It's reasonable to suspect the reaction to the Corasanti verdict, arguably the highest profile trial of the year in Western New York, will drive listeners to news-talk radio, WBFO-WNED AM and WBEN. I was on the road when the verdict was announced while listening to Fresh Air on WBFO and a replay of an outstanding 1988 interview with folk music legend Doc Watson. WBFO broke in with a live phoner during Fresh Air. Once home, I briefly checked TV. Channel 2 was the only station that had extended coverage. Went to Facebook. It was lit up like a Christmas tree. I posted on my wall, checked in with my FB and "long before FB" friends. Checked WBEN. Tom Bauerle was live in place of Hannity. (Definitely an upgrade.) At 10 o'clock, I went back to TV news. Channel 4. Where did you hear the news and file your reaction and response?
-
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.
News Talk Reaction To The Verdict
- Thread starter JustPastBuffalo
- Start date
Like you, JPB, I was listening to the Doc Watson interview on Fresh Air when I learned of the verdict. I was working on the next electronic newsletter for an organization near and dear to the heart of local broadcasters. I intentionally did not turn on the TV so I wouldn't be distracted from the task at hand. Unfortunately, I hit the pre-set on my HD radio (yes, I'm one of five people in WNY to have one) for 107.7FM and was totally outraged at what I was hearing.
Now, I've been rather hesitant to attack other radio stations now that my identity is rather known to many on this board who pay attention to such things. But I can't hold back from criticizing Tom Bauerle for his utter unprofessionalism in his interview with defense attorney Barry Covert. I was astounded that Mr. Covert didn't hang up on Bauerle. I would have! Why would he put up with such an attack. Yet, Mr. Covert continued to calmly present his views while Bauerle actually yelled at him in the course of the interview. It's one of the reasons why I rarely tune into WBEN anymore. It's not worth aggravating myself.
Here's the thing everyone. The vast majority of us -- save for the jury, reporters and a few court watchers -- were not in that courtroom for every word uttered in this trial. I am an intelligent observers of the day's news. And I can only assume that this jury strictly followed the judge's instructions and followed them in coming up with their verdict. They must know their decision would be met with community outrage. The easy thing would have been to convict. But they didn't let that influence them. They must have found reasonable doubt. So, we are welcome to our opinions that justice was not served here. Admittedly, I, too, am stunned by this verdict. Bauerle said he "respected" the jury's decision. But he didn't act like it in his attack interview with Mr. Covert. I would argue that Covert's explanation of what likely happened in that jury room, which he was able to deliver without Bauerle's bombast during the Eyewitness News 11pm broadcast, was the most intelligent analysis I heard all night.
Please know I'm not painting a broad brush here. But some of the callers to WBEN's talk shows are just plain stupid. Even Bauerle seemed frustrated when one of them tonight kept asking if Corasanti would seek out the "real killer" of Alix Rice, ala OJ Simpson. She didn't seem to understand that no one was denying Corasanti struck Alix, just that he wasn't criminally responsible. And that's the problem with talk radio sometimes. It doesn't add to a community conversation, but allows uninformed people to spout off about things they know nothing about. And how does that contribute to anything?
The bottom line is that I can't imagine what it was like for these 12 jurors who might have been listening to WBEN on their way home. They didn't ask for this. Their number came up. They performed their civic duty. They had no skin in the game. Corasanti's money didn't "buy" this verdict. He was able to buy the best attorneys in the business who were able to argue reasonable doubt in this case. So, the jurors should be left alone.
I'll get off my soap box now. But I will leave with this. Everyone out there tonight who is criticizing this verdict is a hypocrite. Why? Because they're one mistake away from being in Corasanti's shoes. And each of these critics would then be scrambling to find the same kind of representation to save their skins. I'm not defending Corasanti here. But something tells me he's not getting off with this acquittal. He'll spend the rest of his life knowing he killed a young woman. That's something I wouldn't want to have to live with.
