticizing Professor Lewison just got confused and you
know, used the wrong name, and it didn't apply to me in the
first place. And even though I had a grievance against them, it was
not something that I could recover money from. Or if there were a case
in which there was a Professor Lewison and the university was upset that the person
was saying Lewison is a terrible teacher, the university would have to make sure
if it was suing this media sauce that they were talking about Lewison, not
Levinson, not Livingston, a bunch of similar names. In other words,
the court would need to determine whether or not an honest mistake was made or
the person just sat down and lied for whatever reason that person had. And
so that's why the New York Times won that case. And look, honestly,
you never know what's in somebody's mind, you know, the court,
no court is claire voyant, So who really knows what was in the New
York Times reporter's mind, what was in the editor's mind when they published that
article. But the court found that there was a reasonable argument that The New
York Times was just mistaken in that point. And that's why I get back
again to what happened with Fox and Dominion. There is no way that Fox
can claim they made a mistake when you have evidence that the people who are
saying these lies knew that they were lies. It's an open and shut case.
And so what you have is, again, it's not a criminal action.
It's not something that involves spies, you know, it's nothing like that
at all. It's just a simple, really civil suit, a defamation suit
in which the defamed party in this case dominion has ample evidence that the people
who defamed them knew that they were lying when they uttered those defamations, and
it obviously caused a dominion a lot of business. And so I can't think
and really in the history of these kinds of cases, of a more clear
cut case as there was against Fox, And that's why Fox was willing to
settle for three quarters of a billion dollars a lot of money. Hey,
I'd be jumping for joy if I got three quarters of a million dollars.
I'd be jumping for joy if I got I don't know, seven hundred and
fifty thousand dollars, but three quills of a billion dollars, that's very good
money. And nobody gives that money, that kind of money away just to
keep somebody quiet. You pay that money because you know that if you don't
pay that money, you might wind up being fined in this case, multiple
billions of dollars. Well, you hinted at something that's related to our topic
tonight that I'd really like to discuss in some detail, especially you and I
as media types, journalists, etc. And I call it the myth of
total objectivity, the idea that reporters always have to be one hundred percent objective.
That's true reporting, if you will. The other everything else is under
tree, if you will. But personally, I don't find that accurate.
I don't think anyone can be one hundred percent objective. I don't think it's
possible, and I don't think they should because I know anytime that I approached
the story, you always approach it with the idea of what the story is
about. You let it unfold. Obviously, that's you use your skills to
let it unfold, but you also are taking in and formulating opinions, if
you will, within that as the story unfolds, and then you tell the
story in a sense as you see it. And we, as human beings
all are everything we see is colored by our own experience. So I guess
what I'm pointing, and is there true total objectivity? Should there be true
objectivity? Your thoughts, Well, there certainly isn't anything close to true total
objectivity, And that's because no human being is truly and totally objective. And
sometimes it pains people to realize that they're heroes in the media were not truly
and totally objective bar from it. In fact, they often said misleading things.
I mean, it happens all the time. And we may have even
talked about this in some prior conversation. You know the New York Times famous
model all the news that's fit to print, that's not true. Basically,
there are a group of editors who sit down every day. They decide what's
going to be on the front page. They decide what's going to be on
the top of the page, and on the bottom of the page, above
or below the fold. They decide how big the headline will be. Then
they decide what's going to be in the newspaper altogether and where it's going to
be. And obviously they don't print every story that someone else might think is
newsworthy. They print stories that they think are newsworthy worthy. So a more
honest motto might be all the news that we a very small band of editors
here at the New York Times think you should think was fit to print,
or maybe all the news that we are small band of editors here at the
New York Times deem fit to print, not fit to print, as if
there's some kind of objective standards. And look, I loved Walter Cronkite.
I grew up watching Walter Cronkite. He used to end every broadcast and that's
the way it was, in that great sonorous voice of his. Well,
what does that lie that somehow there was a realistic mirror of that's the way
it was in the world, and CBS and Walter Cronkite were fortunate enough to
see it, and Walter was reporting it to us. Now it was nothing
like that. It was once again, if Walter had been totally honest,
And that's the way a very small group of editors here at CBS News thought
you should think it was today. So you know, it's interesting that you
brought up Cronkite because I think it's very relative to what we're speaking about in
terms of objectivity and our conversation of the pun of tree opinions, etc.
