Agreed. The 97 Rock apology reads like a corporate PR person ran it through a "make it sound sincere app" with the "remind listeners of our legacy" feature enabled.
-
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
97 Rock REALLY steps in it
- Thread starter ckg279
- Start date
97's ops manager John Hager could very well have read the apology, too.
The management is busy hiding in an office somewhere. Better still, the Pandemic lets them stay home.
It's all about spin. Let a lowly fill in DJ read the "Apology" to the rabble listeners. Management released a similar statement to the media. They could have taken the Trump approach (Double Down on the indefensible). Cumulus didn't do this only because some advertisers publicly said they were severing their relationship. Money determines Morality...
I'm just curious, tbolt. Is there any successful radio that you DO like?
The majority of music formats can not be all inclusive. We know that different age groups like different styles of music. And among people of similar ages, there are social / cultural distinctions that may find younger people preferring country or alternative rock or hip hop or traditional CHR or regional Mexican or Reggaetón or some other musical form.
Saying that there is no diversity in 97 Rock's format is disingenuous.
Haven't you considered that they are truly sorry, embarrassed and troubled by what happened on their stations on their watch and are simply trying to show listeners and clients that this was not something that they approved of and that it was just wrong.
There are honest, decent people in radio... very few, in my experience are as bad as you seem to paint us.
97 Rock is programming for Blue Collar White Men (Most over 50). Based on the Social Media comments I have read, many were not offended by the hosts remarks. Why did Cumulus terminate Lederman? He did not offend their base.
It's not disingenuous to say the format is not diverse. It isn't. Maybe some of the people at Cumulus were offended by the hosts remarks. That is possible...
No, 97 Rock is programmed for people who like classic rock. They can be Hispanic, Black, Asian or even non-Hispanic whites. It's about the music and its appeal.
Heck, one of the top 5 FMs in Mexico City is all English language rock. Not many Blue Collar (American) white men there. For a decade earlier in this century the #1 station in Buenos Aires was all rock. I never saw any blue collar gringos there, either.
That format actually does very well among Hispanics all over Latin America. Some of the big rock acts have had their biggest attendance records there.
I wonder how many ACTUAL listeners complained directly to the station about the comments. An ESPN reporter tweeted the audio and it went national. That put pressure on Cumulus Buffalo to act. 30 years ago, it may have gone unnoticed.
Of course, they are troubled by loss of revenue and negative publicity. They acted swiftly and terminated one host. Some of the feedback from listeners does not support their decision. They seem to like racist jokes...
"30 years ago, it may have gone unnoticed"
No, I'd say it would have gone unnoticed. Pre-twitter and all social media, no way this would have become a national story. Plus the fact that people's understanding of what would be aceptable on morning radio was vastly different. Go back to some "hot talk" air checks from that era, say that stuff today, you are out of a job. It's a different world.
No, I'd say it would have gone unnoticed. Pre-twitter and all social media, no way this would have become a national story. Plus the fact that people's understanding of what would be aceptable on morning radio was vastly different. Go back to some "hot talk" air checks from that era, say that stuff today, you are out of a job. It's a different world.
Interesting point regarding social media. So here's a theoretical question (note to Bolt, this isn't lobbying) : If the bit in question had not been promoted on the station's Twitter account and social media, or if it had not been presented as part of a podcast available worldwide on the Internet, might it have been gone unnoticed? Sure, some local listeners may have heard it OTA and been offended, but far fewer people would have actually heard it and complained in force about it. If it was heard only OTA, it might very likely have been a third party hearsay event ("somebody told me that some guy on 97 compared the shades of toast to skin color.") In which case, it very likely may have resulted in a small scale flare-up rather than a five alarm blaze responded to by nationally known figures.
It depends. Howard Stern was on OTA radio pre-social media, and things he said led to FCC fines and ultimately him leaving radio for satellite. The Dixie Chicks comment that got them banned was in 2003, it was made in England, wasn't captured on phone video, was originally only reported in the British media, and it still turned into a five alarm fire.
Most people in the country had never heard of 97 Rock before this incident. The story went national creating more publicity. That really doesn't matter. The issue is one of Right or Wrong. Is it acceptable to make the comments he made? To me, his banter was crude, repugnant, and not funny. Other people disagree(again based on Social Media posts defending Lederman).
Cumulus certainly did not want national negative publicity. Race is still an issue in the USA and many people do not like change. Some find it impossible to view an issue from another angle ("Walking in someone else's shoes").
I have no sympathy for Lederman. He prefaced his comments with "This may get me into trouble..." He knew he was about to make ignorant statements, but he gambled that his audience wouldn't care and his employer would never know. It backfired...
Last edited:
That's being judgmental. There very likely are people who don't share your views. The real issue is: Was it entertaining? We're not talking about a talk station. We're talking about a music station. Why does someone say something like this on a music station. That's the real issue. Someone earlier mentioned the duo from Rochester. Same question. Why does someone say something like that on a music station? We might understand it on WBEN. But who thinks this is funny or entertaining?
Obviously, the people defending Lederman found his comments funny. They feel he did nothing wrong. Most of these Morning Zoo shows don't play music in morning drive, so in essence they are Talk in that time slot. I don't get your point...
He knew it was wrong. He said "I may get into trouble for this." So then why did he continue? My view is he WANTED to get fired. He's received more publicity for one little bit than he did in 25 years.
Well played. It gets him out of Buffalo.
He can grab for that Golden Bathtub Ring.
Stardom awaits...
He wanted to get fired? This was a ploy to get him out of Buffalo and on to bigger things?
Those are some of the stupidest words ever written on this board. Of course, they're written by people who don't really know the market or the people involved.
Those are some of the stupidest words ever written on this board. Of course, they're written by people who don't really know the market or the people involved.
Since you claim to know the market, maybe you can explain why he said what he said, given that he admitted it would get him in trouble. If you know something you say will get you in trouble, then why say it? Follow the logic.
Michigan Sandwich said:
C'mon man. Suggesting Lederman wanted to get fired is ridiculous. He's been part of the morning show for more than 25 years, through two show hosts and numerous sidekicks. He's a comedian by trade with writing credits for A-list comedians and shows. He's part of the fabric of Buffalo and has done countless benefits, gratis. He owns a comedy club. He's no drifter. Not a market climber. He's a comedian who thought he was on stage, waddled into a puddle of sh^t and instead of turning around, kept waddling deeper. Why his two partners didn't reel him in after "I might get in trouble..." is anybody's guess. He ef'd-up and unlike so many people who mess up, admitted it. Now he's reached out to African America groups and pastors to listen to their criticisms and learn something from the whole mess. The morning shows on 97 and 103 are more talk than music, and have been so for years. Using the "music station" analysis doesn't work.
- Status