Breakfast Buzz co-host Kimberly Ray is NOT on the Frank Garcia jury after all. She WAS selected as a juror for another case, one involving a man accused of beating his girlfriend's baby. The confusion arose because the two juries were being interviewed at the same time.
-
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.
MORNING JOCK NOT ON GARCIA JURY
- Thread starter Beaver Bob
- Start date
Beaver Bob said:Breakfast Buzz co-host Kimberly Ray is NOT on the Frank Garcia jury after all. She WAS selected as a juror for another case, one involving a man accused of beating his girlfriend's baby. The confusion arose because the two juries were being interviewed at the same time.
Who cares?
A lot of people, including jocks, get called up for jury duty.
This appears more to be a post promoting Ray and the Buzz than anything else.
B
Bob1370
Guest
Actually the first post in this thread was useful because it clarifies the facts in our discussion on this issue.
One thing hasn't changed, though...while this isn't the Garcia case it is another sad high profile case that's been covered in Rochester area media. The concerns about pre-trial and during-the-trial publicity that could pollute the outcome or force a mistrial remain valid. People who are on-air personalities or reporters should NOT be put on a felony trial jury.
One thing hasn't changed, though...while this isn't the Garcia case it is another sad high profile case that's been covered in Rochester area media. The concerns about pre-trial and during-the-trial publicity that could pollute the outcome or force a mistrial remain valid. People who are on-air personalities or reporters should NOT be put on a felony trial jury.
Bob1370 said:Actually the first post in this thread was useful because it clarifies the facts in our discussion on this issue.
One thing hasn't changed, though...while this isn't the Garcia case it is another sad high profile case that's been covered in Rochester area media. The concerns about pre-trial and during-the-trial publicity that could pollute the outcome or force a mistrial remain valid. People who are on-air personalities or reporters should NOT be put on a felony trial jury.
Yes the first post did raise a good point. But this second post, like I said, is just another attempt at free publicity for a morning announcer working at a local station.
So again I ask the question "Who Cares?"
B
Bob1370
Guest
"So again I ask the question "Who Cares?"
Anyone who's concerned about the proper functioning of the judicial process SHOULD care. Haven't we learned enough already about how pre-trial and in-trial publicity can distort outcomes of trials during the last 20 years? Mind you, I believe we should televise felony trials and appellate hearings in both state and federal courts, and give the public an inside look at the system. It'll make us all more aware of how the system works, and those occasions when it breaks down (and why). An informed, educated public is a key to a properly functioning system of justice.
The problem comes when we stick our collective media noses into the system with our color commentary, which often isn't very well informed. The only way to deal with that, is to make sure that coverage of a trial is as unfiltered, and as iniformed and professional, as possible. Putting people from the media on a jury is like putting them in a position of obligation to act as a confidential source and that's not going to further that aim.
Anyone who's concerned about the proper functioning of the judicial process SHOULD care. Haven't we learned enough already about how pre-trial and in-trial publicity can distort outcomes of trials during the last 20 years? Mind you, I believe we should televise felony trials and appellate hearings in both state and federal courts, and give the public an inside look at the system. It'll make us all more aware of how the system works, and those occasions when it breaks down (and why). An informed, educated public is a key to a properly functioning system of justice.
The problem comes when we stick our collective media noses into the system with our color commentary, which often isn't very well informed. The only way to deal with that, is to make sure that coverage of a trial is as unfiltered, and as iniformed and professional, as possible. Putting people from the media on a jury is like putting them in a position of obligation to act as a confidential source and that's not going to further that aim.
Bob,
You're missing my point.
I agree with you regarding jury duty and why on-air personalities and especially news people should not serve on certain juries.
What I was referring too here was that this is the second post mentioning both a certain on-air person and the station they work for.
To me this has gone from the issue of jury duty to promoting that said person and radio station.
You're missing my point.
I agree with you regarding jury duty and why on-air personalities and especially news people should not serve on certain juries.
What I was referring too here was that this is the second post mentioning both a certain on-air person and the station they work for.
To me this has gone from the issue of jury duty to promoting that said person and radio station.
I support the idea that there's an inherent conflict of interest for news people (radio, TV, or print) asked to serve on a jury. Radio personalities - even morning personalities? I'm not convinced. They rarely work with prosecutors, police, or court personnel - unless they're defendants, which would likely remove them from the jury pool.
If anything, most morning personalities would represent the more-informed portion of society that reads the paper, listens to the news, and is more aware of their local government. That shouldn't predispose them to any particular biases. The idea that they couldn't help themselves and would discuss the case on the air is absurd. Do you mean to tell me that they're not smarter than that?
As far as this thread being "self-promotion", I guess anything's possible. More likely, it's about an unusual event in the local radio "family".
If anything, most morning personalities would represent the more-informed portion of society that reads the paper, listens to the news, and is more aware of their local government. That shouldn't predispose them to any particular biases. The idea that they couldn't help themselves and would discuss the case on the air is absurd. Do you mean to tell me that they're not smarter than that?
As far as this thread being "self-promotion", I guess anything's possible. More likely, it's about an unusual event in the local radio "family".
- Status
- This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.