• 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

Kimberly & Beck?

One more thing...

License renewal time is when activist groups file objections. Whether the bit was actionable or not, it could have provoked the filing of an objection, which would require a response. That means rounding up airchecks, likely a look at the Public File, an FCC inquiry, and hours of VERY expensive lawyer time. Not to mention time required doing paperwork to comply with the FCC. There's more cost there than meets the eye.

It's like a lawsuit that you don't have to have a chance of winning. If you've got deep enough pockets, or free legal advice from a friendly lawyer, you can cost the other guy so much money that they lose, even if they win.
 
SirRoxalot said:
It's not about music. It's not about art. It's not about public service.
Click to expand...

My only question to you is this: How do you justify what they did as either art or public service? If you can, I'll agree with you. But when a couple of DJs think the airwaves belong to them, and that their listeners are at fault for being offended, you have a problem.
 
TheBigA said:
But we're talking about the public airwaves.
Click to expand...

Art exhibits at publicly funded museums are occasionally the subject of debate. Granted, public outcry can have an exhibit withdrawn, but we as a society generally give broad parameters of acceptance where "art" is concerned.
 
flybynight said:
Art exhibits at publicly funded museums are occasionally the subject of debate. Granted, public outcry can have an exhibit withdrawn, but we as a society generally give broad parameters of acceptance where "art" is concerned.
Click to expand...

That didn't answer the question.

"Schindler's List" was an Academy Award winning movie, so it qualifies as art. When it aired on broadcast TV, it was edited, and warnings were broadcast in advance letting people know that potentially offensive material was about to be shown. That's the difference here. No advance warning, and a tweet from one of the DJs saying the listeners have no rights to being offended. It's their fault. That's why their employers had no choice.
 
Last edited:
TheBigA said:
My only question to you is this: How do you justify what they did as either art or public service? If you can, I'll agree with you. But when a couple of DJs think the airwaves belong to them, and that their listeners are at fault for being offended, you have a problem.
Click to expand...

I don't justify ANYTHING they did. It was simply bad radio. The point is that turning off listeners puts your job in jeopardy. Costing your employer more money than what you're worth will get you fired. The finer points of "freedom of speech" or "freedom of expression" will ALWAYS take a back seat to economic considerations in today's broadcasting world.
 
TheBigA said:
That didn't answer the question.

"Schindler's List" was an Academy Award winning movie, so it qualifies as art. When it aired on broadcast TV, it was edited, and warnings were broadcast in advance letting people know that potentially offensive material was about to be shown. That's the difference here. No advance warning, and a tweet from one of the DJs saying the listeners have no rights to being offended. It's their fault. That's why their employers had no choice.
Click to expand...

Now you're comparing a movie aired during primetime television with a morning show on a rock station? The expectation of WHO is listening or viewing at those two different times in those two different "arenas" renders your comparison invalid.

Time of day and type of outlet has a lot to do with what one can and should expect.
 
flybynight said:
Time of day and type of outlet has a lot to do with what one can and should expect.
Click to expand...

You really don't want to answer, do you?

Morning drive is prime time for radio. Kids are in the car with their parents going to school. What justifies what they said as art or public service?
 
TheBigA said:
You really don't want to answer, do you?

Morning drive is prime time for radio. Kids are in the car with their parents going to school. What justifies what they said as art or public service?
Click to expand...

Do you think I'm defending them? I'm not.
They're bad, as in, UNFUNNY. I was only pointing out that if you bring the word "art" into the discussion, you're going to lose, since "art" can be VERY broadly interpreted. And what morning show---or even entire radio station--is really doing a "public service" these days?

In this day and age where mass shootings seem to happen with regularity, these two dopey DJ's are hardly shocking.

If they were funnier, would you still have a problem with what they said? Because Howard Stern has said FAR worse than these two.
 
Last edited:
flybynight said:
If they were funnier, would you still have a problem with what they said? Because Howard Stern has said FAR worse than these two.
Click to expand...

I think context matters. The thing about Howard is he does a lot of self-depreciating humor. He turns it on himself, not others. I think if they turned it on themselves, that they'd be switching roles thanks to a new insurance plan, it would have been very different.
 
