Shouldn’t The Media Apologize For Labeling COVID Lab Leak A Conspiracy Theory?
“Simply taking the opposite view, or wanting more information before jumping to conclusions, is enough to make someone a “conspiracy theorist” in the eyes of a large swathe of the media.”
Has the mainstream, liberal corporate media apologized yet?
Have they offered a mea culpa to Americans from every nook and cranny across the country; a plurality, if not a majority, of whom believed – from the beginning – that the Covid-19 virus might have leaked from a lab in Wuhan, China.
For three years, many have surmised that an accidental lab leak was plausible. Others have gone further, wondering if the Chinese government purposely created the worldwide pandemic to politically hurt President Donald Trump and aid Democrats in removing him from office.
Regardless, many – if not most – Americans thought the theory deserved investigation, at the very least. The liberal media, however, took their usual position, classifying anyone asking questions as “conspiracy theorists.”
Fox News Digital ran a montage over the weekend, demonstrating many media segments, where the hosts disparaged anyone who would possibly question the virus’ origin.
“And then there’s this theory,” the narrator said in a serious tone on CNN in 2020. “Widely debunked. This paper from two Chinese researchers, that says it is plausible that the virus leaked – accidentally – from one of two labs near the Wuhan seafood market.”
“The coronavirus was man-made in a lab in Wuhan, China,” Joy Reid began on May 3, 2020. “And yet this week, Donald Trump is still pushing the debunked bunkum, despite his own intelligence community’s findings that that is simply not true.”
“The Wuhan lab, we know it’s been debunked that this virus was man made or modified or anything like that,” another MSNBC host said that same day on the network.
“Tom Cotton, a couple of days ago, spouting a conspiracy theory, the Chinese made this virus up in a lab.” MSNBC host Joe Scarborough said on February 25, 2020. “You have Rush Limbaugh every day, the Presidential Medal of Freedom of Honor. It’s hard to say this is the most reckless thing he’s ever done.”
In April of 2020, MSNBC host Nicolle Wallace called the questioning of the virus’ origins “one of Trump-world’s most favorite conspiracy theories.” She quoted a New York Times piece, which also threw shade on any intelligent discussion of the theory’s merit, saying, “Senior Trump administration officials have pushed American spy agencies to hunt for evidence to support an unsubstantiated theory that a government laboratory in Wuhan, China, was the origin of the coronavirus outbreak.” The Times was correct. At that point in 2020, the “theory” was, indeed, yet unsubstantiated.
On April 30th, 2020, CNN’s Fareed Zakaria said, “Tom Cotton, one of Donald Trump’s staunchest allies in the Senate, suggested that the virus might have originated in a high-security biochemical lab in China. In the 1980’s, I remember when the far-left trafficked in rumors about HIV having been invented in CIA labs. The far-right has now found its own virus conspiracy theory.”
So why didn’t the liberal mainstream media, at the time, simply report the facts as known? Lay out the multiple theories and the facts surrounding each one. And also lay out what was definitively known as fact. Why the need to insert the judgment without the facts and to label inquisitors as “conspiracy theorists?”
This game is nothing new for the liberal, mainstream media. Question the veracity of the charges against the Duke lacrosse team, find yourself labeled a “racist” or “conspiracy theorist.” Same thing with the “Hands-Up, Don’t Shoot” narrative, the Charlottesville hoax, “Russia collusion” and countless others.
Simply taking the opposite view, or wanting more information before jumping to conclusions, is enough to make someone a “conspiracy theorist” in the eyes of a large swathe of the media.
The truth, however, is that they know better. These are not dumb people. The media’s goal is simply to put the “doubters” on record as being nutty conspiracy theorists, slapping the negative label on them as soon as possible. It is extremely difficult to remove a negative label, or to disprove a negative. It is akin to boxing against the wind, and the duplicitous faction in the media knows this. They know the quicker you can slap a negative label on someone, or a group of someones, the more difficult it will be to remove that negative opinion about those people.
