• 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

Don Geronimo Fired from Big 100

Meanwhile, iHeart has posted the job opening for Big 100 mornings:
radioinsight.com

WBIG-FM Washington Begins Morning Show Search - RadioInsight

Following the firing of Don Geronimo over the comments made on-air about a local television reporter, iHeartMedia Classic Rock "Big 100" WBIG-FM Washington DC is beginning the search for a new morning host. iHeartMedia Washington Director of Rock Programming Dustin Matthews asks, "Are you...
radioinsight.com radioinsight.com

For now, filling in mornings is Ron "Big Rig" Michaels (weekday afternoon host)
with Albie Dee filling in afternoons.
 
MarkW said:
The fact this was considered a firable offense is absurd, in my opinion. The comments were inappropriate but not outrageously so.

I also am suspicious as to the sincerity of McBride's offense to the remarks.
Click to expand...
IMO, it's only considered "Offensive" in the sense that her name isn't Barbie or even Barbara. If it was, then it wouldn't be the least bit offensive but simply a matter of fact.

And considering the name "Cheerleader" to be "Offensive"?? Really?? C'mon. The VERY JOB of the local media IS to be something of a cheerleader & support the team. That's because THE FANS ARE HER VIEWERS

I know the Commanders front office wants to scrub EVERY LAST BIT of Dan Snyder's legacy but THERE IS such a thing as NIT PICKING & that's what this appears to be based on what we know
 
JeeperOne said:
IMO, it's only considered "Offensive" in the sense that her name isn't Barbie or even Barbara. If it was, then it wouldn't be the least bit offensive but simply a matter of fact.

And considering the name "Cheerleader" to be "Offensive"?? Really?? C'mon. The VERY JOB of the local media IS to be something of a cheerleader & support the team. That's because THE FANS ARE HER VIEWERS

I know the Commanders front office wants to scrub EVERY LAST BIT of Dan Snyder's legacy but THERE IS such a thing as NIT PICKING & that's what this appears to be based on what we know
Click to expand...
Ask your daughter or your wife or your sister what they’d think of a 65 year old man calling them “Barbie” at their job repeatedly and saying they looked like a cheerleader, and what they’d expect to happen to someone who treated them that way. Better yet, ask your job’s HR department what would happen to you if you called a woman “Barbie” and said she looked like a cheerleader.
 
It’s telling how many people seem to pine for a day when they could insult or harass anyone with impunity. Now that those groups push back and hold the knuckle-dragging clowns to account for what they say, suddenly everyone is too sensitive.

No. They’re not. They’re standing up for themselves and not taking the insults and the abuse silently. Not just going along to try to avoid it getting worse.
 
AbrahamJSimpson said:
It’s telling how many people seem to pine for a day when they could insult or harass anyone with impunity. Now that those groups push back and hold the knuckle-dragging clowns to account for what they say, suddenly everyone is too sensitive.

No. They’re not. They’re standing up for themselves and not taking the insults and the abuse silently. Not just going along to try to avoid it getting worse.
Click to expand...

Without getting too political, the primary appeal of a certain high-profile candidate for elective office was that he gave these people permission to be their worst selves.
 
Don Geronimo at 64 is highly unlikely to find another high-profile job due to his track record. Maybe the most fitting consequence of his past actions will be what most people will remember about him when future generations look up Don Geronimo. A quick Google search brings up a first page loaded with article after article with headlines like 'fired', 'sacked', 'sexist', disparaging', etc.. His Radio legacy being the last line of his Wikipedia page:

"In July 2023, WBIG-FM fired Geronimo after he made sexist comments about a WUSA9 sports reporter."[26]
 
michael hagerty said:
Without getting too political, the primary appeal of a certain high-profile candidate for elective office was that he gave these people permission to be their worst selves.
Click to expand...
Not all of them needed permission - some of them were that way for a long time and just kept being that way because (much like Don Geronimo) they either got rewarded for it, or never got enough pushback from others to make it worthwhile to them to try being a different way.
 
exdjted said:
Freedom of speech comes with a price. Yes, you can say anything you want, but you can't dictate how the target of your words feels about it. If you say something in public, you may get punched if it offends the wrong person. You could get fired if your actions cast your employer in a negative light. You might be ostracized by society. If that is a risk you're willing to take, that's on you. You don't then get to come back upset that your comments came with consequences.

