Staffer @ KDND plans to turn over evidence on colleagues to prosecution...

[paulsecic]

A rat is no better than the person who perpetrates. Because they knew ahead of time and did nothing.

Now, to save their own skin, they suddenly have a conscience? Had nothing gone awry, they'd have said nothing and been complicit. I have no sympathy, nor respect for the rat.

This whole thing has become a joke to a lot of you. You hurl insults and accusations at people whose lives have been forever ruined. It isn't just the family of the woman who have to live with this.

You attack people with no feeling for what they're dealing with. Put yourself in their shoes for a day and see how you'd like having a microphone jammed in your face, constantly reminding you of the worst day of your life. See if you like being called a killer when you did nothing but attempt to put on what you thought was an entertaining morning show. See if you like being under that microscope for a few hours.

This is a horrible thing. And nobody has any "evidence." This isn't the Scott Peterson case. It's the case of an unfortunate accidental death by misadventure.

And before you shoot back at me, consider that there's a dead woman, and dozens of people who are dealing with this on a level that we cannot possibly comprehend.

Let them have their peace for a while.

Nicely put.

 

[hammerpants]

A "Rat"??? How freekin silly is this... Doing the right thing LATE is still doing the RIGHT THING! Perhaps this "rat" (Yeah, Cagney movies never go out of style!) either knew nothing of the stupid event... or if they did, they were not in a position to be able stop anything.

Stop trying to build a case for your old buddies in that hole on Madison Ave.

 

[Neanderpaul]

A "Rat"??? How freekin silly is this... Doing the right thing LATE is still doing the RIGHT THING! Perhaps this "rat" (Yeah, Cagney movies never go out of style!) either knew nothing of the stupid event... or if they did, they were not in a position to be able stop anything.

Stop trying to build a case for your old buddies in that hole on Madison Ave.

No. Right is right. Always. If this woman had not died, would that person have stepped forward? Or would this topic even be discussed? That's the thing that burns me the most. Contests like these have gone on for decades without incident. Nobody has spoken up. Not me. Not you.

Nobody.

Nobody on this board. Nobody in the industry. Suddenly, due to an unfortunate accident, there's this discovery of moral consciousness. People have "moral outrage." Or "they knew ahead of time and did nothing." So did everyone who claims that this was a well-known danger. You all knew. And for years, listened. You're no better than those who did this. All I'm saying is to step down off that false moral high-horse and admit it. And this person "doing the right thing?" Hindsight is always 20/20.

Had this tragedy not taken place, the silence would be deafening.

As far as "making a case for my old buddies." I know Lukas & Maney. Only to the point of we talked in the hallway, and I occasionally appeared on their show in character voice. I've never socialized with them outside of the hallways on Madison Ave.

None of which in any way slants my opinion at all on this topic. I think mistakes were made. But, I also think personal responsibility needs to be the final arbiter. We are now going into an area where a court will decide if a person is reponsibile for their own choices. I disagree with any court making that decision. I believe it leads to a society that accelerates people's need to blame someone else whenever anything goes wrong. We're getting to a point where a person can claim any external influence is responsible for their own stupidity. "It's the credit card company's fault I'm in debt." Nobody made you pull the plastic out. "McDonald's made me fat." Wrong. You chose to eat there. "I drove drunk because I have a disease." "I overate because I have a disease." "I cheated on my wife because I have a disease." "I fondled a young boy because I have a disease." Excuses for everything.

In the end. (no pun intended) Nobody drove the woman to the station. Nobody forced her to engage. And nobody in this forum, or our industry said a freakin' word for decades while these contests took place.

There are certainties in this instance. They are as follows:

1. The Morning Rave did a contest that involved exploitation of their listeners for a prize.

2. All contestants participated of their own volition.

3. There were no medical personnel on site to monitor the well-being of the participants.

4. There was some awareness of a potential danger involving water ingestion.

5. All contestants were advised to quit if they felt sick, or that they could no longer voluntarily continue.

6. The deceased worked in the medical field.

6. During the contest, an alleged medical expert called in, gave erroneous information that supported the on-air hosts' already stated misinformation.

7. Several other contestants participated in this event. None of whom were injured in any way.

8. The woman bragged about her ability to continue.

9. The woman did not express signs of illness other than her statement of headache, which she herself dismissed.

10. At the end of the contest, the woman left the building in good spirits, and by all observational accounts, healthy.

11. Hours later, the woman was found dead.

12. An autopsy has been performed. The results of which have yet to be released.


That's it. Everything else is opinion and conjecture.