Now, I've been rather hesitant to attack other radio stations now that my identity is rather known to many on this board who pay attention to such things. But I can't hold back from criticizing Tom Bauerle for his utter unprofessionalism in his interview with defense attorney Barry Covert. I was astounded that Mr. Covert didn't hang up on Bauerle. I would have! Why would he put up with such an attack. Yet, Mr. Covert continued to calmly present his views while Bauerle actually yelled at him in the course of the interview. It's one of the reasons why I rarely tune into WBEN anymore. It's not worth aggravating myself.
Here's the thing everyone. The vast majority of us -- save for the jury, reporters and a few court watchers -- were not in that courtroom for every word uttered in this trial. I am an intelligent observers of the day's news. And I can only assume that this jury strictly followed the judge's instructions and followed them in coming up with their verdict. They must know their decision would be met with community outrage. The easy thing would have been to convict. But they didn't let that influence them. They must have found reasonable doubt. So, we are welcome to our opinions that justice was not served here. Admittedly, I, too, am stunned by this verdict. Bauerle said he "respected" the jury's decision. But he didn't act like it in his attack interview with Mr. Covert. I would argue that Covert's explanation of what likely happened in that jury room, which he was able to deliver without Bauerle's bombast during the Eyewitness News 11pm broadcast, was the most intelligent analysis I heard all night.
Please know I'm not painting a broad brush here. But some of the callers to WBEN's talk shows are just plain stupid. Even Bauerle seemed frustrated when one of them tonight kept asking if Corasanti would seek out the "real killer" of Alix Rice, ala OJ Simpson. She didn't seem to understand that no one was denying Corasanti struck Alix, just that he wasn't criminally responsible. And that's the problem with talk radio sometimes. It doesn't add to a community conversation, but allows uninformed people to spout off about things they know nothing about. And how does that contribute to anything?
The bottom line is that I can't imagine what it was like for these 12 jurors who might have been listening to WBEN on their way home. They didn't ask for this. Their number came up. They performed their civic duty. They had no skin in the game. Corasanti's money didn't "buy" this verdict. He was able to buy the best attorneys in the business who were able to argue reasonable doubt in this case. So, the jurors should be left alone.
I'll get off my soap box now. But I will leave with this. Everyone out there tonight who is criticizing this verdict is a hypocrite. Why? Because they're one mistake away from being in Corasanti's shoes. And each of these critics would then be scrambling to find the same kind of representation to save their skins. I'm not defending Corasanti here. But something tells me he's not getting off with this acquittal. He'll spend the rest of his life knowing he killed a young woman. That's something I wouldn't want to have to live with.
I'll tell you one thing, if you convict him on DWI, admitting he was drunk at the time of the accident, then you have to convict him of manslaughter because you cannot deny that his being drunk contributed to the accident---if for no other reason than the simple fact that he SHOULD NOT have even been on the road at the time.
Either this judge did not charge the jury properly or the jury was overly enamored with the good doctor during his testimony.
Sometimes juries DO preoccupy themselves with the very technical nature of the law. That's all well and good, but it's the judge's responsibility to make sure that they do NOT isolate facts to the point where it prevents them from assessing a situation in it's entirety. It's the defense's job TO isolate all facts and minimize and dismiss them. Guess who did a better job in THIS case?
Either this judge did not charge the jury properly or the jury was overly enamored with the good doctor during his testimony.
Sometimes juries DO preoccupy themselves with the very technical nature of the law. That's all well and good, but it's the judge's responsibility to make sure that they do NOT isolate facts to the point where it prevents them from assessing a situation in it's entirety. It's the defense's job TO isolate all facts and minimize and dismiss them. Guess who did a better job in THIS case?
Let me ask one question re: Tom Bauerle
Is there a talk show host in commercial radio who's become very popular and well-paid for being reasonable and intelligent? Who's brought more light than heat to the discussion on a daily basis?
Just asking.
Nice analysis, Phil. And, Jas, the devil IS in the details, a/k/a the "very technical nature of the law".
Is there a talk show host in commercial radio who's become very popular and well-paid for being reasonable and intelligent? Who's brought more light than heat to the discussion on a daily basis?
Just asking.
Nice analysis, Phil. And, Jas, the devil IS in the details, a/k/a the "very technical nature of the law".
SirRoxalot said:the devil IS in the details, a/k/a the "very technical nature of the law".
The problems start when juries rely solely on technical minutae and don't employ any common sense. Juries ARE expected to be reasonable when assessing guilt. Only relying on the lettter of the law and ignoring reason is exactly what's wrong with the system.
Again, you CANNOT find him guilty of DWI, yet find he did nothing wrong after having killed a girl he hit while driving drunk.
That simple contradiction demonstrates a very poor grasp of not only reason and common sense, but the duty you have as a juror.
I can almost guarantee the judge in this case is second guessing the way she charged this jury before deliberations.
From what I gather, several of the jurors did have previous drunk driving violations---one even kicked off the jury during the trial for actually being arrested for DWI just days after gruesome testimony regarding the condition of the victim's body after she was hit! This certainly gives a look into the mentality of at least some of the minds deciding this case. Pathetic.
The bottom line is that 12 people agreed unanimously. I'd like to hear their reasoning for convicting of DUI, but not for vehicular manslaughter in the 2nd degree. That count doesn't require intent, just alcohol impairment. It seems incongruous. At least ONE person on that jury didn't realize that?
Maybe they're talk radio listeners.
Maybe they're talk radio listeners.
SirRoxalot said:The bottom line is that 12 people agreed unanimously. I'd like to hear their reasoning for convicting of DUI, but not for vehicular manslaughter in the 2nd degree. That count doesn't require intent, just alcohol impairment. It seems incongruous. At least ONE person on that jury didn't realize that?
Maybe they're talk radio listeners.
Talkradio: Where 1+1=3, as long as it serves your own preferences.
Phillip_Airtime has hit the nail on the head...for the most part.
I am not going to re-post his comments...see them earlier in this thread
The media circus comes to a screeching halt...now they have to go find ANOTHER show to promote.
The cycle continues.
That's all (for now)
HDBG
I am not going to re-post his comments...see them earlier in this thread
The media circus comes to a screeching halt...now they have to go find ANOTHER show to promote.
The cycle continues.
That's all (for now)
HDBG
I don't think it's hypocritical to objectively question or debate the jury's decision-making process in this or any trial. Observe the John Edwards case and analysis provided by NPR or the reporter-columnist analysis provided by the Buffalo News in the Corasanti case.
http://www.buffalonews.com/topics/dr-james-corasanti-trial/article881178.ece Reasoned debate and articulation should be encouraged.
Some will say each of us is one step or bad decision away from being in the position of the driver who was acquitted. Others will counter that we're one step away from being in the position of the pedestrian, skateboarder or bicyclist who may be injured or killed. Perspective.
http://www.buffalonews.com/topics/dr-james-corasanti-trial/article881178.ece Reasoned debate and articulation should be encouraged.
Some will say each of us is one step or bad decision away from being in the position of the driver who was acquitted. Others will counter that we're one step away from being in the position of the pedestrian, skateboarder or bicyclist who may be injured or killed. Perspective.
Philip_Airtime said:The bottom line is that I can't imagine what it was like for these 12 jurors who might have been listening to WBEN on their way home. They didn't ask for this. Their number came up. They performed their civic duty. They had no skin in the game. Corasanti's money didn't "buy" this verdict. He was able to buy the best attorneys in the business who were able to argue reasonable doubt in this case. So, the jurors should be left alone.
I'll get off my soap box now. But I will leave with this. Everyone out there tonight who is criticizing this verdict is a hypocrite. Why? Because they're one mistake away from being in Corasanti's shoes. And each of these critics would then be scrambling to find the same kind of representation to save their skins. I'm not defending Corasanti here. But something tells me he's not getting off with this acquittal. He'll spend the rest of his life knowing he killed a young woman. That's something I wouldn't want to have to live with.
"Corisanti's money didn't buy this verdict. He was able to buy the best attorneys..." Does anyone else see a contradiction here?
"Everyone out there tonight who is criticizing this verdict is a hypocrite." Can you possibly paint with a broader brush Phillip? If we criticize the O.J. verdict, are we hypocrites there too? I know this is headed to "TIO-land" but these two statements really grated on me.
Commercial talk radio is where listeners go to react, often in a visceral, "ready, fire, aim" manner. Frankly, the verdict being as anticipated as it was, I was surprised (and disappointed) that WBFO didn't (immediately) offer in-depth discussion and analysis, which is why I scanned from 88.7 to 107.7 when WBFO returned to Terry Gross.
Tom Bauerle, he brings passion, logic (even if I may not agree with it) and opinion to the game, even injecting a dark humor when a caller wanted to talk "closed circuit" to which TB properly responded, "it's a call-in talk show... that means we talk on the air." Click. "Justifiable Phonercide." Phil makes a legitimate point about TB shouting at and hanging up on the attorney who was explaining legal nuance. Rude. But later in the hour ample time was accorded attorney Paul Cambria (I'm told an associate of the attorney on whom Bauerle hung-up.) "Make-good." Cambria is unperturbed in the line of fire and like Senator Chuck Schumer, has a well-honed sense of "camera, microphone and talk radio radar." His take on the trial and verdict was speculative, yet articulate and informative, especially when compared to callers that sound like bar room barristers. It's these types that have driven me almost exclusively to NPR for news and talk.
Of genuine concern is the report of death threats made against the defendant, defense attorneys and jurors in this trial. Although I believe the jury got the verdict wrong, there's absolutely no place in our society for the type of lunacy that would inflict violence on anyone involved in this trial. One hopes that talk radio doesn't fan the passions of numbskulls who might harm those who were properly fulfilling their responsibilities and defending the rights guaranteed under the Constitution.
The Buffalo News offers an analysis of the trial and a juror's though process here: http://www.buffalonews.com/topics/dr-james-corasanti-trial/article884833.ece
Tom Bauerle, he brings passion, logic (even if I may not agree with it) and opinion to the game, even injecting a dark humor when a caller wanted to talk "closed circuit" to which TB properly responded, "it's a call-in talk show... that means we talk on the air." Click. "Justifiable Phonercide." Phil makes a legitimate point about TB shouting at and hanging up on the attorney who was explaining legal nuance. Rude. But later in the hour ample time was accorded attorney Paul Cambria (I'm told an associate of the attorney on whom Bauerle hung-up.) "Make-good." Cambria is unperturbed in the line of fire and like Senator Chuck Schumer, has a well-honed sense of "camera, microphone and talk radio radar." His take on the trial and verdict was speculative, yet articulate and informative, especially when compared to callers that sound like bar room barristers. It's these types that have driven me almost exclusively to NPR for news and talk.
Of genuine concern is the report of death threats made against the defendant, defense attorneys and jurors in this trial. Although I believe the jury got the verdict wrong, there's absolutely no place in our society for the type of lunacy that would inflict violence on anyone involved in this trial. One hopes that talk radio doesn't fan the passions of numbskulls who might harm those who were properly fulfilling their responsibilities and defending the rights guaranteed under the Constitution.
The Buffalo News offers an analysis of the trial and a juror's though process here: http://www.buffalonews.com/topics/dr-james-corasanti-trial/article884833.ece
JustPastBuffalo said:The Buffalo News offers an analysis of the trial and a juror's though process here: http://www.buffalonews.com/topics/dr-james-corasanti-trial/article884833.ece
Ya know, I was initially pretty hard on that jury myself, but after reading that article, I have to admit, I've come to the conclusion that they are even bigger morons than I originally thought.