Remember when Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, days before the 2012 Presidential Election, came out with the publicly scurrilous charge that Republican candidate Mitt Romney hadn’t paid taxes in ten years? The charges hurt Romney, who went on to lose the election. Only some time after the election did Reid admit “of course he paid taxes.” And when asked about the tactic in 2015, Reid told CNN, “he didn’t win, did he?”
The media knows this game well, and they play it with gusto. They view themselves as the puppet masters, able to instill a prevailing opinion and rely on their audience to compliantly adhere.
For example, more than a decade ago, the media slyly conflated a story about Republican Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin in order to create a caricature of the popular Republican that, in some circles, remains today. Saturday Night Live produced a skit, in which an actress portraying Palin bragged about her number one national security credential – that she could see Russia from her house in Alaska. The media gleefully reported and twisted that skit into a factual narrative, thus tarnishing Palin’s reputation and labeling her as a flighty dimwit. Goal achieved. And as a result, a large segment of the population still believes she said that….15 years later!
When President Trump or his supporters questioned the virus’s origin out loud three years ago, it didn’t matter one bit what he said. Just the fact that he said it was enough to force the media to assume the opposite position. Had he said the sky was blue, the mainstream media would have labeled any like-minded patriot a “conspiracy theorist” for agreeing. After all, Orange Man bad.
FBI director Christopher Wray this past week told Fox News’ Baier, “the FBI has, for quite some time now assessed that the origins of the pandemic are most likely a potential lab incident in Wuhan.” He continued, saying, “Here you’re talking about a potential leak from a Chinese government-controlled lab that killed millions of Americans.”
“That’s as far as any administration official has gone on the lab leak theory from Wuhan, directly contradicting what Anthony Fauci said just today,” Baier noted with a degree of astonishment.
So why didn’t the liberal media simply wait, back in 2020, until more facts were uncovered? Why the rush to judge, slander and label?
“It completely cuts the legs out from under so many people who were still clinging to this animal transfer theory of Covid,” Byron York of the Washington Examiner told Baier. “And it’s become a political football. But now we have the FBI director saying, in no uncertain terms, that they assess that it was a lab leak, to go with what we got in less-certain terms from the Energy department yesterday. So I think it has now become pretty much the position of the U.S. government, whether they’re going to come out and say it in that many words or not.” And York, as he often does, pinpointed the tactic perfectly. A political football.
If that weren’t enough, even liberal television host Bill Maher weighed in last week, saying those who questioned the virus’ origin are “looking pretty good” after the recent change in the story’s narrative.
So the question remains. Will the majority of the liberal, American corporate media apologize to citizens across the nation?
Undoubtedly, that is one question we know the answer to.
Rick Schultz is a former Sports Director for WFUV Radio at Fordham University. He has coached and mentored hundreds of Sports Broadcasting students at the Connecticut School of Broadcasting, Marist College and privately. His media career experiences include working for the Hudson Valley Renegades, Army Sports at West Point, The Norwich Navigators, 1340/1390 ESPN Radio in Poughkeepsie, NY, Time Warner Cable TV, Scorephone NY, Metro Networks, NBC Sports, ABC Sports, Cumulus Media, Pamal Broadcasting and WATR. He has also authored a number of books including “A Renegade Championship Summer” and “Untold Tales From The Bush Leagues”. To get in touch, find him on Twitter @RickSchultzNY.
Leave a Reply
Leave a Reply
Nick Kayal Moved From Sports to News, And is Seeing Results at 1210 WPHT
“We hit the ground running from day one, and our audience has grown month-by-month against different demos and platforms.”
During the pandemic, Nick Kayal, a former sports talk show host, fearlessly pivoted his career to news/talk. This bold move resulted in numerous changes, including his current role as the highly regarded host of 1210 WPHT’s Kayal and Company show in Philadelphia.
With his vibrant and impassioned approach to news/talk, he’s spearheading the evolution of radio to cater to the next generation’s needs.