TheBigA said:
It's kind of like trying to control terrorism. One general once said the problem is they know who we are, but we don't know who they are. Kill Osama, and you have 20 more new ones in a week. Like roaches.
Click to expand...

That's a good comparison. It really is a form of terrorism. But as hard as the fight is, we have to fight it. Do you suggest we just give in every time someone demands an air personality get fired? You haven't really given a good example of a time where you would.
 
Why wasn't Limbaugh fired after his addiction problem came to light? Or after the Sandra Fluke fiasco - which is still costing stations money? Simple - he's worth more revenue than any other talker in his daypart. Love him or hate him, people listen. Some advertisers have chosen to avoid his show. Others have replaced them, although not at the same rates. Overall, he brings in money and listeners. Cut him, and he'll end up on your competition, and probably end up as a thorn in your side. I'm not a Limbaugh fan, but I understand how he affects the bottom line. Did stations stand by him through repeated controversies out of loyalty? Hell, no. They stood by him because it was advantageous to their bottom line.
 
Small Market Guy said:
Do you suggest we just give in every time someone demands an air personality get fired? You haven't really given a good example of a time where you would.
Click to expand...

I suggest managers take each situation individually. That's the right thing to do. As I've said from the beginning, these two left themselves no possible defense.

As I said previously, I would support hosts when they do what they're told, or when the issue has nothing to do with their job. Some white supremacist complains because a white host marries a Korean girl, too bad. I support that host. Who he marries is not open for listeners. This Fox News anchor clearly has some personal issues that he's dealing with. I'd support him in seeking help. I'd keep him off the air until he completes his therapy, but I definitely wouldn't fire him. I don't think anyone is calling for him to get fired, either.
 
Last edited:
Good news for all of you hacks that think you can do the job better and cheered when these two were fired: Entercomm is hiring for the morning spot.

Don't come crying to me when you're fired for BS reasons, too.
 
TheBigA said:
I suggest managers take each situation individually. That's the right thing to do. As I've said from the beginning, these two left themselves no possible defense.

As I said previously, I would support hosts when they do what they're told, or when the issue has nothing to do with their job. Some white supremacist complains because a white host marries a Korean girl, too bad. I support that host. Who he marries is not open for listeners. This Fox News anchor clearly has some personal issues that he's dealing with. I'd support him in seeking help. I'd keep him off the air until he completes his therapy, but I definitely wouldn't fire him. I don't think anyone is calling for him to get fired, either.
Click to expand...

Those are good examples, but do you have any from radio? Something a jock said on the air that you'd support them on?
 
SMG, what market are you in? Sheesh - there are calls to the PD after every morning show at some stations because somebody is offended. Nobody gets fired. Sometimes, there's a "WTF were you thinking" conversation. Even in this case, Entercom pulled a blog post by Lonsberry, and he WILL have representatives of the LGBTQ community on his show. THAT should be fun. Lonsberry wasn't fired this time - but he has been in the past.

There is a line. Is it well defined? No, but think about how what you say will affect advertisers, and you'll get a pretty good definition of where that line is. If you cross it you will suffer consequences, which may include firing.
 
SirRoxalot said:
SMG, what market are you in? Sheesh - there are calls to the PD after every morning show at some stations because somebody is offended. Nobody gets fired. Sometimes, there's a "WTF were you thinking" conversation. Even in this case, Entercom pulled a blog post by Lonsberry, and he WILL have representatives of the LGBTQ community on his show. THAT should be fun. Lonsberry wasn't fired this time - but he has been in the past.

There is a line. Is it well defined? No, but think about how what you say will affect advertisers, and you'll get a pretty good definition of where that line is. If you cross it you will suffer consequences, which may include firing.
Click to expand...

Oh, I've gotten calls. We make fun of them in the office all the time.

The guy I replaced was fired for falsely claiming the former mayor was taking kickbacks on a construction project (among other things). It's not like it's impossible to get fired here, but if you're a responsible broadcaster, my company will stick up for you. Because that's what GOOD management will do.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom