"Good management" fired the previous morning guy, rightfully, for false claims. That should give you an idea, magnified by 10, how it works in Rochester. You put the license behind the 8 ball, you lose. Just like small markets. That is what's called "actionable." It may not have brought the scrutiny of the FCC, but in K&B's case it became "actionable" in the minds of listeners and the community, which filtered up or down, to being "actionable" to local management. You screw with cash flow and margins, put the license in jeopardy, become a bigger PITA than you're worth, you lose. Cruel? Watch the Godfather. It's not personal. It's business.
-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Kimberly & Beck?
- Thread starter therealjm12
- Start date
You screw with cash flow and margins
That's the thing. This wouldn't have screwed with cash flow. This was a manufactured outrage. The vast majority of the complaints came from out of market. This could have been resolved without firing anyone, thereby empowering the next phony outrage mob. If you don't see how this is dangerous, you have your head in the sand.
If you don't see how this is dangerous, you have your head in the sand.
They pee'd in the pool. If you've ever been in a pool after someone pees, you know it's hard to stay in that pool. Regardless of the specifics, what they said overshadows everything else. It's the elephant in the room. Neither of them can walk into a public place again without this hanging over their heads.
Last edited:
And if you're talented, there will be other jobs. Just not in Rochester. That bridge has been burned. From what I've read, Barry Beck has a chance to work elsewhere. But I think Kimberly is toast.
Beck's a hard worker and as I've mentioned elsewhere in this thread, he does a great show all by himself.
Considering that it was all over the Rochester paper and TV, and even hit the national press, I don't see how you can call this "manufactured outrage". It WOULD have affected the bottom line if they'd been brought back. The company that "backs you up" fired a guy for doing something less stupid than this. That morning guy picked on a politician. These morons picked on a high school kid who was identifiable, even if the kid wasn't mentioned by name. Between that, and wasting 12 minutes on a horrible bit, they should be fired for being stupid AND doing bad radio.
I blame Kimberly more than Beck because this was largely her rant, but Beck didn't offer any counterpoint. That, BTW, would have at least been more entertaining. Seems to me that nobody has picketed the station because they're gone. I'd be willing to bet that people would have been picketing the station if they'd stayed.
I blame Kimberly more than Beck because this was largely her rant, but Beck didn't offer any counterpoint. That, BTW, would have at least been more entertaining. Seems to me that nobody has picketed the station because they're gone. I'd be willing to bet that people would have been picketing the station if they'd stayed.
D
dand5780
Guest
Seems to me that nobody has picketed the station because they're gone. I'd be willing to bet that people would have been picketing the station if they'd stayed.
Funny how that works that way. The people with no class would have a goal of hurting the station.
Well, had they stayed, I'd be listening. Now I'm not. I'll just not turn it on instead of throwing a temper tantrum.
The company that "backs you up" fired a guy for doing something less stupid than this. That morning guy picked on a politician.
That guy picked on every politician. For 3 years. The city is one of our largest advertisers and the station was on a no interview list with every politician in the state.
That was MUCH more stupid than calling someone a nut job. And it affected the bottom line. I guarantee on a percentage basis, my station suffered a lot more than this station in Rochester would have. When I got here we were running PSAs all day, every day. NO spots. Even during the big syndicated shows. Now we're chock full of spots.
I keep beating my head against the wall about this, but I'm trying to get through to you guys that there needs to be balance. We don't have that right now. One person can create a hashtag on Twitter and get someone half a country (or world) away fired in a matter of days. That's NOT healthy for our business.
I keep beating my head against the wall about this, but I'm trying to get through to you guys that there needs to be balance. We don't have that right now. One person can create a hashtag on Twitter and get someone half a country (or world) away fired in a matter of days. That's NOT healthy for our business.
A simplistic view would be that before radio, the world of printing, primarily newspapers, owned the universe of communications. Our American concepts of freedom of speech and open public records was not perfect but we were learning to make it work well.
I guess the academic crowd can spend considerable time analyzing how the arrival of radio broadcasting and it's ability to "publish" around the clock began to move the earth on it's foundation slightly. Radio was highly regulated which kept this transition of how we communication from turning totally upside down over night.
Then came the desktop computer, word processing software, and really neat printers and people who wanted to communicate.... both with GOOD communications and BAD communications woke up in a new universe. Forward another 20 years and the Internet arrived in our midst and turned the world upside down when it comes to free speech, right to privacy, ownership of intellectual property and who knows what.
