Death Tied to Entercom's The End 107.9?

[Element9]

Just wondering if any lawyers post here?

This case has intrigued, perplexed and angered me to the extent that I consulted two very reputable and experienced lawyers, friends, both of whom have radio-media experience.

One of the attorneys represents "plaintiffs" in matters very similar to this, such as personal injury and wrongfull death litigation. The other attorney defends companies such as the radio company or the insurance company that would be involved in matters similar to this case.

Both expressed sympathy for the victim and her family. Not surprisingly, each had a unique and differing opinion, each backed by case law (which will no doubt come into play in this matter) and precedent.

The lawyer who would defend the radio station told me this would be a very difficult case to defend before a jury because of the emotional coloration attached to the death of a young mother.

But he explained, in legal terms, that this is not an open and shut case for the plaintiff (Ms. Strange's family, heirs and estate) because the burden would be on the plaintiff's attorney to prove that Ms. Strange could not have walked away from the contest and relieved herself at any time, as other contestants had, thus avoiding serious injury and death.

The enticement to win a prize cannot be considered "forcing the woman to drink water." Even the encouragement or admonishment from the morning show knuckleheads to encourage the contestants (and Ms. Strange) to "drink up or drop out" cannot be considered "forcing the woman to drink." The defense argument would be "she did it of her own volition and being of sound and rational mind, as an adult, she alone bears responsibility for her decisions and subsequent injury-death."

The fact that a nurse or degreed medical person called the show to advise the hosts and participants of "the dangers of ingesting massive quantities of water with benefit of urinating could lead to serious injury" works both ways. It could be argued that the participants wre duly advised, yet made a reasoned choice to continue their participation. Conversely, plaintiff could argue that the station personnel were advised that consuming massive quantities of water was dangerous and could lead to injury-death, yet continued their contest in a perilous and cavalier manner.

The plaintiff's (Ms. Strange's family) attorney agreed that this case would not be as easy to try as many of us "non-legal types" have (understandably) argued here. I guess this is why some folks endure three years of law school and a grueling bar exam and others (like me) choose to work in broadcasting.

Lacking a sound foundation, evidence and legal premise, it's conceivable that criminal charges may not be filed and even if they are, a judge may choose, after prolonged and diligent review, to dismiss the charges.

A civil, "injury" trial is another matter.

Once more, I'm not a doctor or attorney (nor do I play one on radio or TV.)

-9-

 

[godofirony]

The fact that a nurse or degreed medical person called the show to advise the hosts and participants of "the dangers of ingesting massive quantities of water with benefit of urinating could lead to serious injury" works both ways. It could be argued that the participants wre duly advised, yet made a reasoned choice to continue their participation. Conversely, plaintiff could argue that the station personnel were advised that consuming massive quantities of water was dangerous and could lead to injury-death, yet continued their contest in a perilous and cavalier manner.

This is the part that's going to be interesting...because the part of the building the contest took place in, they cannot hear The End. Unless another radio was brought in, the contestants didn't hear the nurse or any of the jokes or warnings. That could really hurt the station - they may not have been "duly advised".

Awesome post -9-, let us know what the lawyers think as all this develops.

 

[brian65]

You should all just thank God your not involved with this.

I feel badly for everyone involved, both the family and the radio people. Certainly no one expected this to happen.

Welcome to 21st century society. Its probably going to get worse.

 

[chilly]

"All the contestants were adults and the knew the risks involved". Really? Prior to this stunt, were the contestants told that what they were about to do could be lethal and that they might die? And did all the contestants that particicpated say ya, we understand the dangers and we're OK with that? If that's what happened then I guess those radio folks are off the hook.

 

[kenhawk1160]

Everyone seems to be forgetting BROADCASTER RESPONSIBILITY. Yes, this stunt has been done a thousand times with no ill effects. Yes, people have survived stunts like this on radio and TV shows. But station management has a responsibility to its listeners.