Which a lot of news has become and people have to understand there's a difference
between a hard news opinion slash pun of tree and people often you see an
internet meme. Very well, I missed the days of Walter Cronkite, when
all we got his news and he never gave an opinion. The biggest crock
I ever heard people forget his editorial on the Vietnam War after the TED offensive
on CBS, and he gave us scathing editorial that basically said, this is
an unwinnable war. And support for the war decayed rapidly after that report.
Because he had that much influence. That was his opinion. It happened to
be a correct opinion. But to say that that was just hard news.
It was his opinion based on his experience, what he had seen, he
had been there, etc. But to say it was completely unvarnished is not
true. It was colored by his experience, and therefore he made that,
if you will, as a value statement. But yet it had tremendous impact
overall. So the idea that newsman just oh they only reported, that's a
fallacy that never really happened, right, Paul, No, that's right.
Listen, the New York Times, CBS, all the legitimate news agencies try
to separate facts from opinions. So the New York Times has its op ed
page. When Walter Cronkite made that impassioned statement, gave that analysis after he
saw the failure of our TED offensive, he did say, this is an
opinion, but what you are saying is nonetheless true because it was said in
the same voice as he delivered the news. Because someone who wasn't watching and
listening very carefully, they might have indeed mistaken that for a fact rather than
opinion. But again, to give the New York Times and Walter Cronkite credit,
even though they subscribed to the myth of total objectivity in their news delivery,
there is still a huge cavern that separates the New York Times, CBS,
NBC, ABC, even the Wall Street Journal on the one hand,
from what Fox News is still doing to this very day, and you know,
again just lies. I saw a report just the other day. I
couldn't believe. It's like we're living, you know, on Earth too,
as I think Nicole Wallace is found as saying on MSNBC that was a great
science fiction story, sort of alternate Earth. Basically, Tucker Carlson basically just
says it's an absolute fact. You know a lot of people here in the
United States don't realize that for every Russian soldier who's been killed in Ukraine,
seven Ukrainian soldiers have been killed. Totally wrong, just a total made up
nonsense lie fed him. I don't know by putin you know, I don't
know who gave him that nonsense. By the way, why you might ask
does he say those things? The answer is what Fox is interested in only
interested in is money, and in order to make money, they need to
keep their viewers, and they live in fear that if they start telling even
a little bit of the truth, their viewers will go off to Newsmax,
some other even more crazy, much smaller lying operation. And again, although
and it's important to make this point, although MSNBC, CNN, The New
York Times, etc. They're no angels, they at least try to be
truthful. And unfortunately they don't admit to the extent that their presentation of facts
are inevitably molded by opinions and views, and they should admit that more easily
and frequently. At least they're trying to do that. And by the way,
Fox used to try much harder to do that. When I was on
the O'Reilly Factor back in two thousand and three to two thousand and four,
he was the same conservative that he still is now. And I'm the same
I was the same person then as I am now. But we used to
have debates, and you know, he always felt that he got the better
of me, but I thought I got the better of him several times.
The point is the people who watched that at least heard the truth from me.
And once upon a time, Sean Hannity was on a show called Hannity
and Combs, and Combs was Alan Combs, the late Alan Colmes. Sean
Hannity presented the conservative view. Alan Colmes presented the progressive view. At some
point Fox said, you know what, where we are disappointing our rabbid viewers,
not rabbit rabbid r abid viewers. And I make sure that's clear.
I love rabbits, and so we're going to get rid of Combs. They
don't need to broadcast this progressive view. Let's just give Hannity the whole hour.
And that's indeed what they did. So, and I would say Tucker
Carlson is much worse than Bill O'Reilly ever was, because again, at least
Bill O'Reilly had guests on his show in addition to me, and much more
important than I am, who did speak the truth. Paul Krugman was a
guest on his show from time to time. You know the Nobel layd and
economics, who's very progressive. So Fox took a turn for the worse,
and a lot of people are hoping that maybe as a result of this huge,
costly settlement, they'll pull back, But I think they are afraid that
if they get any less deceitquel than they currently are, they're gonna lose viewers,
and they don't want to hemorrhage viewers. So that leaves us with the
question that Paul, how do we consume information? How should we consume information?
There's so much available. I mean, broadcast is becoming an antiquated term.