A point well made. If only WBFO-AM 970 had planned ahead. If only WBFO had offered live coverage after the verdict was announced. If only WBFO presented an opportunity for listeners and the community to react and rationally discuss the verdict in one of Western New York's most important trials in the last two years. You and others might have been spared the aggravation. Also disappointing, the WBFO reporter on the live break-in first announced the verdict as "guilty" before recovering and correcting himself. WBFO is staffed (some critics might say "over-staffed") with seasoned reporters who could have shed plenty of light on this trial and the verdict. Listeners wouldn't have heard a WBFO talk show host hang up on an attorney who offered a reasoned viewpoint contrary to a gasbag acting as judge, jury and executioner. If only WBFO had planned ahead. WBEN's immediate coverage and call-in show following the verdict may have been typical of commercial news-talk radio, but what was the alternative? Therefore, the verdict can only be a summary judgement in favor of WBEN.Philip_Airtime said:I've been rather hesitant to attack other radio stations now that my identity is rather known to many on this board who pay attention to such things. But I can't hold back from criticizing Tom Bauerle for his utter unprofessionalism in his interview with defense attorney Barry Covert. I was astounded that Mr. Covert didn't hang up on Bauerle. I would have! Why would he put up with such an attack. Yet, Mr. Covert continued to calmly present his views while Bauerle actually yelled at him in the course of the interview. It's one of the reasons why I rarely tune into WBEN anymore. It's not worth aggravating myself.
Element9 said:A point well made. If only WBFO-AM 970 had planned ahead. If only WBFO had offered live coverage after the verdict was announced. If only WBFO presented an opportunity for listeners and the community to react and rationally discuss the verdict in one of Western New York's most important trials in the last two years. You and others might have been spared the aggravation. Also disappointing, the WBFO reporter on the live break-in first announced the verdict as "guilty" before recovering and correcting himself. WBFO is staffed (some critics might say "over-staffed") with seasoned reporters who could have shed plenty of light on this trial and the verdict. Listeners wouldn't have heard a WBFO talk show host hang up on an attorney who offered a reasoned viewpoint contrary to a gasbag acting as judge, jury and executioner. If only WBFO had planned ahead. WBEN's immediate coverage and call-in show following the verdict may have been typical of commercial news-talk radio, but what was the alternative? Therefore, the verdict can only be a summary judgement in favor of WBEN.Philip_Airtime said:I've been rather hesitant to attack other radio stations now that my identity is rather known to many on this board who pay attention to such things. But I can't hold back from criticizing Tom Bauerle for his utter unprofessionalism in his interview with defense attorney Barry Covert. I was astounded that Mr. Covert didn't hang up on Bauerle. I would have! Why would he put up with such an attack. Yet, Mr. Covert continued to calmly present his views while Bauerle actually yelled at him in the course of the interview. It's one of the reasons why I rarely tune into WBEN anymore. It's not worth aggravating myself.
I'm thinking that the WBFO-AM 970 news team learned from the Corasanti situation and prepared well for the next big news event, which occurred today. While WBEN was airing Rush Limbaugh, WBFO pre-empted the first segment of its noon-hour show and presented live coverage of Mayor Brown's news conference about the shooting at ECMC. I heard a nice 20 minute package, featuring the news conference with Brown and his police commissioner, Dan Derenda, followed by a Q & A between anchor Jim Ranney and Eileen Buckley on the scene about what was happening. And I'm hearing promos on WBFO that there will be live coverage of the Wallenda walk on Friday night. So, perhaps WBFO is ready to give WBEN a run for its money in breaking news situations. I do know this. Eileen has won AP's top award for excellence in individual reporting the past couple of years. And her coverage of the Flight 3407 crash a few years ago garnered her some prime airtime on NPR as well as a first prize for breaking news in a national public radio news competition. Jim and Eileen are solid broadcast journalists. Now that they and their respective teams are working together, I can assure readers of this board that things will only get better.