That IS my point. Where does a station's responsibility end? How much are they liable?

 

[Element9]

Important correction:

In my previous post quoting the opinions of two attorneys, I made an error:

'"The fact that a nurse or degreed medical person called the show to advise the hosts and participants of "the dangers of ingesting massive quantities of water with benefit of urinating could lead to serious injury"' works both ways."

The sentence should have been written:

"'The fact that a nurse or degreed medical person called the show to advise the hosts and participants of "the dangers of ingesting massive quantities of water without benefit of urinating could lead to serious injury'" works both ways."

The word "without" is critical to the reasoning process. My apologies.

-9-

 

[Neanderpaul]

If you go back and listen to the tape...

During the time the "nurse", who by the way, we have no way of validating this person's identity, I'm not trying to discredit her, I'm pointing out that people say "anything" to get on the radio. During the time she was on, and telling the host that someone could die, an exchange happened that might negate the damage of her warning where he said that the woman would probably involuntarily vomit from too much water consumption and that she'd be disqualified from the game but otherwise OK right?

The "nurse" said "Yes I guess so."

One could argue in court that even the "expert opinion" of a "medical professional" led the hosts to believe that there was no real danger involved.

I hate to keep chiming in on this because I don't think we're ever going to come to any agreement. But, this is truly something that, if we do any kind of interactive, personality-based entertainment, will affect all of us in this industry in the future. I am paying as close attention to this as possible.

 

[DeadElvis]

> Once more, I'm not a doctor or attorney (nor do I play one on radio or TV.)

I am one, and married to the other. And, I must say that my wife and I have listened to the audio. It is the most painful and damaging 5 minutes of audio I can imagine.

> One could argue in court that even the "expert opinion" of a "medical professional" led the hosts to believe that there was no real danger involved.

No, I don't buy that. The issue (at least in terms of recklessness, not so much negligence) is whether they were on Notice that this activity was dangerous. The tape implies that perhaps they were. Further, the mentioning of the Chico State student also underscores the issue. It would be unreasonable, in my opinion, to rely on the medical opinion of someone on the phone whose credentials cannot be verified.

Again, my disclaimer: None of us know the facts; we must let the process play out. But, certainly, what has been released looks bad.

DE

 

[SirRoxalot]

Neanderpaul, I love your handle. In this case, it appears to be especially appropriate.

The plain facts are these:

1) People at the radio station were aware of something called "water intoxication", and were aware that it could be fatal.

2) People at the radio station encouraged contestants to consume an amount of water that was in excess of the amount that could easily be determined as fatal, and ultimately proved to be fatal to one of the contestants.

3) People at the radio station wrongly assured the contestant who died that "they'd puke" before they could consume enough water to be dangerous, and that "your body is 98% water, so how could it hurt you?"

4) There were no medical personnel on standby, even though the radio station was holding an event that had potentially fatal results.

5) A contestant who was obviously woozy and in distress was allowed to leave the radio station, get into her car, and drive home without proper evaluation by medical personnel.


In fact, the pesonnel from the radio station either:

1) Did no research on the topic of water intoxication, in spite of their knowlege that it is potentially fatal.

OR

2) Ran a contest that provided a potentially fatal dose of water, and failed to fully inform contestants of the danger that they faced.


Perhaps your problem with this contest is that water - typically a necessary substance with generally benign, if not healthful properties - was the substance. Maybe I'll understand your point of view better if you'll tell me if the following contest should be allowed:


Contestants are offered a valuable prize that's difficult to obtain. The winner is the person who is willing to consume the largest amount of a particular substance. In this case, the substance is diluted Rat Poison.

Here are the facts made available to the contestants regarding the Rat Poison:

1) It contains strychnine, which is fatal if consumed in large enough amounts.