You have indeed identified a real problem for people in the broadcast industry. It takes significant capital to own and operate a broadcast property. A "yo-yo" with nothing more than a cheap computer... or even using one for free at the public library... in today's scheme can destroy a radio operation... which is OUR main focus. But they can also destroy a retail operation, they can destroy a decent politician, they can destroy a church, and ask the folks at the Susan B. Komen foundation what they can do to a substantial charitable organization.
The United States was founded as a nation where people dared venture out onto the prairie or up mountain valleys and build a cabin in the wild blue spaces and enjoy an unfettered life. THAT is OUR style.
The people of Europe lived for maybe a 1,000 year period where walled cities became essential to survival. They learned that falling in line with some warrior and letting that "king" own a chunk of their lives was the price to pay for some personal security, some business atmosphere to operate.
For over two hundred years we have been snickering and saying to our European friends: You should do it OUR way. Freedom... TOTAL FREEDOM is a wonderful thing. Has technology brought us to the point where we may have to look to our European friends for a lesson or two, an idea or two? Whether it is the right thing to do or not, we in this country will probably have to at least study and talk about the idea of REGULATING some things that will go against our long standing American style of "being descendants of rugged and free pioneers".
We have been deregulating broadcasting. Are there some restraints we want to reconsider. In fact, we have a history of regulating a lot of new technologies until they get established and mature to the point are willing to trust them to be more self regulating. (Power utilities, phone companies, railroads, airlines, cable TV).
For all practical purposes.... the Internet has been UNREGULATED from the beginning! Will the "gunslingers of things silicon" end up forcing us to swallow bitter medicine and accept some variation of speech regulation? How do we keep someone with a warped brain from destroying the reputation of other people? Keep then from destroying businesses? Keep them from destroying charitable organizations? Keep them from destroying radio station operations?
For all practical purposes.... the Internet has been UNREGULATED from the beginning! Will the "gunslingers of things silicon" end up forcing us to swallow bitter medicine and accept some variation of speech regulation? How do we keep someone with a warped brain from destroying the reputation of other people? Keep then from destroying businesses? Keep them from destroying charitable organizations? Keep them from destroying radio station operations?
Why does the solution for everything have to be regulation?
How about we just start, as a business, ignoring these temper tantrums? If this Kimberly and Beck duo insulted people every single day for years, sure, fire them. But one time? Just because a bunch of people who don't listen to the show and don't live in the area throw a tantrum, the station automatically folds? This is dangerous. Very dangerous.
Why does the solution for everything have to be regulation?
No one's asking for regulation. But when you don't have regulation, that leaves things to the marketplace. And in the marketplace, bad press is bad for business. Get it?
No one's asking for regulation.
I'm not so sure about that. I have a feeling a lot of the folks here would throw a party if pretty much everything were regulated.
SMG, you contend that "a bunch of people who don't listen to the show and don't live in the area" threw a "tantrum", and the station folded. Well, that's not exactly what's been reported. Have you seen the signatures on that petition? Do you know for a fact that it was people who don't live in the area who were outraged? Seems to me like a lot of the response to the newspaper and TV articles were local folks. You have no idea what the station received.
On top of that, there's the question of "What's the right thing to do?". Kimberly, in particular, went WAY over the line. Beck, perhaps, not as much, but he also didn't object. Was this an isolated incident, or just the latest in a string of stupidity? My guess is that this was the culmination of a pattern of bad behavior. Then again, since I'm outside the market, I don't really know. Do you?
What's more dangerous - a station that controls its content by disciplining its people, or a station that backs up people who pick on high schools kids, displays poor judgement, does bad radio, and cost the station money? Personally, it's not hard for me to make the call.
On top of that, there's the question of "What's the right thing to do?". Kimberly, in particular, went WAY over the line. Beck, perhaps, not as much, but he also didn't object. Was this an isolated incident, or just the latest in a string of stupidity? My guess is that this was the culmination of a pattern of bad behavior. Then again, since I'm outside the market, I don't really know. Do you?
What's more dangerous - a station that controls its content by disciplining its people, or a station that backs up people who pick on high schools kids, displays poor judgement, does bad radio, and cost the station money? Personally, it's not hard for me to make the call.
