Media Bias: Bob Grant denied announced "Lifetime Achievement" Award

[oaktree]

In what can be considered nothing but a plain bias, one of the most influential trade publications in the industry ... R&R ... has backpedaled in the most arrogant way I think I've ever seen in three decades plus of reading trades.

After announcing that WABC's (and talk radios long iconic) Bob Grant had been named to receive a "Lifetime Achievement Award" at its upcoming Talk Radio Seminar in March, R&R today printed a short editorial on its front-page website that after "consideration" ... it was now withdrawing the award after looking further into Mr. Grant's "complete body of work."

I have checked back after sending an email to editor Cyndee Maxwell and, I'm sure, hundreds, if not thousands, of people wrote in protest to R&R as well ... and now, that "editorial" is off the website.

However, it WAS announced (an so remains on the site) that the Rev. Al Sharpton will be part of the Talk Radio Seminar in mid-March as a "panelist" with other talk show hosts in a "Reverse Debate" moderated by ABC's George Stephanopolous.

On the "Sean Hannity Show" today ... Hannity, to his credit, was livid. He had Bob Grant on the air to discuss the decision to rescind the award (after it had been publicized that he would be so honored,) and then, in compelling radio, Hannity played four cuts of Rev. Sharpton who used the "n" word (several times) and lashed out at others in a most racist, bigotted way in front of a fawning, loud and frenzied "congregation" -- caught in the rapture of his fire and brimstone.

ALL of the cuts showed insensitivity, his penchant for using words that one shouldn't use against another being, his dislike for people of certain races and his typical rhetorical rancor.

It took a lot of guts for Hannity and WABC Program Director, Phil Boyce, to air this. Not because it was about a personality who appears nightly on WABC ... but because of the liberties being taken away by the fear mongering of others.

And yet ... where was the double standard consideration of "The Industry Newspaper"? It wasn't there. At all. Except to embarrass and humiliate Bob Grant, WABC and talk radio in general. One may not agree with Mr. Grant's ideology, while other's certainly do, or he wouldn't have been hired (again) after so many years in talk radio as "a pioneer ... an icon," as Mark Levin mentioned tonight.

Nor would he have been "awarded" the honor in the first place.

My letter to R&R ... and, hopefully, you'll send your thoughts both here and to the publication, is as follows:


"When I learned today of R&R withdrawing Mr. Grant's already proclaimed "Lifetime Achiement Award" - after hearing that Rev. Sharpton would be a keynote speaker at the upcoming R&R Talk Radio Seminar (which I have attended,) I was very curious.

Today, in a a very bold move, Sean Hannity broadcast four comments in the voice of Rev. Sharpton that are, needless to say, among the most hateful, racist and bigoted comments I have ever heard. Whether or not they were best for Mr. Hannity to share with an unsuspecting public is best for him to decide. I was offended at what Rev. Sharpton had to say.

As a trusted member of the supposedly "unbiased" media, I expect and demand more fairness from media trade publications, especially "The Industry Newspaper," Radio and Records.

If Mr. Grant is not worthy of this award by his "complete body of work," then that is R&Rs fault and problem to retract in any situation. But to add gasoline to flame by not holding Rev. Sharpton to the same standard is blatantly biased and has only opened the door regarding our industry newspaper's credibility.

Not close to being "middle ground" of what many of us expect from our industry's publications.

I ask that you please reconsider by not having Mr. Sharpton, in view of this specific incident, not appear at your convention in March.

Kind regards,"

This isn't about awards. It's about liberties that continue to slip away with the media definitely a part of why there is increasing mistrust.

I hope Don Imus gets into the game, now, for sure. It's his to win.

 

[davideduardo]

I am one who believes there should be every conceivable voice on the air, from one end of the spectrum to another. Whether I like Mr. Grant or the Rev. Sharpeton is irrelevant; what is important is preserving the freedom to express ideas that may not be appealing to every sector of society.

Unless every idea is expressed, the bad ones can not be heard and rejected and the good ones will die from lack of exposure.

Hiding ideas is the mark of a totalitarian state.

