I find it real disturbing that radio professionals don't see any legal risks with the bit that "Slick" did on WLTO. I haven't followed the case but it will probably be settled out of court as most civil cases are. However if you really think that the lady has no chance you really need to get educated on the laws of our country. I suggest http://www.findlaw.com, its an excellent resource I used in my business law class in my MBA program.
-
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
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
For the "legal" experts here
- Thread starter titoisradio
- Start date
> I find it real disturbing that radio professionals don't see
> any legal risks with the bit that "Slick" did on WLTO. I
> haven't followed the case but it will probably be settled
> out of court as most civil cases are. However if you really
> think that the lady has no chance you really need to get
> educated on the laws of our country. I suggest
> http://www.findlaw.com, its an excellent resource I used in
> my business law class in my MBA program.
>
Agreed 100%. I am not a litigious person, in fact I feel strongly that the legal system has been abused in general, but this lady has a case! I have a good paying job and I would probably be in emotional distress if I spent 24 hrs thinking I had won $100,000 only to find out it was just a joke. Imagine how you would feel if you were broke and told your kids the family was getting a car, and they could have new shoes and clothes, and get the toys they always wanted...you get the point...
From what I've read she was lead to believe she won cash not candy....
"What are you going to buy with your 100 Grand", etc.
> any legal risks with the bit that "Slick" did on WLTO. I
> haven't followed the case but it will probably be settled
> out of court as most civil cases are. However if you really
> think that the lady has no chance you really need to get
> educated on the laws of our country. I suggest
> http://www.findlaw.com, its an excellent resource I used in
> my business law class in my MBA program.
>
Agreed 100%. I am not a litigious person, in fact I feel strongly that the legal system has been abused in general, but this lady has a case! I have a good paying job and I would probably be in emotional distress if I spent 24 hrs thinking I had won $100,000 only to find out it was just a joke. Imagine how you would feel if you were broke and told your kids the family was getting a car, and they could have new shoes and clothes, and get the toys they always wanted...you get the point...
From what I've read she was lead to believe she won cash not candy....
"What are you going to buy with your 100 Grand", etc.
> From what I've read she was lead to believe she won cash not
> candy....
>
> "What are you going to buy with your 100 Grand", etc.
>
'
If that was the question asked, it a no brainer. The problem with todays younger talents, is, most of them don't have any common sense. There was a time when a talent might use a bit that was close, but they knew how not to cross that line.
Since it is not normal to buy anything with a candy bar, one can only assume that the talent was talking about cash, or something that had cash value.
I am only sorry I am not on that jury in Lexington, I would give the woman her 100 grand, and also major punitive to Cumulus, for being stupid, and not controlling the product on the air.
> candy....
>
> "What are you going to buy with your 100 Grand", etc.
>
'
If that was the question asked, it a no brainer. The problem with todays younger talents, is, most of them don't have any common sense. There was a time when a talent might use a bit that was close, but they knew how not to cross that line.
Since it is not normal to buy anything with a candy bar, one can only assume that the talent was talking about cash, or something that had cash value.
I am only sorry I am not on that jury in Lexington, I would give the woman her 100 grand, and also major punitive to Cumulus, for being stupid, and not controlling the product on the air.
> > From what I've read she was lead to believe she won cash
> not
> > candy....
> >
> > "What are you going to buy with your 100 Grand", etc.
> >
> '
> If that was the question asked, it a no brainer. The
> problem with todays younger talents, is, most of them don't
> have any common sense. There was a time when a talent might
> use a bit that was close, but they knew how not to cross
> that line.
>
> Since it is not normal to buy anything with a candy bar, one
> can only assume that the talent was talking about cash, or
> something that had cash value.
>
> I am only sorry I am not on that jury in Lexington, I would
> give the woman her 100 grand, and also major punitive to
> Cumulus, for being stupid, and not controlling the product
> on the air.
>
Also another point is how was this bit entertaining to anyone if the cat was never let out of the bag that he was talking about a candy bar. A joke is not funny if the only person that knows about it is the person pulling it. This would be like Punk'd pulling a prank but instead of stopping it at the end continue letting the person believe whatever the prank is, such as in cases where law enforcement actors are used, actually taking the person to jail. Had slick told the woman on the phone that it was a candy bar or said that it was a candy bar right before he took the calls for the winner he would have had a more entertaining bit asking people what they would have done with a hundred grand before giving it away and letting the cat out of the bag that it was the candy bar and not a large sum of cash. Hell he could have opened his show telling everyone that it was a candy bar and still would have got the same type of calls that would have been just as funny if not funnier.
It saddens me to see so many people defending a jock when he clearly made a mistake. It doesn't make him evil or anything like that but he clearly screwed up in this case. Hopefully he'll land a gig and use more common sense next time.