SMG, you contend that "a bunch of people who don't listen to the show and don't live in the area" threw a "tantrum", and the station folded. Well, that's not exactly what's been reported. Have you seen the signatures on that petition? Do you know for a fact that it was people who don't live in the area who were outraged? Seems to me like a lot of the response to the newspaper and TV articles were local folks. You have no idea what the station received.
I know what I saw online. Almost none of the comments I saw were from people in Rochester.
On top of that, there's the question of "What's the right thing to do?". Kimberly, in particular, went WAY over the line. Beck, perhaps, not as much, but he also didn't object. Was this an isolated incident, or just the latest in a string of stupidity? My guess is that this was the culmination of a pattern of bad behavior. Then again, since I'm outside the market, I don't really know. Do you?
What's more dangerous - a station that controls its content by disciplining its people, or a station that backs up people who pick on high schools kids, displays poor judgement, does bad radio, and cost the station money? Personally, it's not hard for me to make the call.
What's most dangerous is letting people think that one angry person can get a media personality fired. Which is exactly what this comes down to. One person got mad and made a big enough stink online that it gained traction with the gay and transgender online community. All of a sudden, people who know NOTHING about the situation are demanding firings.
This isn't about this one case. This is about the next 100 times it happens. When does it stop?
Think about the one angry kid in California who killed six people.
If I didn't know better I'd think you're blaming the victims.
But that's a perfect example. Are we going to let a psychopath who hated women shape the course of discussion in this country? That only empowers more attention hungry spoiled brats to kill people.
That's an extreme example, but it's also the exact same thing as is going on with media. Radio and TV companies firing people at the first peep of a temper tantrum is empowering the professional offense industry. As I've said many times, and it seems to be falling on deaf ears, there needs to be balance. We're nowhere NEAR balanced right now.
Radio and TV companies firing people at the first peep of a temper tantrum is empowering the professional offense industry.
If what the two said wasn't so bad, you might have a point. As I've said several times before, they left their company no option.
If what the two said wasn't so bad, you might have a point. As I've said several times before, they left their company no option.
I've been in numerous situations over the years where I was discussing a controversial subject and said something provocative in the course of the discussion that triggered complaints. Some things I said were more harsh than others, but this is basically what happened when a higher-than-normal amount of complaints came in: The PD would contact me to find out exactly what I said and in what context. He needed to know this to properly defuse the situation.
All that being said, as blunt and edgy as I have been occasionally, it was NEVER a crass or callous reference to a local, private citizen, no less a high school kid with gender identity issues. You're begging for heat when you go there.
At that point it's not about free speech or radio freedom. It instead becomes more about maintaining some degree of decorum in the community in which you are based.
Stations tend to want a good rep in the community.
The boss, who was good at defending his guys over the usual inane crank complainers, likely wouldn't have put up with that particular indiscretion.
Last edited:
Well, SMG, we must have been looking at different sites, because I saw plenty of local folks on the Rochester newspaper and TV sites covering the story. As far as "one angry person can get a media personality fired" is concerned, one angry person DID get a media personality fired. In fact, she got more than one media personality fired. Her name was Kimberly.
What gives somebody on the radio any more right to express their opinion that any other citizen on any other media? If I say something so egregious on the radio that it creates an uproar and hurts my employer, I EXPECT to get fired. It's called PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. I'm responsible for what I say. If it brings in more ratings, I'm sure gonna ask for more money. If it costs my employer money and ratings, I'm going to expect a different result.
Once again, I'm pretty sure that this wasn't the only incident where they flirted with danger, and caused the company headaches. TWELVE FREAKIN' MINUTES OF BAD RADIO should get ANYBODY fired. Add the rest of the story, and it's a no-brainer.
What gives somebody on the radio any more right to express their opinion that any other citizen on any other media? If I say something so egregious on the radio that it creates an uproar and hurts my employer, I EXPECT to get fired. It's called PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY. I'm responsible for what I say. If it brings in more ratings, I'm sure gonna ask for more money. If it costs my employer money and ratings, I'm going to expect a different result.
Once again, I'm pretty sure that this wasn't the only incident where they flirted with danger, and caused the company headaches. TWELVE FREAKIN' MINUTES OF BAD RADIO should get ANYBODY fired. Add the rest of the story, and it's a no-brainer.
Well, SMG, we must have been looking at different sites
I think we were. My main exposure was on Twitter where my mentions of it got me threats from the mob. I don't support any cause where the people immediately go to threats of firing, and if that doesn't work, death threats.
- Status
- This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.