And anyone who "knew about this" and did/said nothing in advance, has no credibility when it comes to "doing the right thing" after the fact.

 

[SirRoxalot]

I Smell a RAT...

Neanderpaul - and others who are playing the "rat" card - I don't understand what your problem is. If everything is as you contend, that the death of Mrs. Strange was unforeseeable accident, then ALL of the staffers should be telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. If everybody involved "did the right thing" in the first place - as you contend - why should you be concerned if any or all of the staffers tell what they heard and saw to the DA, the Grand Jury, or in a court of law?

The fact that they are obligated to tell what they know, or face contempt of court, just points out that it's the right thing to do. Criminal enterprises use secrecy and conspiracy to hide their actions, not law-abiding citizens.

You keep forgetting one point that makes this case different from all the other cases of radio stations abusing contestants as a form of entertainment. A young woman - a wife and mother of three -died. Stupid contests have gone on for decades, but they haven't killed anyone - until now.

It's not that the topic hasn't been discussed. LOTS of radio stations have chosen not to run contests that were demeaning - let alone dangerous. The fact that members of the staff were aware that there was a condition called water intoxication, and that people had died from it in the past, should have prompted them to check into their proposed contest methodology with competent medical authority before they ran the contest.

As far as "personal responsibility" is concerned, what about the "personal responsibility" of the people who ran the contest? They at least were aware that water intoxication could be deadly. Did they pass that along to the people who entered the contest? NO. They assured the contestants that "they'd puke before they died". "Personal responsibility" cuts BOTH ways.

Whether Mrs. Strange died of water intoxication or not is open to question as long as the results of the autopsy have not been made public. A court will decide who's right, or who's wrong, and who's responsible.

I can live with that. It's the foundation of our free society.

 

[Neanderpaul]

Re: I Smell a RAT...

Neanderpaul - and others who are playing the "rat" card - I don't understand what your problem is. If everything is as you contend, that the death of Mrs. Strange was unforeseeable accident, then ALL of the staffers should be telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. If everybody involved "did the right thing" in the first place - as you contend - why should you be concerned if any or all of the staffers tell what they heard and saw to the DA, the Grand Jury, or in a court of law?

It is exactly this point I'm trying to make. This person is coming forward and their credibility has to be suspect because of hindsight. If they did everything right, and they've always believed that what they were doing was right, WHAT changed?

The results.

And now, in a self-preservation move, this person will potentially say anything to help clear their individual conscience.

If they believed prior that they were in the right, they believe now. The difference is that prior, they weren't suspect or party to a potential legal problem.

Selective morality sucks.

 

[SirRoxalot]

Trial By Jury

Perhaps you should stop trying to project YOUR moral values on others.

Facts are facts. The foundation of the judicial system is that both sides get to present the facts as they see them, and a jury gets to decide who's right. There's no "selective morality". There's discovery, presentation of arguements, and (hopefully) a decision by a jury of your peers. Attorneys for both sides will help determine "credibility".

IF you're contentions are correct, I don't understand what you're afraid of. The case will be decided by facts, not personal motives - on either side.

 

[hammerpants]

No moral high horse here Paul... I have nixed this very same lame "bit" more than once in the past. For the fact it can harm a human and for the fact it's hacked. They must be held responsible far beyond "hey, things happen!".

 

[Neanderpaul]

Re: Trial By Jury

Perhaps you should stop trying to project YOUR moral values on others.

Facts are facts. The foundation of the judicial system is that both sides get to present the facts as they see them, and a jury gets to decide who's right. There's no "selective morality". There's discovery, presentation of arguements, and (hopefully) a decision by a jury of your peers. Attorneys for both sides will help determine "credibility".

IF you're contentions are correct, I don't understand what you're afraid of. The case will be decided by facts, not personal motives - on either side.

I'm not "afraid" of anything. I have zero emotional investment in this matter. This isn't about me, or my beliefs. Quite frankly, I post here to amuse myself and for no other reason. I don't feel like my opinion matters any more than others'. I just feel free to express it. Some people get bent when someone else refutes their assertions. I read, and choose to retort to what I find interesting enough to comment upon. I'm comfortable enough with my opinion to stand by it, and am not so insecure that someone telling me I'm wrong, causes me any real stress, or harm.