Don Geronimo has been part of at least 3 lawsuits during his career for his on-air comments. Knowing this, I'm certain iHeart had language in his contract that allowed for termination in a case such as this. He knew this ahead of time. His 'free speech' cost him his livelihood. That's a consequence he earned for his actions.

Yes, we do come at this from a management perspective. If you had been in Radio for any length of time, you would see what we see. The phone calls from listeners of both political stripes who are angry that we dare to air ads for someone they would never vote for in a million years. The drunk redneck who calls you threatening to shoot up your station for airing a news story detailing the court case their hero is involved in. The listener who calls you and says they're going to contact the FCC to take away your license for some perceived slight. Even though they won't follow through, they have made a threat and so you contact your local attorney and your FCC attorney just in case, which costs money. The local auto dealer who calls you angry that a story on the network news at the top of the hour referenced dangerous airbags, and now they're threatening to cancel their buy and sue you because they felt it was a personal attack. Your morning man who calls someone a derogatory name on-air and YOU spend the next week soothing over sponsors, local politicians and the offended party, while your talent says nothing other than sorry, but won't promise not to do it again.

Their freedom of speech, OUR money, time and reputation. That's why we come at this from this perspective. Also, because we're decent human beings who don't think it's funny to degrade or dehumanize somebody for who they are, what they look like, or what color they are.

If someone doesn't care what people think of them, about having a job, a good reputation, or possibly getting physical retribution for something they said, then they have freedom of speech. But don't be shocked when the bill for it comes due.
Click to expand...

This is all correct.

It also makes me want to live a life in which every single one of my relationships is as minimal and transactional as possible.
 
MassMusicMan said:
This is all correct.

It also makes me want to live a life in which every single one of my relationships is as minimal and transactional as possible.
Click to expand...
It's all about becoming more self-aware and not opening your mouth without thinking first. Back in the early days of 'shock jocks' guys could get away with demeaning, sexist, and rude behavior. Many of these guys thought they were Teflon because their show was bringing in big revenue. Well guess what, those days are long over, and Teflon may actually cause cancer.
 
Kelly A said:
I'm not sure it's necessary to replace an old school rock jock with another old school rock jock. As they saw with Don, there's always the risk of lack of self awareness when dealing with the public.
Click to expand...

The difference is that Geronimo had heritage in DC and with the team, while the new guy does not. Which makes him potentially safer.

So he's less likely to interact the way Geronimo did.
 
TheBigA said:
The difference is that Geronimo had heritage in DC and with the team, while the new guy does not. Which makes him potentially safer.

So he's less likely to interact the way Geronimo did.
Click to expand...
For their sake, I hope your assumption is correct. I have to believe the new guy likely heard about what Geronimo did, and will learn from it.
 
Isn't Don Geronimo something like 65 years old? If radio stations really don't want listeners over 45 at the oldest, are any listeners going to think that he is still relevant?
Imus kept going with his shock jock routine and "politically incorrect" comments until he was about 78. Michael Savage retired in 2020 at about age 78. They all had attitude against women and people of color that Don Geronimo does. But, I don't know how many listeners will actually follow Don Geronimo to his next station for his next morning zoo routine. JMO.
 
Maybe he’ll do a podcast. As repugnant as his comments were, I’d enjoy hearing him on Frank Murphy’s podcast or Frank’s new afternoon show. Don seemed to me to carry the Don and Mike show, and I still think he’s more talented than Mike is.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom