• 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

Lawyer for Water Intoxication Lawsuit sends a letter to the FCC.

Shooty:

It is not in the public interest, nor in a DJ's interest, to do a stunt that results in a listener's death.

I don't find it a bit entertaining. Sorry.
 
These contests have gone on for decades.

Had this woman not accidentally died due to a terrible decision by multiple parties, this topic would never have been tabled.

All of you who feign outrage at this...where were you prior to her death while radio contests that placed listeners in potential danger took place all over America every day? How many of you cared when stations did "live in it to win it" promotions where deep vein thrombosis could've caused clotting, heart attack or stroke?

Your outrage is manufactured. It's uneccessary drama for drama's sake. It makes you all sound foolish. Like vultures swooping in to have your voices heard during a time of pain & suffering. Very opportunistic really. In my opinion...pathetic.

If you had no problem on January 11th with these contests, you should all pipe down. Because your credibility is nonexistent.

A woman has died. Her death was (and it is still alleged..we have to wait and hear the final autopsy results) due to an extremely rare condition. And it was also partially due to her own choice to voluntarily participate in a contest. She did leave the station after the contest, and nobody knows what activities she engaged in between her decision to withdraw from the competition and when she was found. She also allegedly worked in the medical field. There's enough question to her decision-making process, and her individual ignorance to the potential ramifications of her actions that a courtroom trial will end up causing additional stress upon her family.

In my opinion, this will never make it to court. Whomever the insurance company that holds liability policies for safety will step in and write the check. It's their choice as insurance provider whether or not to fight any civil case. That's what insurance companies do.

Criminal liability is another matter. I don't believe this accident will be proven to be anything other than a contest gone wrong. I believe the public is sympathetic to all of the human beings involved in this tragedy. I believe they will feel for everyone involved and wouldn't convict.

But, I could be wrong.

In any event. It's something everyone in radio should be watching, as it affects us all. And everyone in radio that took no issue with this brand of contesting prior to this tragedy should shut up about it. Your outrage comes across as self-serving & disingenuous. It's embarrassing.
 
Sorry, but I have raised issue before with these types of contests and stunts.

Many companies I have worked for required us to send stunts and contests up the chain of command for approval, before we could put them on the air. They had to pass "legal"...happened many times. Sadly, apparently, just not this time.

I did mispeak earlier, however and wanted to correct myself. The part of the FCC law that forbids a radio station to place a listener in jeopardy is not in Part 73. According to my engineering sources, it is in Part 0, which was adopted around the time of the payola/plugola hearings of the 1950's. Last time we looked, it's still law.

True...we don't know what will happen in the courts and with the Commission (though I suspect the FCC will try to dodge this one like it's no tomorrow. They seem reticent to
enforce any laws these days, unless you choose to let an F-bomb loose on the air!),
but I reserve my right to speak out about responsible broadcasting here. That, to me, is the issue. The lawyers can argue about the rest.

It is not responsible broadcasting to air a stunt in which a listener dies.
 
Neanderpaul said:
These contests have gone on for decades.

Had this woman not accidentally died due to a terrible decision by multiple parties, this topic would never have been tabled.

All of you who feign outrage at this...where were you prior to her death while radio contests that placed listeners in potential danger took place all over America every day? How many of you cared when stations did "live in it to win it" promotions where deep vein thrombosis could've caused clotting, heart attack or stroke?

Your outrage is manufactured. It's uneccessary drama for drama's sake. It makes you all sound foolish. Like vultures swooping in to have your voices heard during a time of pain & suffering. Very opportunistic really. In my opinion...pathetic.

If you had no problem on January 11th with these contests, you should all pipe down. Because your credibility is nonexistent.

A woman has died. Her death was (and it is still alleged..we have to wait and hear the final autopsy results) due to an extremely rare condition. And it was also partially due to her own choice to voluntarily participate in a contest. She did leave the station after the contest, and nobody knows what activities she engaged in between her decision to withdraw from the competition and when she was found. She also allegedly worked in the medical field. There's enough question to her decision-making process, and her individual ignorance to the potential ramifications of her actions that a courtroom trial will end up causing additional stress upon her family.

In my opinion, this will never make it to court. Whomever the insurance company that holds liability policies for safety will step in and write the check. It's their choice as insurance provider whether or not to fight any civil case. That's what insurance companies do.

Criminal liability is another matter. I don't believe this accident will be proven to be anything other than a contest gone wrong. I believe the public is sympathetic to all of the human beings involved in this tragedy. I believe they will feel for everyone involved and wouldn't convict.

But, I could be wrong.

In any event. It's something everyone in radio should be watching, as it affects us all. And everyone in radio that took no issue with this brand of contesting prior to this tragedy should shut up about it. Your outrage comes across as self-serving & disingenuous. It's embarrassing.
Click to expand...

Dead on. 100% correct. This is piling on.
 
Piling on? I think not.

I've said that those directly involved with setting up this STUPID contest should suffer legal consequences...Whatever those may be. I know they didn't intend for Jennifer Strange to die. Were they negligent? By a mile.

My outrage is not manufactured...I've always felt these types of contests were moronic. I always thought it was a matter of time before something awful happened.

What's pathetic to me is the cynicism displayed toward listeners by those of you who are screaming about "personal responsibility".

"Well, she entered the contest! It's nobody's fault but her own!"

Some heavy duty rationalizing in those arguments. I guess it's too much to ask that we value our listeners and make our promotions/contests safe for them to be involved in.

--DM
 
Agreed, But do you think any radio staion would put on a contest where somebody could die?

Have you or your station ever been involved in a " Sit in it to win it" contest?

Rememeber when these were all the rage. Somebody could have easily died of a blod clot doing those.

I still think that the contestant is mostly to blame.
 
wcrzx said:
Have you or your station ever been involved in a " Sit in it to win it" contest?

Rememeber when these were all the rage. Somebody could have easily died of a blod clot doing those.
Click to expand...

Any "Sit in it to win it" contest I've ever been involved with, or seen, had periodic breaks for contestants to allow them to eliminate bodily waste, stretch, move around, and change positions to avoid Deep Vein Thromobosis and other maladies. Any contest of that nature that I've been involved with had at least an EMT standing by to evaluate contestants who might be suffering from discomfort.

I still think that the contestant is mostly to blame.
Click to expand...

Any many - if not most - of us still think that you're wrong.
 
Folks, step back one moment. Forget liability--civil or criminal.

If we're talking about the FCC, the letter goes to the licensee's fitness--a vague term of art used to determine who has the money, community standing, political power, and most "i"s dotted and "t"s crossed in their application. But fitness is a continually judged pattern of conduct, concerning operations, programming content, community reception and service, complaints, and the like.

It may be affected by liability for on-air contests. Or there may be no liability at all and there's still a licensee fitness issue.

Whether this contest was a problem before isn't an issue to the FCC. The fact is, the contest happened, the management of the station knew it was happening, or was naively ignorant, or was willfully unaware of what constituted the contest. This may be a matter on its own--which is probably is--or it may be one of numerous issues with the licensee of the station. Running by the FCC's own database, there is an outstanding renewal license, with at least one proper Objection and Motion for Denial from the public.

What's to say that this won't spark more letters of objection...or that the FCC won't review anew the status of Entercom's renewal?

Remember, we're dealing with the FCC's own procedures here, not courtroom process, legal standards, or common sense saying "don't do that". We're talking about the Commission finding that the licensee knew how to operate a radio station, and putting the faith in that station's ownership and management that it knew what it was doing.

We'll see whether that results in anything to Entercom, but for now, EVERYTHING is on the table and can be looked at to determine whether this station violated the public trust and public interest in conduct itself in this manner.
 
From Kevin Foder:
It is not in the public interest, nor in a DJ's interest, to do a stunt that results in a listener's death.

I don't find it a bit entertaining. Sorry.

No need to apolgize for your lack of sense of humor.
NO ONE HAS SAID THE DJ'S DID THIS STUNT TO END UP KILLING SOMEONE. The point was holding themselves the longest. YOU may not find that entertaining, but take a look at the station's demographic. That audience would find that contest entertaining. The death, as tragic as it is, was an unfortunate result, UNFORESEEN, by everyone involved apparently.
 
That audience would find that contest entertaining.
Click to expand...

"Would" is too conclusory and final. "Might" would be a better word. The audience "might" find that entertaining. Of course, if the audience didn't tune in (did they?), it goes against that point.

The death, as tragic as it is, was an unfortunate result, UNFORESEEN, by everyone involved apparently
Click to expand...
.

Death of this sort is not, actually, all that unforeseen. Did the hosts or management consult medical authority in a typical risk management sense to see if death would be unforeseen? Did they screen each participant's health records and prior conditions?

These are the legal questions that will come out of this. It's hardly conclusive proof that death was "unforeseen"--even if, as another poster here mentioned, this contest was done before.

An ordinary reasonable person would take those precautions of getting medical advice and medically screening participants. Unless it's been kept out of the public, that didn't happen here--by hosts or management.

To my legal eye, that's prime territory for possible liability.
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.


Back
Top Bottom