-
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
Drinking Contest Verdict Due At 1:45PM {Pacific Time}
- Thread starter BurnedOutOnTheBoards
- Start date
CHRles said:
But don't you think that once the issue of water intoxication was raised, that they should have considered the possibilitie that this contest was placing the participants at risk? Does that not make the company as sponsors of its agents (morning show) liable for damages? Let's say you agree with that because you've already stated the the contest should never have been run.
A jury came to the conclusion that tthis is the case also. They then sat in a room for days, very carefully calculating the value of this human life that was lost in terms of long term potential income, and then came to a conclusion that also considered many other factors, including pain and suffering, loss of mothering (that's not the legal term but maybe something you'll understand), and then tacked on punitive damages. Punitive damages are meant to punish, which this jury believed were appropriate. I have fored a jury in a case that involved some of these things (didn't involve a death) and I can tell you that a jury works very hard to come to a balance.
I'll tell you one thing I'll make a bet on right here, and that's that no station will ever pull this stunt again. It's too bad the Strange family had to lose a wife, mother, and best friend over it. But if only these idiots had done a little research first......
"Idiot" is the operative word here. The brain child behind this stupidity is Steve Weed. It was his idea (which he probably got from someone else...he doesn't have the chops to come up with his own ideas). This is the kind of crap, small market radio that turns most broadcasting professional's stomachs, and gives the business a bad name. Congratulations Steve...your promotion not only solidifies you as a complete loser, but has resulted in a tragedy. Good luck getting out of Dayton any time soon.
If you want to know why radio stations are firing air staffs all over the country, and replacing them with computers that just play the same songs over and over, this is why. You can't get fined $16 million if you don't have stupid airstaffs who run stupid contests that might accidently kill someone. This will lead to more firings, less chances taken on the air, and more bland radio whose only crime will be that it will bore its listeners to death.
radiochick1 said:
TheBigA said:
Sorry, radiochick, but you sound like someone with a personal ax to grind. Read very carefully what BigA is saying. The stupidity of the airstaff manifested itself in their reckless dismissal of a warning that came directly from a nurse who called in and said "people can die from drinking too much water." The response of one of the co-hosts was that the contestants signed waivers so "we're not responsible." That was not Steve Weed who said that at 6 in the morning; that was an air talent who went for a punchline rather than stop in his tracks and stop the contest. You can't later testify that you'd never heard of water intoxification. What do you mean you'd never heard of it? You just had a nurse tell you about it. I'd love to hear how that on-air exchange at that moment is the PD's fault.
I'm not defending Steve Weed. He was fired, and probably should've been, but if none of these people knew about water intoxification --including the contestants-- they had a chance to find out when the nurse called, and the took a pass for the sake of what I can just picture BigA calling, dumbass DJ radio.
I don't know BigA and sometimes, based on his comments around this web site, I think he's a pompous ass, but I'm guessing he ain't no jock. He's in management and he may be one of those arrogant management types who has nothing but contempt for music radio air talent. Yet, every time someone tells him his contempt is misplaced, he just has to point to unthinking people like the Morning Rave, who probably thought they were just brilliant with their clever "wee for a wii" play on words. Oh, cut the crap.
Years ago, the running joke to shut up some ego maniac was tell them, "shuddup and play the hits." No one has to tell you now; they just fire the jock and play the hits. Air talent forgets --employees forget-- that you are hired to help solve management's problems, not create new ones. Broadcasting is a profession first and a playground for ego-stroking second --a distant second, in my view-- and this morning show violated one of the most important rules of the profession: They weren't listening.
Oh, and I still you're a pompous ass, BigA, but you're no dummy. ;D
Radio engineer, thank you for an intelligent response 
Also, kudos to everyone else debating the issue in a civil manner.
I understand that this issue is something you're not taking lightly. I agree with you that mistakes, bad judgments, and stupidity were involved. I'm not arguing that with you. The sum of money that is expected to be dished out, as well as the behavior of the radio industry as a whole, as well as its listeners, are the issues I wanted to raise.
Also, kudos to everyone else debating the issue in a civil manner.I understand that this issue is something you're not taking lightly. I agree with you that mistakes, bad judgments, and stupidity were involved. I'm not arguing that with you. The sum of money that is expected to be dished out, as well as the behavior of the radio industry as a whole, as well as its listeners, are the issues I wanted to raise.
kinetic said:
You're wrong. But the fact is that this verdict hurts radio air talent far worse than any arrogant manager ever could. It quantifies in very real numbers how much one bad idea can cost. While DJs do things that cost their employers money, whether it's a court decision like this, or an FCC fine for indecency, or advertising for their opinions and controversial statements, the revenues for radio in general continue to drop. At some point, you don't need an MBA to see that the costs are begining to exceed the revenues. That's certainly the case in Sacramento.