> not
> > candy....
> >
> > "What are you going to buy with your 100 Grand", etc.
> >
> '
> If that was the question asked, it a no brainer. The
> problem with todays younger talents, is, most of them don't
> have any common sense. There was a time when a talent might
> use a bit that was close, but they knew how not to cross
> that line.
>
> Since it is not normal to buy anything with a candy bar, one
> can only assume that the talent was talking about cash, or
> something that had cash value.
>
> I am only sorry I am not on that jury in Lexington, I would
> give the woman her 100 grand, and also major punitive to
> Cumulus, for being stupid, and not controlling the product
> on the air.
>
Also another point is how was this bit entertaining to anyone if the cat was never let out of the bag that he was talking about a candy bar. A joke is not funny if the only person that knows about it is the person pulling it. This would be like Punk'd pulling a prank but instead of stopping it at the end continue letting the person believe whatever the prank is, such as in cases where law enforcement actors are used, actually taking the person to jail. Had slick told the woman on the phone that it was a candy bar or said that it was a candy bar right before he took the calls for the winner he would have had a more entertaining bit asking people what they would have done with a hundred grand before giving it away and letting the cat out of the bag that it was the candy bar and not a large sum of cash. Hell he could have opened his show telling everyone that it was a candy bar and still would have got the same type of calls that would have been just as funny if not funnier.
It saddens me to see so many people defending a jock when he clearly made a mistake. It doesn't make him evil or anything like that but he clearly screwed up in this case. Hopefully he'll land a gig and use more common sense next time.
To be the "devils adovate" here, whatever happened to "let the buyer (or winner) beware?
On the other hand, I think it is unprofessional for a station to run the rules for a contest at 4 am (or earlier) and have it legal. All disclaimers should be aired when the contest period is on (i.e. the window for the contest is 9am-5pm, the rules should run in that time frame).
The company did not control the promo, and should be punished, but people need to take the attitude of "I'll belive it when I cash the check".
On the other hand, I think it is unprofessional for a station to run the rules for a contest at 4 am (or earlier) and have it legal. All disclaimers should be aired when the contest period is on (i.e. the window for the contest is 9am-5pm, the rules should run in that time frame).
The company did not control the promo, and should be punished, but people need to take the attitude of "I'll belive it when I cash the check".
> To be the "devils adovate" here, whatever happened to "let
> the buyer (or winner) beware?
>
The law has never been "let the buyer beware" otherwise there would never be a case for fraud. Let the buyer beware is good advise but has no legal standing. Also the seller should beware and be aware too when running advertisements and promotions.
> On the other hand, I think it is unprofessional for a
> station to run the rules for a contest at 4 am (or earlier)
> and have it legal. All disclaimers should be aired when the
> contest period is on (i.e. the window for the contest is
> 9am-5pm, the rules should run in that time frame).
Well contest rules that are ran are generic catch all rules for all contests. Specific contest rules for promotions are held in its public file and most stations post the rules on their websites (or should do so). Also how the contest works is usually aired when the contest is being ran.
>
> The company did not control the promo, and should be
> punished, but people need to take the attitude of "I'll
> belive it when I cash the check".
>
I disagree with that. Let's take Ebay, if you bought an item off of there such as an old broadcast board would you take the attitude i'll believe it works when I receive it or are you going to expect the item to work as described in the auction. The same principle would apply here. While jokes and even pranks are sometimes part of the entertainment that radio provides, radio is still a business and should be held accountable for what is promoted, marketed, and advertised(for station promotions not client promotions or products).
> the buyer (or winner) beware?
>
The law has never been "let the buyer beware" otherwise there would never be a case for fraud. Let the buyer beware is good advise but has no legal standing. Also the seller should beware and be aware too when running advertisements and promotions.
> On the other hand, I think it is unprofessional for a
> station to run the rules for a contest at 4 am (or earlier)
> and have it legal. All disclaimers should be aired when the
> contest period is on (i.e. the window for the contest is
> 9am-5pm, the rules should run in that time frame).
Well contest rules that are ran are generic catch all rules for all contests. Specific contest rules for promotions are held in its public file and most stations post the rules on their websites (or should do so). Also how the contest works is usually aired when the contest is being ran.
>
> The company did not control the promo, and should be
> punished, but people need to take the attitude of "I'll
> belive it when I cash the check".
>
I disagree with that. Let's take Ebay, if you bought an item off of there such as an old broadcast board would you take the attitude i'll believe it works when I receive it or are you going to expect the item to work as described in the auction. The same principle would apply here. While jokes and even pranks are sometimes part of the entertainment that radio provides, radio is still a business and should be held accountable for what is promoted, marketed, and advertised(for station promotions not client promotions or products).
- Status
- This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.