This case professionally affects everyone who works in radio on some level. We're about to see where we need to be as far as contesting, and on air behavior. So, I will keep an eye on it.

I do find most of the "outrage" at the behavior of the radio station to be hilarious, disingenuous, and completely manufactured. But, that's my opinion. I'm entitled to it. Just as you're entitled to believe I'm trying to force a moral belief. I will always continue to believe that if you're going to live by a set of mores, that one should remain consistent to them. Selectively changing your personal morals in order to stave off some semblance of responsibility, or potential guilt is worthy of my personal disdain. And I have zero problem expressing it.

In my opinion, this person is not coming forward to do the right thing. And again, due to the timing of the decision. If they thought this was a bad idea, or wasn't on board with the plan, John Geary's phone number is ALL over the Madison building lists. They could've called at 6AM, day of, and expressed their objection. But it wasn't until this accident, and the subsequent legal entanglement that they stepped up. I question their motives and personally find them to be self-survival in nature. Perhaps I'm wrong. I'd be OK with being wrong. It's just an opinion. My life doesn't depend on this decision, so I can be cavalier in my choice.

And you're completely incorrect if you think that there's no such thing as selective morality. Ever run a red light? Ever change lanes in your vehicle without signalling? Ever roll through a stopsign? All illegal.

Having sat on a jury, I can tell you that personal morals always come into play. And often times people will alter them not because they wish to see "justice" rendered, but so that they can just get out of the jury room. You can spew forth all you choose about how the legal system works. And I can tell you that it only works in principle. Once you add the human element, all bets are off. He who tell the best story, wins.

Which is why, in my opinion, this will never make it to trial. Because in a jury trial :

A. A corporate radio company will ALWAYS be looked upon by Joe Public as evil, greedy and negligent. Big business rarely gets a fair trial. Ever.

and..

B. Any trial that is to be defended properly will only paint this woman and her actions unfavorably, leading to needless stress for her family.

Money corrupts. Those who have it, often use it for their own selfishness. Those who don't, resent those that do. The common man is angry at corporations for their wealth, and no corporation wants to inflict personal pain upon this woman's family. They've already suffered once. It's a no-win situation.

Expect a huge check to be written. And that will be the end of this.

 

[SirRoxalot]

Self-Service

In my opinion, this person is not coming forward to do the right thing. And again, due to the timing of the decision. If they thought this was a bad idea, or wasn't on board with the plan, John Geary's phone number is ALL over the Madison building lists. They could've called at 6AM, day of, and expressed their objection. But it wasn't until this accident, and the subsequent legal entanglement that they stepped up. I question their motives and personally find them to be self-survival in nature.

I don't know who's coming forward, but it's very possible that the person deferred to the assurances of the people who proposed and/or ran the contest that there was no danger. It appears - pending the autopsy results - that those assurances were incorrect. Now that it appears that the people making those assurances had not properly investigated "water intoxication", one of the staffers is ready and willing to tell what they know about the events they participated in. You call it "ratting out", I call it "doing the right thing".

When it comes to "self-serving", who's MORE self-serving - the people advocating a conspiracy of silence, or the ones who step forward to tell the truth as they know it? Yes, the 5th Amendment right to refuse to answer on grounds of self-incrimination applies, but doesn't invoking that right also imply that there is something incriminating that the respondent wishes to avoid?

Expect a huge check to be written. And that will be the end of this.

A huge check should be written, and the behavior of broadcasters should change. A young woman died. Whether you believe that it was an "accident", or negligence, this should NEVER happen again.

 

[Neanderpaul]

Re: Self-Service

A huge check should be written, and the behavior of broadcasters should change. A young woman died. Whether you believe that it was an "accident", or negligence, this should NEVER happen again.

I'll agree that it should never happen again.

But how much is a human life worth? When you start advocating buying human life, you walk into a really terrible place.

The behavior of broadcasters has been this way forever. Candid Camera, Stupid Human Tricks, Fear Factor.

All the same thing. All got ratings. All made money.

...and it won't ever go away. It will morph into another way to exploit.

It's what we do...We love to watch others make fools of themselves. Once in a while, someone dies.

...but the world keeps turning, and tomorrow, someone else will step up.

Sad. Truth.

 

[godofirony]

No. Right is right. Always. If this woman had not died, would that person have stepped forward? Or would this topic even be discussed? That's the thing that burns me the most. Contests like these have gone on for decades without incident. Nobody has spoken up. Not me. Not you.

Nobody.

Nobody on this board. Nobody in the industry. Suddenly, due to an unfortunate accident, there's this discovery of moral consciousness. People have "moral outrage." Or "they knew ahead of time and did nothing."

With all due respect Paul, you are surely incorrect on this point. In fact, there are people on this board and in this industry who have spoken up about the possibly dangerous activities stations participate in. In fact, this is the very reason I no longer work at that Madison avenue building, or in the industry at all anymore. My return to this board is only to see what ill effects Entercom and the industry are suffering now for not listening to those who have spoken up.

While I agree with most everyone on here that both Mrs. Strange and Entercom are each on some level responsible for all this....remember that (and this applies to many things) just because you haven't experienced it, heard of it, or seen it...that it doesn't exist.

 

[Neanderpaul]

With all due respect Paul, you are surely incorrect on this point. In fact, there are people on this board and in this industry who have spoken up about the possibly dangerous activities stations participate in. In fact, this is the very reason I no longer work at that Madison avenue building, or in the industry at all anymore. My return to this board is only to see what ill effects Entercom and the industry are suffering now for not listening to those who have spoken up.

And I will ask you this, also with the most respect that I can;

Why did you walk away? If it was so bad, why did you give up the fight? Please don't construe this as me attacking you.

Is turning your back to a problem, a solution? I may, or may not agree with your point. But, I don't see what purpose turning a blind eye served. And did you come back to say "I told you so?"

Again, you can't really express tone-of-voice in typeset. I know it looks contentious the way it's phrased. Please understand that that's not my intent. I just ask the question. Blunt is sometimes abrasive. If that's how you interpret, apologies in advance.

Thanks for reading,

 

[hammerpants]

Paul...

Big guy, maybe you were in a position to voice an actual dissenting opinion in that building... you were in the minority. Others are not given the latitude to point out that something is horribly wrong. They will be put out in the street in a nano-second. This is the closed minded culture that lives in that Entercom/Sacramento building for 90% of it's inhabitants!

It's hard to see whats going on in the streets from the penthouse.

 

[godofirony]

With all due respect Paul, you are surely incorrect on this point. In fact, there are people on this board and in this industry who have spoken up about the possibly dangerous activities stations participate in. In fact, this is the very reason I no longer work at that Madison avenue building, or in the industry at all anymore. My return to this board is only to see what ill effects Entercom and the industry are suffering now for not listening to those who have spoken up.

And I will ask you this, also with the most respect that I can;

Why did you walk away? If it was so bad, why did you give up the fight? Please don't construe this as me attacking you.

Is turning your back to a problem, a solution? I may, or may not agree with your point. But, I don't see what purpose turning a blind eye served. And did you come back to say "I told you so?"

Again, you can't really express tone-of-voice in typeset. I know it looks contentious the way it's phrased. Please understand that that's not my intent. I just ask the question. Blunt is sometimes abrasive. If that's how you interpret, apologies in advance.

Thanks for reading,

Thanks, Paul. I tried my hardest not to walk away - to make my point known...but then I was forced out of that building and it was truly the best thing that ever happened to me. And yes, I could have taken it further, but when you're young and have no resources - there wasn't much else I could do.

Turning your back is not a solution - but I didn't turn my back. I SAID something. Entercom turns its back on its employees who do speak up - which is why I firmly believe this whole incident is a case of Karma. And in a way, yes, I am saying "I told you so"...as much as someone can while still recognizing that this is a horrible tragedy.

Case in point...

Paul...

Big guy, maybe you were in a position to voice an actual dissenting opinion in that building... you were in the minority. Others are not given the latitude to point out that something is horribly wrong. They will be put out in the street in a nano-second. This is the closed minded culture that lives in that Entercom/Sacramento building for 90% of it's inhabitants!

It's hard to see whats going on in the streets from the penthouse.

And that's exactly what happened...

 

[Neanderpaul]

Thanks, Paul. I tried my hardest not to walk away - to make my point known...but then I was forced out of that building and it was truly the best thing that ever happened to me. And yes, I could have taken it further, but when you're young and have no resources - there wasn't much else I could do.