CHRles said:Radio engineer, thank you for an intelligent response
I understand that this issue is something you're not taking lightly. I agree with you that mistakes, bad judgments, and stupidity were involved. I'm not arguing that with you. The sum of money that is expected to be dished out, as well as the behavior of the radio industry as a whole, as well as its listeners, are the issues I wanted to raise.
Good! And thank you for your intelligent and nonemotional response, and I apologize for suggesting in an earlier post that you're a ditto head. Ad hominum attacks are never productive.
I'm not sure what issues you would like to raise regarding the radio industry as a whole and its listeners. Those are indeed broad topics with many, many potential side issues. I guess the one where we come to disagreement is the amount of the award.
As I said, I fored a jury where an award was in question. To simplify the issue there, it was a claimed severe neck injury resultant of a fender bender. They wanted several hundred thousand dollars and I wanted to give the plaiintiff nothing. The jury reached an agreement of a $20,000 award after three days of deliberation. Many of us thought he deserved nothing, some of us thought he deserved something. We came to an agreement that didn't even cover his expert witness fees, and which had actually been suggested as a fair amount by the defense attorney. This is how these things go down in the jury room.
As to the $16 million award to the family of Ms. Strange, and not having been part of the deliberations or heard the jury instructions, I can agree that $16 million is a big number. As we have all been aware, this contest has been run numerous times without a prior death involved, but this one did. Part of what is exposed here is the amount of risk in this, and part of the punitive award by the jury may have come from their recognition of this risk, and their intent to send a message that this type of risk (it could involve many other types of contests) is unacceptable in exposing an "ignorant" (Websters: ignorant, lacking of knowledge) public to a hazardous enterprise. This is what happened in the case of Ms. Strange. She didn't know she could die from this, assumed it was safe as it was conducted by an entity entrusted with "serving the public interest", and then all the dominoes fell. She was certainly a willing participant and should have, perhaps, made some effort to research the potential pitfalls. I say "perhaps" because I know I would have, but not all people think to consider the ramifications when they're enthusiastic about competing for a prize being offered by what they perceive to be a responsible organization. There is also the "celebrity" factor of being a participant in one of these radio promotions. You and I may not be so impressed, but many people are. So she may have done something for "celebrity" she may not normally have done without the catalyst of it being a station promotion and an opportunity to be involved in the "Morning Rave." I hope I got that morning show name right.
As circular as what I just wrote sounds is as confusing and complicated as this issue really is.
So to the $16 mil. I think it's a fair number because I've been there to struggle with a similar issue, and it certainly sends a message to all stations that endangering the public with reckless promotions is over. She had an actual forward earnings value based on accepted actuarial tables, there is a loss to her children, husband, friends and other relatives for loss of emotional comfort, and an element of punitive award to say to all, not just Entercom, that this is unacceptable and we're sending a very strong message that we're warning you not to do this again. All of these things in the collective mind of the jury added up to $16 million. If the judge in the case hadn't agreed he could have changed it on the spot, not that that happens very often.
This is, IMHO, the best of the American judicial system at work. Sometimes we get it wrong, but mostly we get it right. When there's a better way, I'll gladly walk down to the courthouse steps carrying a sign of protest with you.
I'll tell you from my own experiences that this jury worked very hard and didn't have a good time doing it, but they did the best they could, and I think they got it right. I would also bet that Mr. Strange would gladly not have the money or the event in his life if he could just have his wife and mother of his kids back.
Have a good weekend bro.
TheBigA said:
Most people would be content to say "I'm not in management," not, "You're wrong." It's a difference in attitude that many people practice and many others would appreciate. It still doesn't escape the larger point. Air talent must think collectively. Every time a single jock does something stupid, it reinforces a pre-existing condition and a long established precedent held by the majority of those who are not in programming: DJs cause problems and all are expendable. Today, you can replace them without hiring another jock. When one jock screws up, it hurts all jocks.
TheBigA said:
It's no surprise that sooner or later our friend A would seize the opportunity to use the dysfunction of these particular morning show boobs as an indictment of all air talent, especially those who consistently demonstrate responsibility and accountability in their daily performances and decisions. To an extent, I understand A's observation, although I seriously wonder if jocks who were a little bit older, wiser and more experienced would have made the same foolish and costly decision to continue this contest, especially after hearing a medical professional call in and warn the jocks and participants about the adverse effects of "water poisoning" or hyponatremia.
Unfortunately, many a CEO, RVP and GM will, like A, use this scenario and logic to terminate mature, productive and responsible air talent. We know that most jocks have not and do not resort to Wee For a Wii antics which endanger their listeners' health and lives or put their companies at risk.
We also know that most jocks are being fired because the CEO's exhibited irresponsible decision-making and put their companies at risk as their companies cannot maintain the debt service associated with rapid expansion.
As to the jury, it appears the members judiciously weighed the amount of the award requested by the plaintiff's attorneys and arrived at a number that would assuage both plaintiff and defense while giving themselves the satisfaction of having arrived at a proper moral, ethical and financial decision.