2) The symptoms of strychnine poisoning are as follows (from the CDC website):

People exposed to low or moderate doses of strychnine by any route will have the following signs or symptoms:

Agitation
Apprehension or fear
Ability to be easily startled
Restlessness
Painful muscle spasms possibly leading to fever and to kidney and liver injury
Uncontrollable arching of the neck and back
Rigid arms and legs
Jaw tightness
Muscle pain and soreness
Difficulty breathing
Dark urine
Initial consciousness and awareness of symptoms

People exposed to high doses of strychnine may have the following signs and symptoms within the first 15 to 30 minutes of exposure:

Respiratory failure (inability to breathe), possibly leading to death
Brain death
Showing these signs and symptoms does not necessarily mean that a person has been exposed to strychnine.

3) Whoever is willing to drink the most strychnine solution wins.

Would this, in your opinion, be a contest that a radio station should run? Would there be contestants? Should the radio station have qualified medical personnel on hand to help those people who show symptoms of strychnine poisoning?

Who's at fault in this contest if someone dies?

Is it the personal responsibility of the contestant to evaluate their own symptoms, and decide to continue to participate?

What about radio station personnel who tell the contestant "Your symptoms aren't that bad yet. They're probably not fatal."

Answer those questions, and I'll know whether or not I want to work with you, Neanderpaul.

 

[Neanderpaul]

Neanderpaul, I love your handle. In this case, it appears to be especially appropriate.

The plain facts are these:

1) People at the radio station were aware of something called "water intoxication", and were aware that it could be fatal.

Yes. And most people are aware that alcohol could be fatal. And people are aware that driving could be fatal. And radio takes ad dollars from these industries.

2) People at the radio station encouraged contestants to consume an amount of water that was in excess of the amount that could easily be determined as fatal, and ultimately proved to be fatal to one of the contestants.

And the contestant was given the opportunity to opt out. And chose to continue of their own free will. Even signing a document "releasing the radio station from any responsibility." We're about to see how valid a document those are.

3) People at the radio station wrongly assured the contestant who died that "they'd puke" before they could consume enough water to be dangerous, and that "your body is 98% water, so how could it hurt you?"

Yes. They did. But, they did have a "medical opinion" that concurred with that incorrect assumption.

4) There were no medical personnel on standby, even though the radio station was holding an event that had potentially fatal results.

You're right. And using that logic, medical personnel should be at every radio station event.

5) A contestant who was obviously woozy and in distress was allowed to leave the radio station, get into her car, and drive home without proper evaluation by medical personnel.

This is a serious bone of contention. And would have to be ironed out in the courts. According to the audio we've been presented, the woman claimed only of a headache. She was in good spirits, and was reluctant to end her participation in the contest. Even to the point that she says clearly, and with no hint of distress that she felt she could've kept going no problem.

In fact, the pesonnel from the radio station either:

1) Did no research on the topic of water intoxication, in spite of their knowlege that it is potentially fatal.

OR

2) Ran a contest that provided a potentially fatal dose of water, and failed to fully inform contestants of the danger that they faced.

If you can provide an instance of fatality due to water intoxication that is not tied to a deliberate decision by the ingestor to have not engaged in any of the following activities; Drug ingestion, strenuous physical exertion-be it forced or otherwise, or denial of the body's natural detoxifying process, I'll agree with you. But, I have searched and can find no instance of someone drinking too much water and simply dying. In each instance, there exists an external stressor to the body that causes the internal reaction leading to death. In the case of this radio contest, there is no evidence to suggest that what took place was a likely ending scenario.

Perhaps your problem with this contest is that water - typically a necessary substance with generally benign, if not healthful properties - was the substance. Maybe I'll understand your point of view better if you'll tell me if the following contest should be allowed:


Contestants are offered a valuable prize that's difficult to obtain. The winner is the person who is willing to consume the largest amount of a particular substance. In this case, the substance is diluted Rat Poison.

Here are the facts made available to the contestants regarding the Rat Poison:

1) It contains strychnine, which is fatal if consumed in large enough amounts.

2) The symptoms of strychnine poisoning are as follows (from the CDC website):

People exposed to low or moderate doses of strychnine by any route will have the following signs or symptoms:

Agitation
Apprehension or fear
Ability to be easily startled
Restlessness
Painful muscle spasms possibly leading to fever and to kidney and liver injury
Uncontrollable arching of the neck and back
Rigid arms and legs
Jaw tightness
Muscle pain and soreness
Difficulty breathing
Dark urine
Initial consciousness and awareness of symptoms

People exposed to high doses of strychnine may have the following signs and symptoms within the first 15 to 30 minutes of exposure:

Respiratory failure (inability to breathe), possibly leading to death
Brain death
Showing these signs and symptoms does not necessarily mean that a person has been exposed to strychnine.

3) Whoever is willing to drink the most strychnine solution wins.

Would this, in your opinion, be a contest that a radio station should run? Would there be contestants? Should the radio station have qualified medical personnel on hand to help those people who show symptoms of strychnine poisoning?

Who's at fault in this contest if someone dies?

Is it the personal responsibility of the contestant to evaluate their own symptoms, and decide to continue to participate?

What about radio station personnel who tell the contestant "Your symptoms aren't that bad yet. They're probably not fatal."

Answer those questions, and I'll know whether or not I want to work with you, Neanderpaul.

And this is the part where you show me that water contains low levels of substances also contained in rat poison correct?

Look. When you mention "rat poison", of course a red flag will go up. When you mention "water", which we're told you're supposed to divide your body weight in half, and drink that amount of water per day. In my case that's 130 ounces..or 2 GALLONS a day. Not all at once. And not ignoring the body's need to urinate. Water has been hammered into our psyche as the "life giver." As essential to survival. No reasonable person could possibly consider that water could kill you. Especially given the reported deaths due to water intoxication were combined with other external body stressors. Even were the hosts to do research on the subject, there's no hard evidence of someone simply dying from ingesting water.
A deliberate decision has to be made by the individual to ignore the warning signs of water intoxication. Which, in this case is the body's signal that urination is required to detoxify.

Which again..brings us to:

You conveniently, and repeatedly choose to remove personal accountability from the contestant. And by even making that statement, I sound insensitive to Mrs. Strange. That's not my intention at all.

My point remains:

If a person chooses to participate in dangerous activity...I'll use motorcycle riding as it is my personally dangerous life choice. I know that there exists a more than average chance of serious injury due to my participation in this activity. I am far more likely to be injured on my motorcycle than if I over-consume water. I am aware of this. And even if I weren't, once being made aware of this, I choose to continue this behavior.

If I die...I cannot hold Harley-Davidson responsible for providing the motorcycle. I chose to ride it. I was told what the dangers were. I ignored the potential dangers, which are of a far greater possibility than what happened in that air studio that morning. I'm even warned repeatedly of the dangers of my behavior.

The radio hosts gave Mrs. Strange ample opportunity to opt out. It is reasonable to assume that she was aware of the potential for death but just as we are aware that every day we drive to and from work, there exists the much more likely potential for us to be killed in an accident while commuting, she chose not to. She must be responsible for her decisions.

Neither she, nor the radio hosts could have realistically forseen this result. It just doesn't happen. And when it does, it's due to the conscious decision of the water ingestor to ignore the body's warning signs.

There was no evidence available for this. The only stories involved forced ingestion, combined with vigorous physical activity. It leads one to reasonably assume that the potential for death was so miniscule that it was safe to proceed. And even when being made aware of this potential for death, and relaying that potential to the participants, they willfully chose to continue their participation.

I will always be a proponent of personal accountability. I truly believe that this is nobody's "fault," but an accident that nobody could have forseen. Even had they done the research that so many of you think should have been done, the available data wouldn't have led them to believe they had any likely possiblity of this scenario.

It's tragic on all sides. And I refuse to express the "anger" and "outrage" that so many people want to dramatically profess on these boards.

This will be my last post regarding this topic. We are never going to agree. I only wish that it had never happened and that we never had to even discuss it.

My sympathies to the woman's family and friends. My support to all who have to live with this. And we all need to keep a close eye because if you work in entertainment, this affects us all.

 

[wcrzx]

[/quote]I rest my case. Quit trying to put any blame on Jennifer Strange, the victim, who left three Motherless Children.

Goodfellow
[/quote

So you are saying she is not at fault. Thats funny.!!! God forbid peole take responsibilty for their own STUPIDTY!

 

[SirRoxalot]

WHO'S Personal Responsibility?

Neanderpaul, you are correct in that we will never agree on this subject. You are incorrect in several other assumptions that you listed in your previous post.

The radio hosts gave Mrs. Strange ample opportunity to opt out. It is reasonable to assume that she was aware of the potential for death but just as we are aware that every day we drive to and from work, there exists the much more likely potential for us to be killed in an accident while commuting, she chose not to. She must be responsible for her decisions.

Since Mrs. Strange did not know the quantity water or frequency of administration ahead of time, did not have access to information about "water intoxication" at the radio station, and was not in an area where she could hear the concerns expressed by a caller identifying herself as a nurse, the only information that she had was the assurance of from radio station personnel that "she'd puke before she could drink too much water", and "Your body is 98% water. How can drinking water hurt you?" It would seem that she was provided with assurances that were not based in fact.

Neither she, nor the radio hosts could have realistically forseen this result. It just doesn't happen. And when it does, it's due to the conscious decision of the water ingestor to ignore the body's warning signs.

...The only stories involved forced ingestion, combined with vigorous physical activity. It leads one to reasonably assume that the potential for death was so miniscule that it was safe to proceed. And even when being made aware of this potential for death, and relaying that potential to the participants, they willfully chose to continue their participation.

A Google search for water intoxication lists the following sites on the first page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_intoxication

http://chemistry.about.com/cs/5/f/blwaterintox.htm

http://sportsmedicine.about.com/cs/hydration/a/aa051200.htm

http://www.hhp.ufl.edu/faculty/pbird/keepingfit/ARTICLE/toomuchwater.htm

The first two have direct statements that drinking too much water, without strenuous exercise or replacing sodium and electrolytes, can kill you. To quote directly from Wikipedia, the first listing available:

Consuming as little as 1.8 litres of water (0.48 gal) in a single sitting may prove fatal for a person adhering to a low-sodium diet, or 3 litres (0.79 gallons) for a person on a normal diet.

I will always be a proponent of personal accountability. I truly believe that this is nobody's "fault," but an accident that nobody could have forseen. Even had they done the research that so many of you think should have been done, the available data wouldn't have led them to believe they had any likely possiblity of this scenario.

It took me less than 60 seconds to determine that there were serious medical issues with the proposed contest. That's hardly an "accident that nobody could have forseen."

I too am a proponent of personal responsibility, but it was the personal responsibility of every person RUNNING this contest to make sure that it wasn't dangerous for the contestants. Water - as we have tragically seen - is every bit as deadly as rat poison if given in the large enough amounts.

Making the decision to ignore the dangers of an activity is valid as long as you understand the dangers of an activity. I ride motorcycles. I handle firearms. Both are dangerous in the wrong hands, and there are unpredictable results stemming from the actions of others who are less cautious. I can accept that.

Mrs. Strange was assured by station personnel that the amount of water they provided wouldn't kill her.

If a radio station put on a contest using firearms, but told me "Don't worry, they're paintballs, not bullets", then said "Oops, I guess they were bullets after all", I think that I'd hold THEM responsible. And, I would hope that somebody out there would be outraged.

 

[SirRoxalot]

Speaking of Stupidity

So you are saying she is not at fault. Thats funny.!!! God forbid peole take responsibilty for their own STUPIDTY!

