It's really not the point. Cumulus put out a policy, and this station is owned by Cumulus. If you want to use your line of thought, the fired DJ (Lederman) is likely more popular now than he was last week. He's still fired.
-
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
It's really not the point. Cumulus put out a policy, and this station is owned by Cumulus. If you want to use your line of thought, the fired DJ (Lederman) is likely more popular now than he was last week. He's still fired.
Hmmmm. But neither of those example displays any "artistic" restrictions. The 'do not play so-n-so' edict is pretty cut & dry... with the possible exception of material in which Mr. Wallen had input (i.e songwriter, background vocal, etc.). Still there's no actual room for discretion. The 'misinformation' directive, I suppose, is as easily defined cut-n-dry.
In the case of "talent", however, there is an artistic element that is far (far) harder to define. Art is always - by it's very nature - subject to personal interpretation and opinion. Indeed, even using so-called "community standards" can be dicey (as reference I point to Paul Cambria's work regarding obscenity, or the infamous "Green Lightning" sculpture).
I haven't a clue as to the employers desire to rid their product of whatever it is that they believe is distasteful. I'm more curious as to how it's approached from an employment/contract process. There must be something in that contract that applies here. And, as a related wonder... did Mr. Lederman receive severance?
As a post script (and admittedly directly irrelevant to the topic at hand), there is already hushed talk on Music Row of decisions made in haste regarding Mr. Wallen. I heard it with my own two ears. Whether, or not, it develops further is yet to be seen. But I'd wager a lot that the last chapter has not yet been written on that.
Interesting times, for sure!
If you need to be told where the line is, you probably should not be on the air in the first place.
If you get fired for something like this, there usually is no severance. It's a breach of contract, and you're gone. Now your lawyer might then fight (as did Imus) for some compensation. But there's nothing owed when you get fired.
Off topic, but yes that's correct. There are reports that Cumulus is slowly bringing back MW songs. On a similar subject, CBS rehired Nick Cannon after he spent about 9 months in the penalty box. In Morgan's case, he had a drinking problem. He needed to spend time in rehab. I don't think that's the case with Lederman.
Being fired not "let go due to restructuring" or whatever is very different.
Sure, two ads are lost, but the cost of severance may have been saved just as well, putting Cumulus ahead.
I mean, what did the DJ get in termination? Surely not a thanks for 24 years. Most likely also not a 24 year benefit package etc either.
Tossed out like a bag of moldy tangerines and no lawyer to defend a better income for being jobless. (I think I'm right about this?)
Long story short, always be careful what you say on the radio.
Sure, two ads are lost, but the cost of severance may have been saved just as well, putting Cumulus ahead.
I mean, what did the DJ get in termination? Surely not a thanks for 24 years. Most likely also not a 24 year benefit package etc either.
Tossed out like a bag of moldy tangerines and no lawyer to defend a better income for being jobless. (I think I'm right about this?)
Long story short, always be careful what you say on the radio.
He's hardly a victim or martyr. He lost his gig due to his own ignorance. That's far different from being "downsized".
No lawyer to defend better income???
If he's such a talented Superstar, someone will give him another job...
Last edited:
Hey, tbolt, here's your chance to pitch Cumulus and teach them how to do radio right. I'm sure they'd listen to proposals.
Lederman is likely out the door with no severance. There are no non-competes in NY if somebody else wants to hire him.
Anybody remember Kimberly & Beck in Rochester? iHeart picked them up after the created a mess for Entercom. They later stepped in it again. Kimberly Ray is now selling real estate in Rochester. Haven't heard anything about Barry Beck.
Lederman is likely out the door with no severance. There are no non-competes in NY if somebody else wants to hire him.
Anybody remember Kimberly & Beck in Rochester? iHeart picked them up after the created a mess for Entercom. They later stepped in it again. Kimberly Ray is now selling real estate in Rochester. Haven't heard anything about Barry Beck.