We hardly ever use it anymore, and nothing it's truly broadcast. It's
either cablecast or it's streamed or cibulka it literally as a term, it's being
archaic. So how do how should people be well informed? How should they
consume information? Well, I think people it's a hopeless case. You're not
going to get someone who watches MSNBC to suddenly switch and start watching Fox,
and frankly, I wouldn't want that to happen. It's too painful a thing
to have to do, or even to go over to CNN. People are
in their news bubbles. They enjoy hearing what they think is true. But
I think at the very least, I think most people I tend to be
an optimist. I'm with John Milton. I think most people buy and large
are rational. And after all, Trump did lose the popular vote, and
then he lost both and the electoral vote, so you know, first in
two sixteen and then twenty twenty. So I do think a majority of people
in America are rational. I think a majority of people on planet Earth are
rational. And I think what happens with most rational people when you hear or
see something which, like bothers, you you know there's something about it.
I don't know, you know what it is that I hear this? Right,
It has never been easier to confirm something that you see or hear in
the news. So I mean this happens all the time when basically prankster's report
that somebody died and they didn't die. But what do you do? The
very first thing I do when I see golf a bit some famous person has
died. But before I get upset, if I like that person's work,
I check on two three other sites and I see how they reporting that death,
and if they're not, then I know it's not true. I'll just
give you a very recent, not very important example. I saw a tweet
I guess it was last week that Mike Pence had pulled out of the Republican
race for president in twenty twenty four, and I remember I said to my
wife, Wow, this is interesting. But you know what, I'm surprised.
I don't think Pence has pulled out. So I checked on three four
sites and there was no word of it, and it turned out he didn't
pull out. Somebody else pull out, pulled out. The guy who was
formerly Trump's Secretary of State, Pompeo had pulled us. I guess someone basically
didn't hear right or couldn't spell too well. They meant to say Pompeo pulled
out, in fact, and they meant to say Pompeo pulled out, but
they tweeted the Pence pulled out. But that, to me, the ability
to check, to verify, to confirm that is something which has never been
easier. And you know, you can check, like in four or five
different places, The New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street
Journal, NBC, whatever, And if there's a news story that sounds really
odd and bizarre to you, but it's being reported on all those sites,
then yeah, probably it's true. But if it isn't, it won't be
reported on all those stuffs. But that brings us to a new term,
a modern malaise, cognitive dissonance, where people seem to only want to hear
what they want to hear, and therefore only seeks out or seek out sources
of information that confirm what they want to believe. How do we deal with
that book, It's very hard because it's part of human nature. And this
was first noticed by a Harvard psychology just back in the nineteen fifties, Leon
Festinger, and he basically said, we tried to avoid cognitive dissonance by just
ingesting information that supports what we already believe. It makes us feel good because
it's just the contrary. If we come into contact with something that contradicts or
refutes what we believe, then we're in a turmoil and we feel uncomfortable.
And you know, Marshall mclewin, he looked at the same problem and he
used to talk about the Greek myth of the handsome youth Narcissus, who basically
his way of spending an enjoyable afternoon was going over to a clear lake and
looking at his own reflection. Because he was so narcissistic, he enjoyed,
you know, looking at his own reflection there so much so that a Greek
nymph came over tried to seduce him, and he would rather look at his
own reflection rather than spend any time with this nymph. And eventually there are
various endings to that Greek myth. Eventually one of the endings he falls into
the lake and drowned. So, you know, but what mclun was getting
at is, again, we love reflections of what we already believe that it
makes us happy. My mother was like that, you know, God bless
him, my late mother. Nothing would make up happy. She would come
running in with like a newspaper, say, ah see, I knew this
was the case, you know so. But everyone is like that to some
extent. But that's why it's so hard to get any regular viewer of Fox
to instead watch CNN or god forbid, MSNBC. If they go anywhere,
they'll go to NEWSMAX or OA N or or another one of these lunatic stations,
because again, they have built up this sense of brievents that people are
trying to take things away from them, that the US government itself is not
to be trusted, that you are entitled to bear arms and stand up for
what you believe in and not let anybody tread on your rights, etcetera,
etcetera. And the more entwined they are with that, the more difficult it
is to even if you show them the truth, for them to change their
minds. It happens once in a while. There's another modern phenomenon before we
go to break, and then I want to talk a little bit about the
radio play when we come back from the break, But before we get to
that, many studies out and I find them fascinating that bad news and false
news spreads much more quickly than good, truthful news. Why, Paul,
and you're a pick Why there's like an old saying that you know, the
lie has traveled halfway around the world before you had a chance to tie your
shoe, right. What is it about human nature that seems to gravitate towards
that. It's strange to me. It is strange, well, because usually
lies are provocative. That's, you know, part of what lying is.