Personally, I have suffered the loss of licences I owned and operated under a government that was intolerant of criticism and opposition. I would much more gladly deal with the occasional excess by a talk host or commentator than see ideas go without being said.

I want to hear the Rev. Sharpeton and Mr. Grant. This is not "Animal Farm" where some animals are more equal than others. We have one of the freeest societies in the world, and must recognize that part of that is dealing with those who have a different point of view from our own.

The simple ability to freely start a debate on this new issue is something that can make us proud to be Americans.

 

[LinoNYC]

I don't believe this retraction is a simple case of pressure groups -although I'am sure that was involved, but perhaps a case of an industry finally realizing to what depths it has sunk for profit.

In his "prime" Mr Gigante's style was more hateful than controversial. He played to the meat-and-potato meatheads, never allowing real debate.

One tactic was to have his screeners allow only the most inarticulate black callers through, the better for Mr "Grant" to shoot them down, hang-up and issue a coda of monkey noises and/or the suggestion to "throw him a banana".

Articulate white males that got through had their sexuality challenged etc.

May be that the industry doesn't want to be reminded of this person, and how richly it rewarded him.

Lino

 

[adma]

I'm inclined to agree. Like, I know, Al Sharpton chill and all that; but to all these radio dewds and fans standing in defense of Bob Grant, I ask...what on earth are you defending?!? Is this anything even worth upholding in the first place, even in the name of "free speech"?

True proof of the utter cultural senility a certain strain of "radio fandom" has fallen into...

 

[Lando Griffin]

I don't believe this retraction is a simple case of pressure groups -although I'am sure that was involved, but perhaps a case of an industry finally realizing to what depths it has sunk for profit.

In his "prime" Mr Gigante's style was more hateful than controversial. He played to the meat-and-potato meatheads, never allowing real debate.

One tactic was to have his screeners allow only the most inarticulate black callers through, the better for Mr "Grant" to shoot them down, hang-up and issue a coda of monkey noises and/or the suggestion to "throw him a banana".

Articulate white males that got through had their sexuality challenged etc.

May be that the industry doesn't want to be reminded of this person, and how richly it rewarded him.

Lino

It's quite obviousl you are not a fan of Bob Grant.

1. You try to use his real name as a derrogatory term (I suppose you have something against Italians ?). In his book, <i><u>Let's Be Heard</u></i>, he discusses the real reason why he and many others had to change his ethnic-sounding name -- (see Pat Benatar and several rappers who have done the same thing)

2. Grant (especially in his WABC days) had a very loose screening system: unlike the Rushes and Hannities of the world, Grant did not need to week out certain types of callers to make himself look good. As a matter of fact, he allowed arguably the most DIVERSE array of callers and opinions on his show. Of course, he had his own (it was a "free and open exchange of ideas...")
2a. This is where the "racist" myth came from: he had a number of callers who were blatantly racist. Grant, however, berated most of them as well. It's merely convenient for PC types like yourself who despise opposing opinions to call him the racist in an attempt to shut him up.

3. Radio and Records did, in fact, cave in to pressure from Al Sharkman (a Jay Diamond reference) and others who are weliding some new power over the media through scare tactics like the ones they used on CBS radio (re: Imus). Unfortunately, much like in the case of Freddie Krueger, it is they who give the race-baiters the power by letting them have it.

4. Bob Grant has remained an honorable man throiugh his years on the radio, even after his one major mistake involving the Ron Brown crash (I figured I would bring it up before someone re-twists it): he was extremely remorseful and not openly resentful of WABC for firing him: he took responsibility for it (something that the Al Sharkman crowd doesn't encourage).

I could go on, but I might want to let others have some fun here...

 

[LinoNYC]

It's quite obviousl you are not a fan of Bob Grant.