1210 WPHT stands out for its dedication to connecting with audiences through a variety of platforms. Greg Stocker, the station’s brand manager and a popular personality on Kayal and Company, has led this effort. The station has become a favorite among listeners of all ages, thanks to its focus on live and local programming from 6:00 AM-7:00 PM. As a result, 1210 WPHT has established itself as a significant player in the Philadelphia radio market.
In a recent interview with Barrett News Media, Kayal shared essential perspectives on the advantages of AM radio and the powerful influence of talk radio on Philadelphia’s story. Kayal highlighted 1210 WPHT’s success in captivating audiences with exciting content and attracting diverse listeners.
Ryan Hedrick: Many listeners know you from your background in sports radio. What prompted your transition from sports to news/talk, and how has your experience been? Have there been any challenges or rewarding aspects in making this switch?
Nick Kayal: I was a political science major in college as a freshman back in 2002, so I’ve always had an interest in politics. Then, I got away from that and changed majors to criminal justice and pre-law. I started getting really into politics right around 2015 as [Donald] Trump announced that he was going to run for president, and a lot of my political views always seem to gradually slide from moderate Democrat, to moderate Republican or conservative Republican.
Many things during the pandemic opened my eyes, from the lack of freedom to the control of the government trying to restrict its citizens, and the imposed mask mandates. Equally important is the whole cancel culture movement. The woke aspect of society and people constantly being offended, trying to shut you down because they disagree. Much of that also drove me because I’m a big believer in the First Amendment and free speech, and I don’t believe in silencing opposing viewpoints.
RH: Did you encounter any difficulties or positive experiences when making this change?
NK: It has been gratifying because many great, talented individuals have surrounded me. The feedback has been mostly positive, and all of that has been rewarding. We hit the ground running from day one, and our audience has grown month-by-month against different demos and platforms.
The only challenge, initially, was once I got the job having to stay quiet about it for a few months and then make it public and expecting some pushback from a bunch of liberals that were going to be mad because I was doing so-called conservative talk. Other than a few people I have a good relationship with unfollowing me on Twitter because they didn’t want to see my political views, there haven’t been any challenges. I was put into a situation to succeed.
RH: WPHT has a long history in Philadelphia. What makes the station unique, and how do you strive to connect with the local audience?
NK: What makes WPHT unique right now is that this is the first time in the station’s history that we’ve been live and local 6:00 AM-7:00 PM. We have four different amazing shows. We don’t have four shows that all sound identical and are formatted the same. The hosts are not trying to be Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity.
In the morning, we do a modern-day news show for news talk. If you’ve ever watched (Fox News’) The Five, that’s what we do. We hit on the big stories; we have personalities; we talk about pop culture; it’s that kind of variety.
Dawn [Stensland] does her show; she’s also my news anchor and a TV legend in Philadelphia. She does more of what’s breaking and developing. Dom [Giordano] is on from noon-3:00 PM and really gets into the crime issues. Rich [Zeoli] does his thing in the afternoon almost like what he did in the morning, minus the supporting cast he once had, and of course, he’s a star in the industry.
As far as connecting with the locals in Philadelphia, it’s no secret. If you are a fraud, the audience will know it. I have a blueprint, and it’s called COPE. It stands for content, opinion, personality, and entertainment. If you check off those four each day, the results should come.
RH: As a morning host, what are the critical elements of a successful morning show? How do you keep the content engaging and relevant for your listeners?
NK: When you are doing mornings, you must be entertaining. How you define entertaining is up to each host. The last thing I want to do is do a 20-minute dissertation on the debt ceiling; my job is to wake my audience up, not to put them back to sleep. I don’t do anything long-winded.
In my opening segment, after we set the show-up and chit-chat, I do a piece at 6:10 called the “Big Take”. It’s five to seven minutes long, and that’s kind of my opening monologue. I used audio and video. After that, we hit on a couple of stories, and I get Dawn [Stensland] and Greg [Stocker] ‘s opinions on it, and whatever organically develops from that is how I keep the show moving.