And this gets back again to something that Joseph Goebbels Hitler's Minister of Propaganda and
Popular Enlightenment, was one of the first to realize and even publicly write about
the bigger the lie, the more attractive it is. And I don't know,
maybe it's attractive for the same reason that fantasy is attractive. You know,
reality is often not very put that exciting interesting, right, So,
I mean, in some sense, it stimulates people, or at least some
people, to think that the government is out to get me. These progressives
are out to get me, that group of people they are out to get
me. I have to be careful because it puts that person in a potentially
heroic stance because the next step is, Okay, I'm going to do something
and make sure that they don't get me. I'm going to make sure that
the election is not stolen from Donald Trump, the best president we ever had.
That is very exciting to some people. And yeah, it's human nature,
and that's why it's so hard to extirpate that from our body politic and
we're stuck with it. For the words my guest doctor Paul Levinson, we're
talking about Fox News, the First Amendment, and so much more. This
is being frank, We're the only way to be is Frank. I'm your
host, Frank Labona where take a brief break and be back with more right
after this Don't Go Away in Hudson River Radio. Be sure to check out
another one of our podcasts, Big Jim Wheelers Classic Radio Theater. It features
historic radio shows from the nineteen thirties through the nineteen sixties, including Dragnet,
Gunsmoke, The Shadow, and tons of other classic hits. Check out Big
Jim Wheelers Classic Radio Theater on Apple Podcasts, iHeart, Spotify, or wherever
you get your podcasts. This is Hudson River Radio dot com your local Rockland
County station. Be sure to check out Hudson River Radio's limited series podcast Live
from Electric Lady Studios, featuring bands like Foreigner, George Thorogood and the Destroyers,
and Alice Cooper. Live from Electric Lady Studios was produced in the nineteen
nineties by Electric Lady for WNWFM in New York City and was hosted by legendary
DJ Pat Saint John. It featured a different band each time and was recorded
live with a small in studio audience. Check out Live from Electric Lady Studios
on Apple Podcasts, iHeart, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts.
Hudson River Radio dot Com. Welcome back to Being Frank. We're the only
way to be is Frank. I'm your host, Frank Lebono. Remember you
can catch us here on Hudson River Radio dot com, Apple, Spotify,
iHeartRadio, etc. Wherever and whenever you get your favorite podcasts, you can
get Being Frank. My guest tonight is my colleague at Fordham Ordum University,
media professor, doctor Paul Levinson. Paul, you were on a few weeks
ago to discuss your radio play It's real life. Tell us a little bit
more about it and what's happening with the play. We played some clips from
IF the last time. Unfortunately don't have any queue up tonight, so tell
us a little bit about it and what's happening with it. Well. This
is a radio play that was adapted by then TC for Kilowatt dot coo Radio.
It's an internet radio station. It was adapted from a short story that
I published back in January twenty twenty two, so over a year ago,
and I have to say they did a great job developing this into a radio
play. The background sounds are fabulous. I think the music is great.
We got Anne Reburn, who is a cover artist on YouTube who literally has
ten million viewers for her most watched video to sing one of the songs in
the radio play Real Love. And we got someone by the name of Spencer
Hannibis lives in London, part of a group the two eighty six, to
sing another song if I traveled to the past. The story is an alternate
history story. It's a story about Pete Forntell, the late great disc jockey
from WFUV, who, by the way, he started out on WFUV,
he then went to wn e WFM, where Pat Saint John was, and
then he came back to WFUV. One of the sweetest, most inquisitive people,
intellectually brilliant and curious people I've ever known. And tragically he passed away
in two thousand and twelve. And when I began thinking about writing this alternate
history story about the Beatles, I knew I had a connected to Fordam University
and Pete Forna Tell because he loved the Beatles also. And so this is
a story here about Pete Forna Tell, who, way way back in nineteen
ninety six, takes a stroll through the tunnels under Fordham. Legendary tunnels under
Fordham, A little known secret, but big non secret, I guess in
Fordham, at least anyway I may get better known with this radio play.