1. You try to use his real name as a derrogatory term (I suppose you have something against Italians ?). In his book, <i><u>Let's Be Heard</u></i>, he discusses the real reason why he and many others had to change his ethnic-sounding name -- (see Pat Benatar and several rappers who have done the same thing)

2. Grant (especially in his WABC days) had a very loose screening system: unlike the Rushes and Hannities of the world, Grant did not need to week out certain types of callers to make himself look good. As a matter of fact, he allowed arguably the most DIVERSE array of callers and opinions on his show. Of course, he had his own (it was a "free and open exchange of ideas...")
2a. This is where the "racist" myth came from: he had a number of callers who were blatantly racist. Grant, however, berated most of them as well. It's merely convenient for PC types like yourself who despise opposing opinions to call him the racist in an attempt to shut him up.

3. Radio and Records did, in fact, cave in to pressure from Al Sharkman (a Jay Diamond reference) and others who are weliding some new power over the media through scare tactics like the ones they used on CBS radio (re: Imus). Unfortunately, much like in the case of Freddie Krueger, it is they who give the race-baiters the power by letting them have it.

4. Bob Grant has remained an honorable man throiugh his years on the radio, even after his one major mistake involving the Ron Brown crash (I figured I would bring it up before someone re-twists it): he was extremely remorseful and not openly resentful of WABC for firing him: he took responsibility for it (something that the Al Sharkman crowd doesn't encourage).

I could go on, but I might want to let others have some fun here...

You try to use his real name as a derrogatory term (I suppose you have something against Italians

Save it, that tactic of derailing my remarks won't work.

Grant did not need to week out certain types of callers to make himself look good. As a matter of fact, he allowed arguably the most DIVERSE array of callers and opinions on his show. Of course, he had his own (it was a "free and open exchange of ideas...")

Please, I've heard this character from his arrival at WMCA in the fall of 1970. From the beginning his tactics were: shout down, bully and ridicule. He played to the peanut gallery.

2a. This is where the "racist" myth came from: he had a number of callers who were blatantly racist. Grant, however, berated most of them as well. It's merely convenient for PC types like yourself who despise opposing opinions to call him the racist in an attempt to shut him up.

There is no "myth" here. Like many New Yorkers, I have a problem with the conduct of certain racial/ethnic groups and it's effect on our city, Mr Gigante's approach only served to prevent legitimate discussion of these issues as opponents could simply cite these concerns as "hateful Bob Grant" type speech.

Unfortunately, much like in the case of Freddie Krueger, it is they who give the race-baiters the power by letting them have it.

Have you considered that perhaps the industry's younger constituents are somewhat ashamed at what some of their predecessors did to make a buck?

His current engagement at WABC is somehow fitting, he broadcasts from a room in his house out in the sticks of New Jersey to an audience of similar near-octigenarians on a declining AM radio station.

Lino

 

[Nate Wesley]

I'm inclined to agree. Like, I know, Al Sharpton chill and all that; but to all these radio dewds and fans standing in defense of Bob Grant, I ask...what on earth are you defending?!? Is this anything even worth upholding in the first place, even in the name of "free speech"?

Thank you. I can go to any nursing home in America and find some hate-bating octogenarians. Where are their lifetime achievement awards?

 

[oaktree]

This has nothing to do with being a fan of Bob Grant or anti-Al Sharpton ... or both.

David Eduardo is correct. They both have their place in the business, if there are those who wish to employ them and those who wish to listen to them. That simple.

This is, however, about an influential trade publication bestowing a forthcoming lifetime achievement award on Bob Grant ... then, like Lucy pulling the football away from Charlie Brown ... yanking it in open public with some lame moral-compass excuse after it is the one that offered the reward in the first place.

Now, the fact that Rev. Sharpton was named to the TRS debate panel at the same time and not chastised for his "accomplishments" of the past is in my mind, pretty galling. If it wasn't for Don Imus, Rev. Al would still be a radio nobody in my opinion. (Just "Google" Sharpton's name and see how many references you'll get to Imus at the same time ...) Was Rev. Sharpton a trailblazer in talk radio?

Hardly.

But that doesn't matter. Just as R&R has the right to have him as a panelist, if it thought it proper to honor Bob Grant ... it shouldn't have pulled the honor. It costs them credibility for making the choice that they apparently didn't "review" enough in the first place. Now if that's not bias, I don't know what is.

