Councilman Sues WDEL and Fulcher

[number one fan]

Former city councilman sues WDEL radio
Oliver says personality, station slandered him

Former Wilmington City Councilman Norman Oliver has filed a lawsuit against the parent company of a local news radio station and one of its on-air personalities.

Oliver, in his lawsuit, alleges that Gerry Fulcher and Delmarva Broadcasting Company, which owns WDEL/1150, where Fulcher works, slandered him and published certain defamatory statements about him on April 23. ...

Rest of the story

The article says "Stormin' Norman" claims in his law suit that Fulcher went on the radio and said...

- Norman did a drug deal at the train station in 2000.
- The Delaware River and Bay Authority gave Norm $30 thousand to fix up his house.
- Norm funneled $75 thousand in grant money from the "Suburban Street Fund" to his friends.
- Norm got a no-bid, sweetheart deal school contract with a quarter of a million.

Oliver also has moonlighted as a part-time and fill-in local talk show host.

 

[number one fan]

Update:

So far, it looks like only the News-Journal is reporting this (and the story is drawing some outraged comments on their web site). The broadcast media have blacked out the story.

This story demonstrates how radio station news departments are not and never have been anything other than vehicles for station promotion. The station does a remote or participates in an event, that's news. The station gets involved in controversy: the public's right to know be damned. It's not like Wilmington has ever had much in the way of truly independent news coverage; the Duponts owned and used the News and Journal as their PR organs for years.

It's not a fast news day. It's not like other stories were demanding attention.

Channel 12 didn't touch this one but they are still busy talk about Sherry Freebery.

Maybe WDEL prefers to think that political scandals like Oliver's alleged sweet heart deal to run a school program are no longer compelling stories. The on-line responses to the New-Journal story suggest this may not be so.

Maybe WDEL fears some legal risk. Too bad so few radio wire jockeys were journalism majors. They'd know court documents are privileged. You can't be sued for reporting what is a matter of court record.

So the BIG STORY on WDEL's website is a missing baby. Followed by Loudell's butterflies and QSL cards and Chris Carl's new HD Radio (which he didn't pay for and is a clearly self-serving attempt to promote a foundering technology and his employer's own HD broadcasts).

It's curious that the "other" (formerly "only") news station has also not seen fit to run with this and embarrass a competitor. The story has been on the wire most of the day. Then again, both parties in this lawsuit used to work at that other station.

If few people in Wilmington care about the local news offerings, maybe this explains why.

 

[WTUX]

The story is too much of a "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" to be of any importance. I'll trash you on the air, you sue, we both hit the front page. We are both winners.

Imus was sued many times. The only coverage it got was when he discussed it on air. Same here. It's a non-story. No different than the hundreds of similar suits filed each year.

 

[Keith Thompson]

I will admit that I haven't been keeping up with Wilmington politics since my career and my outside interests have taken me outside of New Castle County, so I can't really comment on the former councilman's alleged personal business deals...but for a radio host to make a allegation of drug dealing is really reckless and irresponsible unless the former councilman was actually convicted of the crime (or unless the host has unrefutable proof). I would think that the drug dealing accusation is the chief reason for the slander suit and is the most likely reason DBC would be in danger of losing the case.

 

[MikefromDelaware]

It might also explain why all of a sudden WDEL is airing disclamors about the programming saying that the views and opinions expressed don't necessarily express the views of sponsors or management of Delmarva Broadcasting, etc.

 

[WTUX]

That disclaimer has been airing for at least a year.

 

[Al Johnson]

These "disclaimers" don't mean much. Like the parking lot sign says they are not responsible for any damage to your control. They hope you will believe this disclaimer and not bother to talk to a lawyer. The licensee is responsible for everything that goes on the air, and Delmarva can't claim they had no way to control what he says when Fulcher is on delay.

Nobody's mentioned this but as I recall Fulcher was an NYPD cop. Talk about a culture of pay-offs and corruption. They make Delaware cops look like boy scouts. Given that history, Fulcher is the last person to be pointing fingers.

 

[MikefromDelaware]

Assuming Fulchur is innocent of these charges, I guess Gerry will need to present tapes of his shows where he speaks about Stormin' Norman that would prove he didn't say those things. Of course if he did say those things, then those tapes would prove the prosecutions case. My guess is Delmarva's lawyers are listening to Fulchur's tapes to determine IF Oliver has a case. If he does, then they'll probably try to settle out of court. Another question comes to mind. Most of Gerry's shows are with Rick Jensen. If Gerry said those things and Rick went along or didn't try to correct Fulchur's statements could Jensen be dragged into this as sort of an accomplice?

 

[Al Johnson]

Assuming Fulchur is innocent of these charges, I guess Gerry will need to present tapes of his shows where he speaks about Stormin' Norman that would prove he didn't say those things. Of course if he did say those things, then those tapes would prove the prosecutions case. My guess is Delmarva's lawyers are listening to Fulchur's tapes to determine IF Oliver has a case. If he does, then they'll probably try to settle out of court. Another question comes to mind. Most of Gerry's shows are with Rick Jensen. If Gerry said those things and Rick went along or didn't try to correct Fulchur's statements could Jensen be dragged into this as sort of an accomplice?

"Fulchur?"

"Innocent of these charges?" About whom are you talking? Do you mean Oliver, whom Fulcher alleged has committed a crime? Fulcher is not charged with any crime. He is being sued. Guilt is a matter decided in criminal trials (defendants are not found "innocent," they are found "not guilty" when the prosecution fails to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt).

Burden of proof is on the plaintiff (Oliver) to show Fulcher made the statements alleged. Burden of proof is on the defense (Fulcher) to show the statements were true.

Even so, it is very difficult for a politician to get a libel judgment against the media. Even if Fulcher can not show his statements were true, Oliver must show Fulcher did not have a good faith basis for believing his statements were true and instead spoke in reckless disregard for the truth.

Even if Jensen contradicts a statement Fulcher makes, that does not let Fulcher off the hook, although it may mitigate Delmarva's liability. Besides, the two contradict each other all the time. That's their act.

 

[MikefromDelaware]

I'm not a lawyer, but if someone is being sued for libel wouldn't they have to prove that they didn't say the libelous statement, which Gerry could easily do with the tapes from his show. As to whether or not Norman Oliver is guilty of any of the allege stuff he claims Fulchur said about him, as of this writing, he's not been charged with anything, so he's innocent, and even if he were to be arrested he still presummed innocent until proven guilty by a court of law. That's my understanding of how it works, but I may be completely wrong.

 

[Al Johnson]

I'm not a lawyer, but if someone is being sued for libel wouldn't they have to prove that they didn't say the libelous statement, which Gerry could easily do with the tapes from his show. As to whether or not Norman Oliver is guilty of any of the allege stuff he claims Fulchur said about him, as of this writing, he's not been charged with anything, so he's innocent, and even if he were to be arrested he still presummed innocent until proven guilty by a court of law. That's my understanding of how it works, but I may be completely wrong.

Again, this is a civil suit, not a criminal complaint. There's a big difference, especially in Delaware. The standard of proof is "preponderance of evidence" and not "guilt beyond a reasonable doubt." A unanimous verdict is not required. If a defendant loses he is held responsible for causing harm to the plaintiff and the plaintiff is awarded financial damages (and possible punitive damages).

One possible defense would be to prove that Gerry didn't make the statement in question. But as a practical matter, Oliver would have to show Gerry did make the statement. Oliver's side would have to present the proof. Fulcher's side could try to discredit their proof.

Truth is a complete defense against libel. Fulcher could show the statement was true. Or he could claim that he had a good faith reason to believe the statement was true.

I suspect this won't go to trial and some settlement will be reached. I also suspect the real agenda here is to silence criticism. In the past few months we've seen various individuals and groups act aggressively to silence talk show hosts who say anything they don't like. I wouldn't be surprised if Oliver or his lawyers are jumping on that bandwagon. I also wouldn't be surprised, if that turns out to be case, that the tactic works. Broadcasters have been caving in.