Off topic (sorry) but is his popularity because he's talented and good, or because of the political issue he's found himself in? (I ask that honestly, as I don't listen to country).
Last edited:
He was popular before. He remained popular after.
This has been a teachable moment for the every air person in Buffalo, as much as it has for the people at 97. Lederman is toast (pun intended) now, but he could very well survive this debacle and comes back a better person for it. He might even be back on 97 before the end of the year. Admittedly, that's a stretch, but the guy is doing the right thing. He's not ducking the media. He's taking responsibility for his words, he's listened to his critics and he's offered what appears to be a humble, believable apology, "I want to sincerely apologize for hurting people with my foolish and ignorant comments yesterday. After listening to what I said, and how it must have sounded to others, I was horrified. I 100% understand why people are justifiably angry. I made a mistake and it's hard to look myself in the mirror, but I want to acknowledge it. I apologize from the deepest depths of who I am." When was the last time we heard a jock, talk show host, or on-air comedian own up to that degree? His statement doesn't contain the BS "apology for those who may have been offended" sidestep.
Buffalo loves the underdog. When the dust settles, Lederman may come out of this looking better than any other individual involved, like a guy who learned a big lesson. If he makes a comeback, he'll be on a short leash, but he may be embraced by many of those who are now objectively taking him to task.
Channel 7 report
Buffalo loves the underdog. When the dust settles, Lederman may come out of this looking better than any other individual involved, like a guy who learned a big lesson. If he makes a comeback, he'll be on a short leash, but he may be embraced by many of those who are now objectively taking him to task.
Channel 7 report
The person to learn from is Nick Cannon. He was banned from both radio and TV a year ago, and now he's back. Here's how:
Nick Cannon Could Teach a Masterclass in Bouncing Back from a Scandal
Here are nine lessons from the TV host’s redemption tour, which included a visit to an L.A. Jewish center
www.lamag.com
Teachable moment? The bar must be set really low in Buffalo. Why are you lobbying for him to be rehired ONE day after using the ugly word "Mulatto"?
Of course he's sorry (that he lost his job).
Many people are defending his crude remarks as totally acceptable. They don't want to be "taught" anything. Without getting too political, Buffalo had a man named Carl Paladino who sent out racist emails mocking President Obama. Lederman can redeem himself without ever working in Radio again...
Were that the case, we never would have had "All In The Family" and several other sensitive area sitcoms that followed it.
The difference was that was written as intelligent comedy. This was not.
All of those scripts were cleared by CBS standards & practices. This was not.
And even then they took a lot of heat, but at least their butts were covered.
You do realise that Archie Bunker was a fictional character? Carroll O'Connor was an actor playing a part. The Bunker character resonated because people had Fathers, Uncles, Brothers --just like him. The quality of the show exposed the stupidity of racist thinking...
Off topic, but fun facts: O'Connor was actually a liberal and quite the opposite from Bunker. In fact, he did some commercials or PSAs as himself back in the day, denouncing some of Bunker's actions. Jean Stapleton who played Edith/Dingbat was actually an intellectual, and could at times be difficult to work with.
Lobbying?? Not at all. It's merely a post about screwing up, rehabilitation and the possibility of reconciliation. I have no pull either way. The previously linked story about Nick Cannon is illustrative of how a person can say dastardly hurtful things, yet go on to make amends. All I'm saying is, there are possibilities. Last time I checked, that doesn't constitute lobbying.
You are nit-picking. My point is that if every broadcast is overly cautious out of fear, there will be no innovation. |
And, were the contemporary equivalent of AITF be done today, I doubt that it could overcome the strident, belligerent protests we see today
It was a different era. But at the same time there were other comedies, also done by Norman Lear, that were banned on certain stations and in certain markets. So they had their own form of cancel culture. Mixed marriages, rich black men, powerful women were all taboo topics back then. In some areas, they still are.
- Status