Their bad.

 

[Raleigh Rocker]

Just a thought. What would have been the proper course of action for R & R to take had they made an honest mistake. The error, all theirs, not properly researching and vetting the award.

To take it to a more extreme level, say they had announced the award to be presented posthumously to, say, Hitler, for his revolutionary use of the media in the 1930's. A week later they discover Auschwitz. Would it then be proper to rescind the award? Or, once a decision is taken , that's it, no change possible no matter what.

I'm not defending R & R, just posing the question. If they believe they made an error, how do they correct it?

 

[adma]

I'd look at things lower on the dictator scale. That is, to condemn Al Sharpton on behalf of Bob Grant is a little like condemning Reagan and Thatcher on behalf of Nicolae Ceausescu...

 

[oaktree]

"To take it to a more extreme level, say they had announced the award to be presented posthumously to, say, Hitler, for his revolutionary use of the media in the 1930's. A week later they discover Auschwitz. Would it then be proper to rescind the award? Or, once a decision is taken , that's it, no change possible no matter what."

1. It's not posthumously nor relative. It's a public embarrassment to Bob Grant, WABC and it's management as well as this industry. Bob Grant is still around to see it in black and white. He didn't ask for the award. It's R&R's job to vet the honorees after CAREFUL research and agreement. There are rules, of course. Bet on baseball, you don't get into the Hall of Fame. Ask Pete Rose. The rules were laid out to be followed. In this case, I assume that there was some degree of legitimacy in granting the honor to Bob Grant in the first place. He didn't do anything wrong "after" the fact ... but rather, it was a re-thinking of "his complete body of work." That should have been the entire process from the get-go. R&R, in my opinion, screwed the pooch and caused public embarrassment.

2. As for your extreme, Auschwitz is not about the liberty of free speech. Again, not relative. You have two people involved here in a strange co-incidence ... Bob Grant and at the same time, Al Sharpton (again.) R&R made it's bed. They should give the "honor" (it's not an award, when you think of it ... it's a statue or plaque for Lifetime Achievement. It's not a contest.) Is there any doubt that Mr. Grant served a lifetime of achievement in talk radio? I sure don't think there is any. Did people think Hitler was a master at using the media in a revolutionary way? You bet they did ... and still do. Some would say it aptly applies to those who want to squelch the right of free speech ... and that includes Rev. Sharpton. Should Hitler have gotten the award? Well, considering that in his time it was probably his design to award himself the thing in the first place ... He did, in all a actuality, get his award. He's in most every history book on communications and media around. That's pretty high up the food chain.

3. If R&R were really being objective as to what to do ... first, they'd have dropped Sharpton from the debator's roster. What has he done to "revolutionize" talk radio with any results at all, especially in the same terms as other talk show hosts in the TRS "Reverse Debate?" (And there are other hosts of "color" that have substantially more success in the medium.) This is rapidly becoming a show ... not a debate. But I bet Bohannon can still beat him. (sorry.) R&R should have, then, reviewed Rev. Sharpton's "complete body of work" in seriously considering his invitation to the seminar ... rather than go just for show and marquee value. If they drop one, they should, especially in this instance, set similar "review" for both.

Then, it would be at least "objective." Yes, I know, they are two different things ... an award and a debate invitation. But, the net result is that they are both being judged on their value based on their "body of work." One has served as a pioneer, the other has served as a fire-brand of controversy in the pulpit of public opinion ... at the expense of the liberty of free speech, while being as hypocritical against those he criticizes.

4. I think R&R owes Bob Grant a public apology for embarrassment. If the man didn't "earn" or deserve the honor, then, someone should have known better than to grant the award in the first place. The Olympic committee just stripped Marion Jones of her medals for using banned substances and lying about not using them. At least Grant spoke his mind openly and freely ... and paid for it by getting fired. He didn't lie about his feelings.

Give the man his due credit. Let Rev. Al play debator and be done with it. Either that, or they both go.

 

[Phil Boyce]

I want to thank Oaktree and David Eduardo, two posters here that I have disagreed with on many occasions, but they came here to condemn this action, and I sincerely appreciate it.

Raleigh wonders:

Just a thought. What would have been the proper course of action for R & R to take had they made an honest mistake. The error, all theirs, not properly researching and vetting the award.

That is a moot point because R+R obviously was aware of Bob Grant's body of work when they called me a few weeks ago to ask if they would be allowed to present the lifetime achievement award at this year's convention. R+R is an industry trade publication that COVERED all of the Bob Grant incidents of the past including the one that got him fired in 1996. I believe it was not anybody at R+R that made this decision, it was the parent company that is pretty far removed from radio, and they are completely clueless about the ramifications of this decision.

I notice it did not take long for WABC haters to get here and attack WABC and Bob Grant one more time, as if they just can never get enough lick on the man even when he is down. But Here is why this is a problem. R+R is in industry trade publication, there to defend and hold this industry up. They do not exist to tear down and attack the industry or contributors of the industry. Bob was big enough and important enough for SOME people at R+R to want to give him a lifetime achievement award. Then the parent company gets nervous and takes it away. Why does the parent company even OWN this industry trade publication if they are that gun-shy about what talkradio is?

If they are going to take this award that they offered away from Bob due to his "body of work" then who examined Al Sharpton's body of work? Do they analyze his contributions to society, and his racist tyrades which are well documented? So Programmers and Talk Hosts are being asked by R+R to go to this convention and hear Al Sharpton rail about what is good and fair and just on the radio, while an industry pioneer like Bob is booted out for comments that are mild by comparison.

pb

 

[oaktree]

Well said, Phil.

Thanks for your time and valuable insight and perception.

 

[NamJock]

I see a lot of blame aimed at R&R here. As has been said, I think you should look a little higher when placing blame. As I was writing this, someone else posted essentially the same thing: the management of R&R is beholden to their owners. I have no inside knowledge, but I know some of the leading players and I'd look over the heads of those in the R&R offices for the source of this decision. The day-to-day staffers are the ones who will have to deal with all this negativity, though. And, from mail room to corner office, they might not deserve it.

If what I suspect is true, it's a real stinker and a shame that the reputation of the paper and those dedicated to it will have to suffer for the errors of others.

 

[raydofan]

what on earth are you defending?!? Is this anything even worth upholding in the first place, even in the name of "free speech"?

This is a misnomer. Bob is not losing his job or his right to speak. An independently-owned publication has made an editorial decision not to reward one person. It is their right, even if the decision is based on asinine qualifications or rooted in some bizarre PR tactic. This is a publication that serves the radio industry primarily. It probably won't effect listenership.

So let's not turn this straw man into a bonfire, OK? Bob is still able to eat. He's 'more equal' than the rest of us-his soapbox squeaks louder.

 

[oaktree]

"An independently-owned publication has made an editorial decision not to reward one person. It is their right, even if the decision is based on asinine qualifications or rooted in some bizarre PR tactic. This is a publication that serves the radio industry primarily. It probably won't effect listenership."

I'm sorry, but the words "independent-owned publication" do not apply to Radio & Records by any stretch of the imagination. The paper was purchased by Billboard and folded into its music industry and broadcasting media international interests. One will note this from the first paragraph in the link provided below.

Further, VNU Media, owners of both publications is a Nielsen Media Company ... they of Neilsen TV ratings.

A look at this lengthy list of huge media interests globally ... and other service industries owned by the parent, and its inter-related activities in media business, shows more than "asinane qualifications or rooted in some bizarre PR tactic." The publications serves the radio and music industries and its influence does affect listenership, as its core business interests affect management decisions that reach listeners. Here's a little research to consider:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_&_Records and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nielsen_Company

One only needed to hear Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, Phil Boyce's comments and print media picking up the story ... and comments from many people on air and off to know that with something this sensitive and the personalities involved ... the bonfire was lit a long time ago.

 

[NamJock]

what on earth are you defending?!? Is this anything even worth upholding in the first place, even in the name of "free speech"?