Hopefully all broadcasters, management and air talent, have learned a valuable lesson from this sad event. It may have set a precedent for programming and promotion personnel. How many times in the future, when planning a promotion or big event, might the words, "We don't want another Sacramento Wii incident here" be said? We can only hope.
Element9 said:
How old is Imus? Not to equate his particular stupidity with that of these boobs, but the result was about the same.
It's been my experience that stupidity is not a function of age or experience. There are some very resonsible young people, and some very irresponsible older people.
Element9 said:
Yet companies that have no debt problem, such as Larry Wilson's new Alpha company, are also firing jocks, and this is a trend that precedes the current debt crisis.
TheBigA said:
Imus?! A man whose brain, by his own admission, has been addled as a result of abusing vodka and nose candy?! :
Please note that I used the words "mature, productive and responsible" when referring to air talent that might have discontinued the promotion after the nurse called the program to warn of potential harmful effects.Element9 said:TheBigA said:
Imus?! A man whose brain, by his own admission, has been addled as a result of abusing vodka and nose candy?! :
I'm not sure age is a factor. I don't know about A's motives or agenda nor do I care nor is it germane. His observation is a cautionary tale whether fair, unfair, true or not. Air staffers have a reputation, and even if it's a stereotype, I'll bet you'd be hard pressed to find someone in management that doesn't have a horror story to tell. And it doesn't matter how many broadcasters you point to that are responsible, mature and remain true to the craft. It just takes one incident, which then gets magnified by headlines, either in the industry or nationally in the general media, as both Imus and this contest did.
It's like air travel. No one notices all the flights that arrive safely and on time, without incident. It's the plane crash that makes the front page. In radio, the analogous equivalent is an incident like the Wii contest but unlike the airline industry where people fly again, in radio, management, boards of directors and those who work in more rarified air just see a crash and burn incident like this contest and paint all air talent with the same broad brush. I'll say it again: broadcasting is a profession, but not all its practitioners act like professionals.
kinetic said:
And I'll say what I've said before too: On-air people need to form a professional association. Not a union, but an association, that sets standards for those who call themselves talent. You can't be a professional without meeting certain standards.Teachers, doctors, lawyers, accountants all meet professional standards. Membership would require passing a test, and acceptance of professional rules. That way, you'd become a "certified broadcasting professional." Employers would have something objective to judge talent.
Broadcasting lost a lot when the 3rd phone license was eliminated. This new association would seek to re-establish a sense of professionalism to something that's become just another job. Owners get a lot of blame for falling down on public service, but how many on-air staffers would really know what to do if a disaster happened? Would they all know the difference between giving life-saving information or simply creating hysteria? I don't know.
I concur with A's Third Ticket pronouncement (sweet jeebus, send up a flare and mark the calender) but what would you expect from a person whose moniker is Element9? As to a CPB, not a bad idea, but a better indicator might be one's personal and professional conduct as well as past performance. I've signed a few contracts that contained moral turpitude clauses. Never a problem, not that I'm a saint. What about a similar certification requirement for RVPs and General Managers, more than a few of whom are lice and vermin.TheBigA said:
Element9 said:
They have their MBAs and JDs. And you have to consider who they work for in judging their character.
I'm not asking for morality here. I'm asking for professional standards. Even a plumber has to meet certain standards before he can fix your toilet. Today, anyone can call themself a DJ. They don't need a college degree or a major in a field. That damages the credibility of the people who do it, and it reduces those who know what they're doing to the level of those who don't. The government is not going to reintroduce the 3rd phone, but there are a lot of non-technical responsibilities that need to be assessed before a person gets hired. This has to come from within the people who do the job, and it would help define them as professionals. If people are going to call themselves professionals, they have to act like it, and have something that sets them apart from the amateurs. I suggest membership in a professional association would be a start.
When the FCC years ago scaled back and eventually eliminated operator licensing requirements, it argued that the industry would police itself. We've seen how that worked out.TheBigA said:
As to GMs and RVPs having MBAs and JDs, I've worked for more than a few, some better than others, but not one had a JD and only two had MBAs'. Most were BS, BA and AA degreed. Speaking of certification, the JD is an impressive degree, but a state's bar certificate is the ultimate reward for three years of the paper chase.
One of the best managers for whom I've worked had no college degree, but was educated on the streets and in the trenches. He was one of the most effective GMs and one of the most ethical people I've met. A person can have three college degrees and still be a consumate jerk, a horrible GM, CFO, CEO or RVP and steal his employees, employer and shareholders blind.
Element9: Well Said! A M E N !
Element9 said:
Speaking of that, let's get back to air talent creating a professional association where they create standards and police themselves. Or are you waiting for "corporate" to do it for you? It's obvious that the rank & file are going to complain about anything forced on them from above. Why won't the workers set up something on their own?
- Status