Death Penalty

[Element9]

From Inside Radio, January 23, 2007:

The lawyer representing the family of Jennifer Strange wants KDND's license revoked. Sacramento attorney Roger Dreyer asks the FCC to "terminate" the license of what he calls the "water death radio station." He also asks the Commission to go beyond revocation and to "discipline" owner Entercom. Dreyer's asking Entercom to turn over copies of the station's contestant release form, tapes, "the whereabouts of terminated staff" and "other information" by Wednesday. The attorney says the promised civil suit will be "a wakeup call for other stations sponsoring similar stunts."

No humor intended in the title of this post.

This is reality and likely to be the order of business for quite some time at Entercom HQ in Philadelphia. Bet your last dollar CBS, Clear Channel, Emmis & Citadel will be watching closely.

Personally, I believe that license revocation is extreme. There will be some who suggest this is a witch hunt (or "which" hunt, attempting to determine the responsible parties) and some who will advocate the full effect of the law be applied to those who concocted the idiotic promotion.

For students of the business, this is a primer on what not to do. For students of the law, this is a primer in corporate, civil and very possibly, criminal law. For human beings, this is a lesson in life.

-9-

 

[Debaser]

This is just another lawyer trying to make sure that we are never held responsible for our action as individuals.

Yes, there was a tragedy that happened as a direct result of this station's contest which could have been handled better by the station.

But the woman who died was a willing participant, and without willing participants these kinds of stunts would never happen.

So what does this lawyer want to do? Tear down all the jungle gyms on school playgrounds because some kid acts irresponsibly one day and hurts another kid while playing? Oh yeah, that's already been done.

I've got it! After this ambulence chaser shuts down this radio station for holding a contest in which his client willingly and freely participated, he can stop all swimming in ponds, lakes, rivers and oceans because somebody drowned there!

The message that needs to be sent here isn't to the radio station, which got their message loud and clear and has fired a good chunk of staff and should pay a hefty fine to pay for the stupidity of the fired personnel (and by the way, where does the money from the fine go? To the family of the deceased woman I hope!), but to the lawyers who are so fast to force the courts to pass judgment on us all while they reap the benefits of having or getting a "name".

If Entercom loses their license for this station, it will simply mean another nail in the coffin holding what little is left of the creativity that once made radio exciting.

 

[SirRoxalot]

DB, there is a very lively discussion on this topic on the Sacramento board. Perhaps you might want to peruse that before you jump on the "personal responsibility" bandwagon.

You might also want to check this post from KevinFodor on the Sacramento board, which succinctly states:

The first rule of radio contesting (it's in Part 73 of the rules and regs if you want to look it up)
says you cannot place a listener in jeopardy in conducting a radio contest.

The ignorance on the part of those involved at all levels (on air/promotions/management/ownership) not
recognizing the dangers of water intoxication (or not having appropriate safeguards in place to "vet" a potential stunt or promotion) is no excuse.

And, no...release forms don't absolve one of responsibility.

I am NOT in favor of revocation of the station license, although it could be argued that Entercom failed to "exert proper control" over program content.

You well know that creativity goes far beyond excretory humor, abuse of minorities, and overt sexual content that too often passes as "creativity" on many of today's morning shows.

 

[alw]

This is America and in America one has the right to be crude and tasteless and crass and an embarrassment. But not the right to become dangerous.

We have freedom of speech, but we'll land in jail for yelling "fire" in a crowded theater.

With a broadcast license comes, at least a minimum of responsibility.

That having been said, I don't think that Opie & Anthony should have taken the full brunt after their benign stunt at St. Pat's. It was an official contest with a sponsor and a bank of lawyers that vetted the whole thing.

In this case, a woman died. She went there willingly, she drank up willingly.
But, from what I heard on the aircheck.....she was not able to hear the phone callers who called in, in alarm, and told the air folks that this was a dangerous thing to do. AND the on-air staff laughed and joked about the possibility that this use of water has caused death before.

Creativity is one thing (find Biondi who played that scandalous Elvis record...etc.), but sometimes "the masses ARE asses", and we can't let our listeners boost our ratings by inviting them in and allowing them to die.

My 2 cents, for what it's worth.

 

[Yeziknoradio]

"The lawyer representing the family of Jennifer Strange wants KDND's license revoked"

It's like...the reason for having the FCC is...?

 

[Debaser]

DB, there is a very lively discussion on this topic on the Sacramento board. Perhaps you might want to peruse that before you jump on the "personal responsibility" bandwagon.

You might also want to check this post from KevinFodor on the Sacramento board, which succinctly states:

The first rule of radio contesting (it's in Part 73 of the rules and regs if you want to look it up)
says you cannot place a listener in jeopardy in conducting a radio contest.

The ignorance on the part of those involved at all levels (on air/promotions/management/ownership) not
recognizing the dangers of water intoxication (or not having appropriate safeguards in place to "vet" a potential stunt or promotion) is no excuse.

And, no...release forms don't absolve one of responsibility.

I am NOT in favor of revocation of the station license, although it could be argued that Entercom failed to "exert proper control" over program content.

You well know that creativity goes far beyond excretory humor, abuse of minorities, and overt sexual content that too often passes as "creativity" on many of today's morning shows.

Hey, Rox...In no way am I condoning this contest or similar ones that put contestants in any kind of danger.

I'm just worried that the end result will be a further homogenization of what little creativity is left in radio. We're already at the point where we over-think every aspect of our lives. Most managers and business types who run radio these days don't understand the medium at all. They DO understand money and greatly fear anything that will make the green stuff dwindle away. The first thing to go completely will be any programming or promotion element that even smacks of creativity.

It's like I said in the other post: do you remove the jungle gym from the playground because one kid got hurt?

 

[Radknowski]

I am NOT in favor of revocation of the station license, although it could be argued that Entercom failed to "exert proper control" over program content. You well know that creativity goes far beyond excretory humor, abuse of minorities, and overt sexual content that too often passes as "creativity" on many of today's morning shows.

In no way am I condoning this contest or similar ones that put contestants in any kind of danger...

...I'm just worried that the end result will be a further homogenization of what little creativity is left in radio. The first thing to go completely will be any programming or promotion element that even smacks of creativity.

It's like I said in the other post: do you remove the jungle gym from the playground because one kid got hurt?

It's an issue of liability, DB.

If your kid loses an eye because the manufacturer of the jungle gym didn't burnish the edge of the grapple bar, you should have recourse in court.

If you buy a car that's improperly designed and the gas tank has a tendancy to explode upon impact (Pinto, Corvair), you should have recourse in court, especially if the manufacturer knows of the design flaw but does nothing to correct it or warn car owners of the existing condition.

In the construction industry, we deal with the NYS Scaffold Law, an onerous set of constructtion workplace rules that mandate contractors prepare and administer job-sites to prevent injury to workers. We pay a lot of money to insurance companies in case Willie the Tagger slips off a ladder that's improperly secured. It's the cost of doing business in NY and it forces us to make sure we plan and execute the job properly, which we do.

The situation in Sacramento involving KDND and Jennifer Strange is a tragic conundrum wrapped in a riddle. It doesn't appear as cut and dry as the prosecution, defense and many posters argue. If nothing else, it's raised the awareness of the dangers and liabilities involved when conjuring promotions and contests.

It is reprehensible that a woman lost her life participating in an inane contest for a video game. Conversely and equally troubling, an adult, a wife, a mother who worked in a medical office, makes a decision of her own free will to participate in a contest to win a Wii (video game) and dies as a result.

I had a conversation with one of my radio pals who offered this scenario. Imagine the Wii had been given away using the time tested "be the 108th caller." It's not very creative to be sure.

The winner, call number 108, is told the prize has to be picked up by 5:30 p.m. The winner works until 5 p.m. but tells the morning show host he/she will be at the station by 5:30 to pick up the prize.

While hurriedly driving to the radio station at 5:23, the winner passes another vehicle, gets into a head-on accident, is taken to the hospital where he/she dies in the E-R.

Is the station liable for the winner's death?

_________________________________________________

In the KDND case, I'm not so sure Mrs. Strange doesn't share some reponsibility for her death. I also believe the radio station has a responsibility to its community and cannot be absolved of blame. As to revoking the station's license, that's extreme.

In my estimation, a significant portion of the station's earnings (EBITDA) be dedicated to the family of Mrs. Strange, her husband and children until the youngest child reaches the age of 21.

 

[Debaser]

I had a conversation with one of my radio pals who offered this scenario. Imagine the Wii had been given away using the time tested "be the 108th caller." It's not very creative to be sure.

The winner, call number 108, is told the prize has to be picked up by 5:30 p.m. The winner works until 5 p.m. but tells the morning show host he/she will be at the station by 5:30 to pick up the prize.

While hurriedly driving to the radio station at 5:23, the winner passes another vehicle, gets into a head-on accident, is taken to the hospital where he/she dies in the E-R.

Is the station liable for the winner's death?

Wow...I think you guys ought to send that scenario to Dick Wolf. It would be perfect for a "Law and Order" treatment.

[/quote]
In the KDND case, I'm not so sure Mrs. Strange doesn't share some reponsibility for her death. I also believe the radio station has a responsibility to its community and cannot be absolved of blame. As to revoking the station's license, that's extreme.

In my estimation, a significant portion of the station's earnings (EBITDA) be dedicated to the family of Mrs. Strange, her husband and children until the youngest child reaches the age of 21.[/quote]

It's precisely the "108th" caller scenario that scares me, though. It's usually a sign of total lack of creativity...and now it will be a sign of a station/company that is so scared of the possibility of something going wrong that they won't allow any other form of contesting.And even if the PD is a creative sort, he/she is liable to be shot down by the company on advice of some lawyer who only sees in black and white.

Here's a good example of what I mean:


Contest's fatal flaw has ripple effect

By David Hinckley
New York Daily News staff writer
January 23, 2007

The death of a Sacramento woman in a radio station's water-drinking contest could have "very significant impact" on the way radio sets up contests in the future, says a media law attorney.

Steven J.J. Weisman, a Boston attorney, says executives will watch "very closely" to see what legal liabilities are determined in the death of 28-year-old Jennifer Strange.

[EDIT]


[EDIT-post truncated because originating material is copyprotected. Unauthorized use of copyrighted content is in violation of Radio-Info's TOS.]

 

[SpareChange]

I had a conversation with one of my radio pals who offered this scenario. Imagine the Wii had been given away using the time tested "be the 108th caller." It's not very creative to be sure.
The winner, call number 108, is told the prize has to be picked up by 5:30 p.m. The winner works until 5 p.m. but tells the morning show host he/she will be at the station by 5:30 to pick up the prize. While hurriedly driving to the radio station at 5:23, the winner passes another vehicle, gets into a head-on accident, is taken to the hospital where he/she dies in the E-R.
Is the station liable for the winner's death?

Wow...I think you guys ought to send that scenario to Dick Wolf. It would be perfect for a "Law and Order" treatment.

In the KDND case, I'm not so sure Mrs. Strange doesn't share some reponsibility for her death. I also believe the radio station has a responsibility to its community and cannot be absolved of blame. As to revoking the station's license, that's extreme.

In my estimation, a significant portion of the station's earnings (EBITDA) be dedicated to the family of Mrs. Strange, her husband and children until the youngest child reaches the age of 21.

It's precisely the "108th" caller scenario that scares me, though. It's usually a sign of total lack of creativity...and now it will be a sign of a station/company that is so scared of the possibility of something going wrong that they won't allow any other form of contesting.And even if the PD is a creative sort, he/she is liable to be shot down by the company on advice of some lawyer who only sees in black and white.

Here's a good example of what I mean:

Contest's fatal flaw has ripple effect

By David Hinckley, New York Daily News staff writer, January 23, 2007

The death of a Sacramento woman in a radio station's water-drinking contest could have "very significant impact" on the way radio sets up contests in the future, says a media law attorney.

Steven J.J. Weisman, a Boston attorney, says executives will watch "very closely" to see what legal liabilities are determined in the death of 28-year-old Jennifer Strange.[EDIT-post truncated because originating material is copyprotected. Unauthorized use of copyrighted content is in violation of Radio-Info's TOS.]

With condolences to Mrs. Strange's husband, children and family, it seems she bears some responsibility for participating in a radio station contest that resulted in her death. How much responsibility most likely will be left to the courts and juries. This being said, KDND and Entercom don't get off Scott free. The suggestion that KDND be required to donate a portion of its billing to the Strange children is a good one.