Turning your back is not a solution - but I didn't turn my back. I SAID something. Entercom turns its back on its employees who do speak up - which is why I firmly believe this whole incident is a case of Karma. And in a way, yes, I am saying "I told you so"...as much as someone can while still recognizing that this is a horrible tragedy.

I understand that completely. It's very difficult to walk that line. Some would say "it's just a job"...but then you realize it's your job, and you need it in order to live. I'm certainly guilty of shooting my mouth off and having it get me in trouble. It's cost me jobs in the past, and I'm hopeful I learned that lesson. I guess it comes down to knowing your place and taking it as far as you realistically can without it impeding your ability to live...or...you find a new place to work. Nobody can fault anybody for that. So, it's an example of trading a certain amount of personal opinion in exchange for x amount of dollars per year.

I get it...

And I also understand the contention that people at the corporate level in any business sometimes being out of the loop when it comes to day-to-day operations of their business. they say it rolls downhill. Usually those at the bottom have to clean the mess.

Keeping this on-topic. I'm sure corporate wasn't aware of the daily content of their morning show. I'm fairly sure they trusted their manager to manage it properly and protect the license of the station. I'm also pretty sure that's why the person is no longer employed. I have nothing against Mr. Weed. I found him to be personable and we got along well. But, I guess when it comes down to it, someone has to take the fall in business, and usually that's the PD.

I think it's going to be very interesting to see how this whole thing shakes out.

Thanks for not taking my question the wrong way.

 

[godofirony]

Keeping this on-topic. I'm sure corporate wasn't aware of the daily content of their morning show. I'm fairly sure they trusted their manager to manage it properly and protect the license of the station. I'm also pretty sure that's why the person is no longer employed. I have nothing against Mr. Weed. I found him to be personable and we got along well. But, I guess when it comes down to it, someone has to take the fall in business, and usually that's the PD.

I think it's going to be very interesting to see how this whole thing shakes out.

Thanks for not taking my question the wrong way.

No problem. It was a good question.

But in regards to Steve Weed...I'm sure he knew about that contest. Steve listened to that station like a HAWK, going so far as to call part-timers on the hotline to let them know they stepped on the song...it was crazy. And from what I've heard, this contest was the finale of a week long promotion...

But then again....John Geary can hear the end from his office as well....I guess we'll see.

 

[Stage5Clinger]

We can nitpick this forever, or until the trial ( or pretrial settlement), but the facts remain:

1. Steve Weed thought of, or had a hand in EVERY promotion that had to do with the morning show since he started there. He is culpable due to this fact, whether he's a nice guy to work for or not.

2. One of the former staffers is talking to the prosecution's side about a discussion in a promotions meeting regarding this promotion. That discussion included the death of Matthew Carrington in Chico, as well as the topic of water intoxication and the possibility of someone dying from it. Why they're doing it, the timing, our labeling of them due to preconceived bias, and who they are matter little. They are just telling the truth about what they knew going into it.

3. Public executions are not broadcast here in the United States, and are not valued as entertainment. If you seek that stuff out, that's your own thing. That's why they're not on tv. or on the radio, but are on the news, in movies like "Faces of Death," and other sources, if one chooses to SEEK them out.

3. We, as broadcasters, operate in the public interest. If not, we are failing the audience, our advertisers, and our credibilty.

You may disregard these facts, but they remain as facts in this case. And once again, as I've said before, this discussion was simply a presentation of the facts as they stand now. You may agree or not, but they are what they are: facts.


[NOTE: Some posts have been split from topic and moved to Off the Air. Please see redirection thread on this board dealing with human values.]

 

[jimmythebassett]

HIDDEN TRANSFERS
Is the new Entercom Country station in San Fransisco secretly hiring some the "fired" staff members from thier Sacramento station who were involveed in the "water death" incident on the condition that they use different names and create different images for themselves because thier firing in Sacremento violated some contracts and this was to settle ongoing beach of contract suits ? And are they trying to keep it secret? Well, if it's a secret, it ain't no more.

 

[wcrzx]

Very interesting that no criminal charges will be filed. Where are all those people who wanted to throw the staff under the jail.

 

[Neanderpaul]

I'm happy to hear that no criminal charges will be filed.

It appears the courts saw this for the terrible accident that is.

I fully expect the civil payout to be huge.