We have a show sheet, but we are not beholden to it. It comes down to creating a game plan and letting your radio instincts take over.
RH: What role does talk radio play in shaping public opinion and fostering community dialogue?
NK: I’ve always been torn on shaping the narrative. I go into a show with my opinion each day. I try not to watch other people’s shows too much or listen to others because I don’t want those opinions to corrupt my views. Regarding shaping narratives, I’m not sitting there telling you what to think. You can agree or disagree.
Still, one thing I promised I would never do is to be an apologist for the Republican party or conservatives in general or MAGA Republicans. My job is not to improve your feelings but to get ratings, and I take the approach of getting ratings and eff the feelings.
RH: Can you share any memorable experiences or interviews you’ve had as a morning host? Is there a particular moment that stands out to you in your career?
NK: We have not gone heavy on interviews because we have a three-mic show between Dawn, me, and Greg. I can not give one specific interview.
Indeed, in sports, there were prominent people that I spoke with. When I was in the South, I talked to Nick Saban. Things may be different in 2023-24 if we may have somebody like [Ron] DeSantis on the show or [Donald] Trump, Tim Scott, or whoever that will be.
But so far, we have steered clear of interviews. To this date, the one thing that I am most proud of is the money we raised for the Travis Manion Foundation. Every year we do an annual radiothon, and this year we set a record in the mornings when we raised $92,000 in four hours.
RH: How do you see the future of talk radio and morning shows evolving in an era of rapidly changing media consumption habits? What strategies are you implementing to adapt to these changes?
NK: The way we view it, we are no longer a talk radio station. We are an audio and video content distribution platform or network of platforms. People listen to us when they want or when they have the time. They might be listening 45 minutes behind on a delay on the app or just catching up. They might go to the website and download the podcasts. Or they may go to YouTube and watch all four hours live on our channel.
We’ve had people tweeting us pictures of their smart TV’s where they’ve had YouTube up, and they’re watching us in their living room on their 65-inch flat screen, and it looks like we are doing a TV show. We are a variety platform now.
RH: What are some key advantages of AM radio over other mediums, and how can stations effectively communicate these advantages to listeners and advertisers?
NK: As crucial as ratings are, you will only last long with the advertisers and the revenue. It’s a matter of selling people on the value of AM and, indeed, to the automakers. AM radio is still how people get weather alerts, travel advisories, etc. There’s a human safety element. AM radio reaches over 40 million Americans weekly, well over 10 percent of the country. We still get a massive amount of people.
The biggest challenge is attracting the Gen-Z listener. I wonder if you can. That’s another audience we can tap into. There will always be that demand for talk radio because you know you can never replace live and local personalities. News/talk is expensive to operate when you’re live and local, but the value remains.
RH: Lastly, are there any exciting upcoming projects or initiatives you’re working on that you’d like to share with your listeners and readers?
NK: More than anything, our brand, WPHT, is where free speech lives. We encourage dialogue, discourse, and discussions, and, indeed, debate. We have some people in our audience who are not conservatives. We have people that disagree with us. The great thing about WPHT is that we offer well-rounded conversations and various shows.
We have some other things in the works that our Brand Manager, Greg Stocker, has been pushing for, and hopefully, in the weeks and months, we can get some of this rolled out. A lot of people say the station has never sounded better. Greg Stocker has only been in his position as Brand Manager for over a year, and he’s taken the station to new heights.
Within our doors and walls at Audacy in Philadelphia, there are very happy with how things are going at the station.
Ryan Hedrick serves as the Assistant Program Director and Co-Host of the Morning News Express at WFMD. Prior to WFMD, he hosted an afternoon program at News Talk 103.7 FM in Chambersburg, PA. He has worked at Sirius XM in Washington D.C., WBEN in Buffalo, NY, and for stations in Baltimore, MD. He has also worked at WIBW-AM in Topeka KS, earning the Kansas Association of Broadcasters (KAB) award for Major Market enterprise reporting in 2016. To connect with Ryan, find him on Twitter @SureToCover.