Philip_Airtime said:Element9 said:A point well made. If only WBFO-AM 970 had planned ahead. If only WBFO had offered live coverage after the verdict was announced. If only WBFO presented an opportunity for listeners and the community to react and rationally discuss the verdict in one of Western New York's most important trials in the last two years. You and others might have been spared the aggravation. Also disappointing, the WBFO reporter on the live break-in first announced the verdict as "guilty" before recovering and correcting himself. WBFO is staffed (some critics might say "over-staffed") with seasoned reporters who could have shed plenty of light on this trial and the verdict. Listeners wouldn't have heard a WBFO talk show host hang up on an attorney who offered a reasoned viewpoint contrary to a gasbag acting as judge, jury and executioner. If only WBFO had planned ahead. WBEN's immediate coverage and call-in show following the verdict may have been typical of commercial news-talk radio, but what was the alternative? Therefore, the verdict can only be a summary judgement in favor of WBEN.Philip_Airtime said:I've been rather hesitant to attack other radio stations now that my identity is rather known to many on this board who pay attention to such things. But I can't hold back from criticizing Tom Bauerle for his utter unprofessionalism in his interview with defense attorney Barry Covert. I was astounded that Mr. Covert didn't hang up on Bauerle. I would have! Why would he put up with such an attack. Yet, Mr. Covert continued to calmly present his views while Bauerle actually yelled at him in the course of the interview. It's one of the reasons why I rarely tune into WBEN anymore. It's not worth aggravating myself.
I'm thinking that the WBFO-AM 970 news team learned from the Corasanti situation and prepared well for the next big news event, which occurred today. While WBEN was airing Rush Limbaugh, WBFO pre-empted the first segment of its noon-hour show and presented live coverage of Mayor Brown's news conference about the shooting at ECMC. I heard a nice 20 minute package, featuring the news conference with Brown and his police commissioner, Dan Derenda, followed by a Q & A between anchor Jim Ranney and Eileen Buckley on the scene about what was happening. And I'm hearing promos on WBFO that there will be live coverage of the Wallenda walk on Friday night. So, perhaps WBFO is ready to give WBEN a run for its money in breaking news situations. I do know this. Eileen has won AP's top award for excellence in individual reporting the past couple of years. And her coverage of the Flight 3407 crash a few years ago garnered her some prime airtime on NPR as well as a first prize for breaking news in a national public radio news competition. Jim and Eileen are solid broadcast journalists. Now that they and their respective teams are working together, I can assure readers of this board that things will only get better.
I have to agree that WBFO/AM 970 upped their coverage. It was refreshing to hear some great journalists "stretch their legs" on the story. That being said, at the Mayor Brown press conference, I would have liked to have had a better audio signal then what they had - obviously via a cell phone. When questions were being asked to the Mayor and police commisioner, I couln't make out what the heck they were asked/saying...In the age of new technologies (internet, smart phones, etc..) Couldn't you have used a little better audio transmitting source. Heck, hook up a usb mic to a iphone and use a VOIP service if your not willing to pay the bigs bucks for a live truck...Just sayin!
Oh, you've hit a sore spot on that one. The quality of remote audio these days is atrocious. Considering the alternatives available - from Hotlines that digitize audio and repackage audio on regular phone lines to the plethora of Internet options - there are WAY too many cell-phone remotes. Cell phones are the lowest rung of the telecom ladder. They make Skype sound good (although nothing can make Skype look good). Marti units lie unused. I'm not sure if it's because the interns & promotions assitants that they send out to set up remotes are clueless, or because they can't keep them in repair with the ever-smaller engineering staffs.
No matter what the reason, there's stuff getting on the air these days that would NEVER have been allowed 10 years ago.
No matter what the reason, there's stuff getting on the air these days that would NEVER have been allowed 10 years ago.
here's stuff getting on the air these days that would NEVER have been allowed 10 years ago.
Good point Rox.
It's now accepting the acceptable. Any one's cell phone reception perfect? (not likely, but acceptable). Dropped calls? (happens but acceptable). Skype (radio, not likley used...TV maybe....crap signal, but acceptable) Etc., Etc. Etc.
As far as economics....well you touched on that, and it's a no brainer.
HDBG
- Status
- This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.