Don't know what anyone else is defending. I am defending the integrity of a trade publication that saw me through my years in the business. I am defending the right of individuals, members of the club, who today find themselves the object of a good old-fashioned stoning. And those throwing the stones haven't spoken to those inside to find out what really happened. And, in all honesty, those inside are hunkering down. I did not see the editorial notice before it was pulled; yet I just have this feeling that the nexus of this difficult situation lies above with some real or imagined insult that could go back a long time.

I'm defending dedicated professionals working for arguably the premiere publication that serves our industry (no offense Tom). I remember the launch of R&R during my first years in the biz. I did my stint there as many before and after me (got the tee shirt, cap and leather baseball-jacket).

Very smart people made good decisions. Announced and reported deals worth millions whether in music or station trading, held the pre-eminent position, hosted the best conventions - finally defeated Billboard (ironic today) and several others for that position; conceived and made awards based on their judgement. Now someone, somewhere has said, "I don't care if this ruins the reputation of the publication, withdraw the honorific."

Use your search engines if you really care and track it down. Where is the nexus between the owners of R&R and Bob Grant. Once you find that, you may want to do some defending of your own. I hate inequity, unfairness and anonymity (except when posting, of course ;<) Let the culprit own up and say, "I'm the one. I made the call to offer the award without checking with my bosses. Let the other say, "I'm the one. I made the call to withdraw the award. The rest of the R&R staff are blameless."

It's gotten too big and out-of-hand to ignore. Someone at R&R with intimate knowledge of the situation should speak up and tell us what's what. For what is a journalist without their reputation...Geraldo, that's what.

 

[Shoot From Hip]

I don't think VNU was involved at all. I simply think R&R management bowed to pressure. They knew exactly who Grant is and was...they just didn't expect the crapstorm the announcement generated. If they thought the bestowing of this award might reduce the number of participants in TRS, or that perhaps a sponsor would pull out...THAT would play enough of a role to cause the retraction. Keep in mind it's a whole new team putting on TRS this year. Al's gone, they have a new News/Talk editor who's a good guy but a stranger to the territory, and they hired an outside firm to produce the event. R&R is an industry publication that can't afford to lose sponsors and subscribers. But with that said, I suspect they also didn't expect the crapstorm the retraction generated.

 

[New Castle]

Rush is telling Bob Grant stories right now. It's quite a tribute!

 

[raydofan]

"An independently-owned publication has made an editorial decision not to reward one person. It is their right, even if the decision is based on asinine qualifications or rooted in some bizarre PR tactic. This is a publication that serves the radio industry primarily. It probably won't effect listenership."

I'm sorry, but the words "independent-owned publication" do not apply to Radio & Records by any stretch of the imagination. The paper was purchased by Billboard and folded into its music industry and broadcasting media international interests. One will note this from the first paragraph in the link provided below.

Further, VNU Media, owners of both publications is a Nielsen Media Company ... they of Neilsen TV ratings.

A look at this lengthy list of huge media interests globally ... and other service industries owned by the parent, and its inter-related activities in media business, shows more than "asinane qualifications or rooted in some bizarre PR tactic." The publications serves the radio and music industries and its influence does affect listenership, as its core business interests affect management decisions that reach listeners. Here's a little research to consider:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_&_Records and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nielsen_Company

So what narrow segment of their publication holdings do you think will have impact-outside of radio-related ones?

Don't you think that the usual consumers of Bob Grant would just be dismissive of this anyway? And, by the way, it is rather late in the day for Mr. Grant. So, even if this media megaglom is successful, the impact will be nil.

And, don't get me wrong: I think one ownership umbrella for all these entities-each less than a degree apart in purpose-is horrendous. But this will have little impact, for a personality whose primary impact is behind him.

This was a stunt, with cryptic intent. But will there be actual harm to careers? Only in the eyes of those who are flogging the story.

One only needed to hear Sean Hannity, Mark Levin, Phil Boyce's comments and print media picking up the story ... and comments from many people on air and off to know that with something this sensitive and the personalities involved ... the bonfire was lit a long time ago.

Yes, quite: The personalities involved, as in the already converted. As my interest is in this particular personality was also a long time ago.