AM Radio Still Has Challenges Despite Ford’s Reversal
An AM tuner in every car is good, but a new law won’t fix the underlying problems.
Ever since Ford’s announcement that they would cease including AM radio in most of their vehicles (commercial vehicles excepted) starting in 2024, it’s become de rigueur to comment and come to the defense of amplitude modulation.
While Tesla, Polestar, and a few BMWs don’t have AM radios, when a large mainstream OEM like Ford made that announcement, the radio industry stood up and took notice. Even though Ford has now rescinded that decision, it’s not that anyone in the radio industry wasn’t aware that AM was in decline.
The initial Ford bombshell was enough to sound the alarms and fight for the survival of AM radio even as the industry has tacitly given up on the band. A telling statistic is that in 1990, there were approximately 1,850 FM translators on the air. By 2021, that number had increased to 8,521. That’s strong evidence it’s a popular move to rebroadcast your AM station on an FM translator, even if the translator can’t exceed 250 watts of ERP.
Nonetheless, the initial Ford news prompted several lawmakers to introduce a bill (The AM in Every Vehicle Act) that would require the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to issue a rule mandating AM radio in every vehicle sold in the United States. This being a research column, I’ll offer some background on how you can evaluate AM listening today.
If you’ve read my first few columns, you know that as an old guy, I enjoy history. Reading about The AM in Every Vehicle Act, I immediately thought of the All Channel Receiver Act of 1962, which required that the FCC mandate UHF receivers in all new televisions sold in the US.
In the early days of TV, while channels 2-83 were originally assigned for television broadcasting, most sets could receive only VHF (analog channels 2-13). Unless you were in an all-UHF market (there were a handful such as Youngstown and Peoria), there wasn’t much incentive to buy a set with UHF or to get a UHF converter.
From a personal standpoint, I had to borrow a neighbor’s 9-inch GE portable TV that had UHF to see Our World, the first multinational live program, in June 1967. The US participant was National Educational Television, the forerunner of PBS, and Rochester’s “educational” station (WXXI) was on channel 21. Why borrow a set? My family’s console Zenith didn’t have UHF and The Beatles were part of the show, performing “All You Need is Love” for the first time. I couldn’t miss that.
Even with a federal law, UHF stations took decades to catch up with VHF channels. I presented a paper at an academic conference in 1986 entitled “The UHF Affiliate in the ‘80s: More Travels Down Parity Road” using regression analysis to show that, based on Nielsen data, UHF still lagged many years after the Act was implemented.
Pierre Bouvard, one of the best people in the business, recently put out a piece claiming 82 million people cume AM in a month. Like just about everyone else in the business, I love Pierre, but at least one-quarter hour in a four-week period doesn’t mean much and that number is subject to certain caveats regarding Nielsen edit rules as I’ll explain.
During my time at the NAB in the late ‘80s, I put together a similar piece using RADAR, the Nielsen national radio network service. If memory serves, AM had a weekly P12+ national cume of around 90 million people. At that time, there was a lot of talk about the death of AM, but it had a weekly circulation that was bigger than US newspapers. Rush Limbaugh had just started his meteoric rise and with him, the rise of news/talk on AM. Streaming didn’t exist and translators couldn’t be used to rebroadcast an AM outlet. Now, we have a (likely inflated) figure that’s smaller, using a four-week instead of a one-week estimate.
It’s 2023 and while there are still some great AM stations out there, many outlets are programmed for religious audiences or people who primarily speak other languages, and usage of AM is low.
As a researcher who’s been looking at ratings for 40+ years, I’d place a small bet that if you were to run the persons 25-54 combined AM share in Nielsen for Monday-Friday 6 AM-7 PM in the 48 PPM markets, most markets would have trouble getting much past a 10-15 share, in other words, FM and other encoded listening would have the rest.