The Boston attorney's assessment of the landscape is accurate. As noted, many companies will be watching this case and in the meantime, applying stringent guidelines to their operations, especially Active Rock and CHR stations. Although I don't entirely agree with his assessment of liability, Sir Roxalot makes a strong argument about creativity and what its definitions have become, especially in the last ten years of de-reg. How far do stations have to go to impress listeners with their promotional creativity? Placing their listeners' well-being at risk isn't creative, it's just flat out crazy.

 

[SirRoxalot]

Contested

Putting the current travesty aside for the moment...

I don't understand the psychology of running a contest that abuses listeners. Yes, I understand that it draws attention to a morning show. But doesn't it also lead listeners to the conclusion that "These idiots think abusing people is funny." Is that really the thought that you want people to attach to you, your show, and your radio station? Doesn't it smack of desperation?

Contests that demean the contestants also demean the people running the contest. In the short term, you may create water-cooler conversation, but the long term response is likely to be "Boy, what a bunch of jerks." It seems to me that it works for junior high males, but I'd like to think that adults will look for something better on the radio.

And yes, I know that you'll never go broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.

 

[Element9]

Re: Contested

Putting the current travesty aside for the moment...

I don't understand the psychology of running a contest that abuses listeners. Yes, I understand that it draws attention to a morning show. But doesn't it also lead listeners to the conclusion that "These idiots think abusing people is funny." Is that really the thought that you want people to attach to you, your show, and your radio station? Doesn't it smack of desperation?

Contests that demean the contestants also demean the people running the contest. In the short term, you may create water-cooler conversation, but the long term response is likely to be "Boy, what a bunch of jerks." It seems to me that it works for junior high males, but I'd like to think that adults will look for something better on the radio.

And yes, I know that you'll never go broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public.

Yours might be the most salient observation of all the posts in the many threads on this topic. Is it any wonder morning radio shows are so often parodied in print and film. The Simpsons and Family Guy have justifiably made a fine art of ridiculing talk radio gasbags, over-hyped TV and radio commercials and zany morning shows. Any wonder so many listeners refer to "those ash holes in the morning on insert radio station call letters here."

-9-

 

[smedge2006]

It's usually a sign of total lack of creativity...and now it will be a sign of a station/company that is so scared of the possibility of something going wrong that they won't allow any other form of contesting

I think a total crackdown on contesting would actually HELP creativity. Stations could no longer use cheesy contests to draw stunts might have to fall back on being entertaining. If anything, the problem with many stations right now is that they are undermanaged. A PD and general manager having to oversee six or eight stations allows too much to fall through the cracks.

 

[Radknowski]

It's usually a sign of total lack of creativity...and now it will be a sign of a station/company that is so scared of the possibility of something going wrong that they won't allow any other form of contesting

I think a total crackdown on contesting would actually HELP creativity. Stations could no longer use cheesy contests to draw stunts might have to fall back on being entertaining. If anything, the problem with many stations right now is that they are undermanaged. A PD and general manager having to oversee six or eight stations allows too much to fall through the cracks.

Interesting perspective and theory. Two successive posts that offer divergent but worthy views. This board is on a roll!

 

[Debaser]

Here's another perspective from Jerry Del Colliano, whom I respect a lot:

Jerry Del Colliano, a former radio DJ and program director, and current music-industry professor at USC, has his own theory about what will change in the wake of Strange's death: Nothing.

“Just look who got fired,” he said. “It was the DJs and the staff. It's the managers who always ask for the outrageous, and as soon as there's trouble, they fire the people who gave them what they asked for. If management was serious, they would fire themselves.

“We're seeing more and more desperation on the part of radio stations as they chase a shrinking audience,” he said. “The sad part of it is, contests stopped working a long time ago. I teach the next generation at USC, and they don't care about contests.”

 

[SirRoxalot]

The PD/Ops Manager of the station, along with the promotions manager, were among those fired in the "second wave" that raised the casualty list to 10.

The cluster manager probably survives because Entercom doesn't want to dump this mess on anybody else right now. Look for him to hit the silk - golden or otherwise - once this thing gets settled.