In this case, the real stupidity was on the part of STATION PERSONNEL. Mrs. Strange was a victim of their lack of research and/or candor.

 

[wcrzx]

Let's try this contest. Most stations have done a "sit in it to win it" type contest or one where you must keep touching a car to win it. Let's say that somebody develops a deep vein Thrombosis ( what NBC reporter David Bloom died of) is there going to be the same outrage and firing of everybody.

Or this

Stations sponors a eating contest and sombody chokes to death.

Was it s stupid contest, in hindsight probably but if nothing had happened at least 50 other stations would run it.

 

[The Goodfellow]

Let's try this contest. Most stations have done a "sit in it to win it" type contest or one where you must keep touching a car to win it. Let's say that somebody develops a deep vein Thrombosis ( what NBC reporter David Bloom died of) is there going to be the same outrage and firing of everybody.

Or this

Stations sponors a eating contest and sombody chokes to death.

Was it s stupid contest, in hindsight probably but if nothing had happened at least 50 other stations would run it.

And you sir, with your east of the ditch long call letters, would probably work at the first station who stole this sophomoric locker room contest and ran it too!

Goodfellow

 

[wcrzx]

Now thats acting like an adult!

 

[Neanderpaul]

Re: WHO'S Personal Responsibility?

I'll only respond with information contained within your posted links on this subject. All of which reiterate my contention of personal responsibility.

A Google search for water intoxication lists the following sites on the first page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_intoxication

" Persons at high risk of water intoxication

Infants
Runners
Overexertion and heat stress
Psychiatric conditions
Unusual water losses in disease
Iatrogenic water intoxication
Drug users

Treatment
Mild intoxication may remain asymptomatic and require only fluid restriction. In more severe cases, treatment consists of:

Diuretics to increase urination, which are most effective "

http://chemistry.about.com/cs/5/f/blwaterintox.htm

"The bottom line is this: it's possible to drink too much water, but unless you are running a marathon or an infant, water intoxication is a very uncommon condition."

The above link references Marathon Runners. Again supporting my assertion that an external stressor must be present for water intoxication.

[url=http://www.hhp.ufl.edu/faculty/pbird/keepingfit/ARTICLE/toomuchwater.htm]
http://www.hhp.ufl.edu/faculty/pbird/keepingfit/ARTICLE/toomuchwater.htm

The above also references water consumption in conjunction with physical exertion.

The first two have direct statements that drinking too much water, without strenuous exercise or replacing sodium and electrolytes, can kill you. To quote directly from Wikipedia, the first listing available:

Consuming as little as 1.8 litres of water (0.48 gal) in a single sitting may prove fatal for a person adhering to a low-sodium diet, or 3 litres (0.79 gallons) for a person on a normal diet.

Again. The individual would be adhering to a self-imposed diet regimen that would contribute to the result.

It took me less than 60 seconds to determine that there were serious medical issues with the proposed contest. That's hardly an "accident that nobody could have forseen."

And it took me three minutes to find information contained within these references to refute your every assertion, and place the accountability upon the individual. A normal healthy adult would not be in danger of water intoxication. The information supports this.

Thank you for proving my point.

Can we agree to disagree now, and try to stop with the attempts to discredit one another? Information is out there. How the individuals choose to interpret it is subjective.

The fact remains that this will never be resolved to unanimous satisfaction for all.

What we're about to find out is if an individual is responsible for their own actions.

Thanks For Discussing.

 

[Stage5Clinger]

Enough already!!!!