Takes a train down to Grand Central Terminal and then quickly discovers he's in a
world in which John Lennon was murdered in nineteen eighty and the Beatles broke up
in nineteen seventy. This to him is shocking because in his world in nineteen
ninety six, John Lennon is alive and well, the Beatles are still together
in nineteen ninety six. And you know, one of the joys of writing
Waltern realities is you can play games and see what showed up in this reality
with that reality. So, of course, in our reality we have the
Traveling Wilbury's, which consisted of George Harrison, Bob Dylan, Royal, Roberson,
Jeff Lynn and Tom Petty, Pete Fauna Tell's reality, there is no
Traveling Wilburies because the Beatles are still together in the late eighties and one of
their big hits in the late eighties is Handled with Care, which in fact
was a huge hit of the Traveling Wilburies after the Beatles broke up, So
the story is studded with these little alternate reality twists. And I had the
pleasure of playing Pete Fauna Tell, who had a more malifluous voice than I
do, but I think I captured his spirit and I had a great time
doing it. And I've just been bowled away by the success. It's only
been up really for a little over a month at this point. And w
USB Stonybrook radio station, they played the entire radio play a couple of weeks
ago, got a great response. They're so happy with that they're going to
be replaying the radio play actually tomorrow this coming Friday, April twenty first,
at eleven o'clock PM, so if you want to tune into a USB,
you can hear it again there. And there's an audio book coming out of
the radio play. We have a great cover that's not yet totally out,
you know the way this happens when you're publishing books. On some sites.
It's up on Amazon, the audio book is up, but they don't have
a picture of the cover on lame reason sites drive me crazy. But all
that will come to be in the next couple of weeks and you know this
is still way off, but you know I have expanded it into a novel,
and I am working towards and hoping and even expecting that within the next
year or two there'll either be a film or a short television series based on
this story. So we'll talk about that later on. I certainly hope.
So, Paul, I've listened, and it's great fun. It really is.
I highly recommend it, really really great fun. Really, and of
course thank you for joining us as always with your intelligent conversation. Now we
always appreciate it. I know I can always count on you for not only
media matters, but many issues, and we appreciate it. I had a
great time talking to as always always, and of course a special thanks to
our listeners who take the time to give us a voice in their lives.
Remember we offer a fresh topic every week and you can catch us wherever and
whenever you get your favorite podcasts. Remember that includes apples, Spotify, iHeart
Radio, Speaker and all the rest. You can also check us out on
the Being Frank Facebook page. Leave us a commentor too, and of course
I'm going to leave you with a few things. A little one of my
slogans, and then some great music from a good friend. First, this
is from Matthew arn And I think it's very pointed. The enemy of truth
is blind acceptance. Keep that in mind, folks. All right, you
Fox viewers, not that they're all that many watching or listening to us.
Here I go again, nobody's watching. We have no video anymore listening.
I'm gonna leave you with a great tune. It's called the Gospel Truth from
a good friend and a tremendous musician, Bob Nurcission. I'm your host,
Frank Lebono. This has been being Frank. We're the only way to be
is Frank. And we'll see you with a fresh show next week. Thanks
everybody. Next time I see you, the no the truth about how I
feel me to be with you feel me a mole man truth. It mean
it'll be a true so people clean. They can't talk you to post falls
like the will tell you what they said. But I don't need no spirit
to tell me how I feel. I don't need no spirit. I don't
need no spirit. There's no spirit I need. If I want to search
for answer, it'll be between the mir truth to be told, I'd be
going to try for see so greed all I got this fet booth. It
was the time I'm any good fee And now it's the queen that's a lord.
Is the soundtrack to my last dream. Only children in Jerksy tell the
truth. The reason I lie is to be. It's better be the old
man starting the young man's sleeping bitterly. Never the differency scene. It's never
to need to learn. When it to will way, sticks and stone will
break my bone. Words liver no time like the present when your run time.
So the next time to see you got the true? Straight's the game.
Never get through for the next time I see I love the true.
When a tiff time to role Babby with the one. Only children churchs tell
the truth. My only vital lies to live. I see people true ross
my hold and hold to This is Hudson River Radio dot com.