blood money

I was up the other night with the television on when I noticed that an infomercial was on the channel that I had been watching. In my observation there are two different types of infomercials. The first is the kind where physical products are sold at a markup of what they are probably worth. I don't really have too much problem with this type of infomercial because the customer actually gets the product that is advertised. The second is the kind where untold riches are promised for people who just sign up for an expensive, but supposedly worthwhile, moneymaking scheme. The infomercial I noticed fell into this second category.

I will not dwell too long on the content of the actual infomercial other than to say that it was obviously a scam. I won't link to the website of the product itself, but the concept was matching buyers and sellers of notes of debt. Some user complaints of the service, which can cost up to $30,000 dollars, are at this web page.

What bothers me is that this scam would not be possible without the assistance of people and organizations who are otherwise purported to be on the up and up. For example, Gary Collins, whose face is at least recognizable to most people, was a host for the infomercial. His role appeared to be that of establishing the service as legitimate.

More important to me, though, is that the people who run the television stations that host infomercials like this willingly take the money the scammers are wringing from their victims so that the scammers get more air time and suck in more victims. Somehow, running the following text across the screen for five seconds before a half-hour-long program designed to take money from people without actually providing the advertised service removes the station's legal liability.

The program you are watching is a paid program or advertisement. All claims and representations made in the program are the sole responsibility of the advertiser.

Imagine for a moment if a hate group purchased time on a station to advocate violence against a specific person or group of people. Imagine if Michael Vick had an infomercial advertising dog fighting equipment. Would displaying text like that above really remove the station's responsibility for deciding to air such trash? Should the responsibility really be any different for fraud than for violent crimes? Especially since this form of fraud tends to target people who are already struggling financially.

So, even though I am usually a person who is sickened by the level of litigation that occurs in the United States, I would completely get behind victims of these scams taking the TV stations to court if they decided to do so. How you interpret my position on this issue and all representations you make of my opinion are your sole responsibility.