I think what will screw the defense in this situation is that the waiver that they signed, according to the lawyer representing, is that the waiver was for reproduction of audio and visual rights and details along those lines, and not for liablity regarding the health of the participants. In fact, the lawyer specifically addressed that in no way was that point even brought up in the waiver paperwork that they signed prior to the contest. And that's why everyone has their panties in such a wad over this thing. Because the audio shows a callousness towards the unknowing participants. That's why the jocks are being sued too. They were heard just not giving a eff and instead making a mockery of the fact that someone might die, on the air. It shows malicious intent. You know someone has the possibility of dying, but you make light of it and do it anyway. It's the old "it'll never happen to me (or to us)."It's like the street racing incident that happened in Folsom a couple of days later. The drivers knew they were risking lives, but they did it anyway. Malice aforethought? Maybe. Isn't that the prerequisite to constitute 3rd degree murder? And Neanderpaul, you can extrapolate anything you'd like from the web, but the bottom line is that overconsumption of water will kill you. Any personal trainer, military person, or doctor will attest to that. It doesn't matter how much you pee or puke, it dilutes the electrolytes and eventually will kill you no matter what diet you're following. And please honor your posting that says that you will no longer post on this topic. You've looked ridiculous enough already, don'tcha think?

 

[SirRoxalot]

Reading Comprehension

I'll only respond with information contained within your posted links on this subject. All of which reiterate my contention of personal responsibility.

"The bottom line is this: it's possible to drink too much water, but unless you are running a marathon or an infant, water intoxication is a very uncommon condition."

Consuming as little as 1.8 litres of water (0.48 gal) in a single sitting may prove fatal for a person adhering to a low-sodium diet, or 3 litres (0.79 gallons) for a person on a normal diet.

Again. The individual would be adhering to a self-imposed diet regimen that would contribute to the result.

If you fail to read and understand plain English, I guess that I can't help you.

What part of "Consuming as little as 1.8 litres of water (0.48 gal) in a single sitting may prove fatal for a person adhering to a low-sodium diet, or 3 litres (0.79 gallons) for a person on a normal diet" don't you understand? Drinking .79 gallons of water in a single sitting may prove fatal for anybody. A "normal diet" is NOT a "self-imposed diet regimen", it's what people normally eat.

It's in the 3rd paragraph of the first Google listing.


The second Google listing starts out with:

Can You Really Drink Too Much Water?

In a word, yes. Drinking too much water can lead to a condition known as water intoxication and to a related problem resulting from the dilution of sodium in the body, hyponatremia.

There's also an entire paragraph on the first page, toward the bottom, as a subtopic with its own headline:

It's Not How Much You Drink, It's How Fast You Drink It!

The kidneys of a healthy adult can process fifteen liters of water a day! You are unlikely to suffer from water intoxication, even if you drink a lot of water, as long as you drink over time as opposed to intaking an enormous volume at one time.

Any reasonable person would say "Hey, this could be dangerous. Maybe we'd better check it out."

Some people can justify anything in their own minds. I'm sorry if you or friends of yours were involved in this matter. I'm sure that this situation is devastating for them, but not as devastating as it is to the family of the victim.

I have nothing more to say on this matter except that I hope that people in our industry are paying attention, and that nothing like this is ever allowed to happen again.

 

[RealTime]

The reason Jack FM is doing so well in Sacramento is NO annoying deejays. It's whooping on The Zone and KWOD. Seems like there are an awful lot of narcissistic, untalented, uneducated radio personalities these days. Some morning show personalities' egos are just out of control. The listeners like to fawn over them and tell them how great they are and I think it "goes to their head". [EDIT]. BIG STARS! They think of their listeners as numbers, as in arbitron, instead of actual people. I believe this was the case in the Hold Your Wii contest. The audio recording is disturbing and makes you hate the Morning Rave, or Haze. I have compassion for all parties involved in this stunt gone wrong, even the idiots on the End. I wonder if they really care about what happened? I wonder if this will be a life changing experience for them? Doesn't seem like the Morning Rave is mounting much of a defense thus far. I'm sure the attorney for Entercom will be trying to "dig up dirt" on Jennifer Strange for the upcoming trial. I bet it will get ugly.

Don't know how anybody could actually defend what the Morning Rave did. All the warning signs were there. Why do this contest in the first place?


[EDIT-offensive content]