And I’d place another bet that the market-level AM cume ratings for that demo/daypart combination would generally be in single digits. The same numbers for the diary markets would likely be a little higher and P55+ would look better, but keep in mind that FM translators cannot originate more than 30 seconds an hour of “programming” which means any listening to an AM station that simulcasts on an FM translator will be credited by Nielsen to the AM parent, in other words, inflating the AM listening percentage.
If the station is total line only, streamed listening is included as well. You can run this in PPM Analysis Tool or Tapscan. RADAR allows you to look at national AM listening alone and the cume will be an impressive number of persons, but again, Nielsen edit rules will push some FM and online listening into the AM column, so a deflator is warranted.
Like many of you, I grew up on AM. In Rochester, the big top 40 station was WBBF (950 AM) which later on had competition from WAXC (1460 AM) with The Greaseman at night and a young Tom Birch. Nighttime listening to clear channel AMs on “the skip” was fun with music stations like WABC, WLS, WCFL, CKLW, and others.
I’d wake up in the middle of the night and spend a couple of quarter hours with Larry Glick on WBZ who was incredibly entertaining. That was the 1960s and early 1970s, but will requiring AM in cars in the mid-2020s mean much of anything when smartphone penetration is nearly 87 percent (per Statista) and almost any radio station or song a listener wants is available in excellent fidelity on demand?
Further, a frightening number of people don’t own a radio in their homes. If you subscribe to Nielsen in a PPM metro, look at the latest quarterly panel characteristics report. Nielsen reports the number of radios in the household by demo. If you’ve never seen that particular statistic, you’ll want to have a stiff drink available before you look at your market or your company’s markets. Living in Kentucky, state law requires me to suggest bourbon.
The obvious question is “Are we trying to close the barn door after the horse has escaped?” Sticking with the equine theme (another Kentucky requirement), we can lead the horse (listeners) to water (AM), but we can’t make them drink (listen).
An AM tuner in every car is good, but a new law won’t fix the underlying problems.
Let’s meet again next week.
One of the radio industry’s most respected researchers, Dr. Ed Cohen writes a weekly column for Barrett News Media. His career experiences include serving as VP of Ratings and Research at Cumulus Media, occupying the role of VP of Measurement Innovation at Nielsen Audio, and its predecessor Arbitron. While with Arbitron, Cohen spent five years as the company’s President of Research Policy and Communication, and eight years as VP of Domestic Radio Research. He has also held the title of Vice President of Research for iHeartMedia/Clear Channel, and held research positions for the National Association of Broadcasters and Birch/Scarborough Research.
Be advised that Dr. Ed had a Twitter handle listed as a way to reach him but unfortunately, that’s an old account that was set up during his time at Arbitron many years ago and he has no way to access it. He’d enjoy hearing your thoughts though so please feel free to reach him at email@example.com.
How Howard Stern Cashed In On Objectionable Content
Everybody wanted to know exactly what Stern had said to incur FCC fines. We couldn’t rebroadcast those bits and didn’t want to discuss them.
Since Florida Governor Ron DeSantis threw his hat in the ring for the Republican nomination, the mainstream media has discovered there is a human worse than Donald Trump, which is saying something considering that Trump has been called or compared to Hitler in The New York Times, The Washington Post, by CNN’s Dana Bash, on MSNBC by Rachel Maddow, by Democrats including Reps. James Clyburn (D-SC) and Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), on The View, Saturday Night Live, by a former head of the Anti-Defamation League, former Mexican President Vicente Fox, and many others, including Howard Stern.
The left and their partners in the mainstream media have a long list of grievances against DeSantis, none more disingenuous than the claim that he is banning books.
In reality, Florida has given parents control of their children’s education by allowing them a say regarding age-inappropriate materials in public school libraries.
Several organizations keep track of books that are being challenged and “banned.” Topping every organization’s list is “Gender Queer” by Maia Kobabe. The book’s Amazon description includes: “bonding with friends over erotic gay fanfiction.” The author is also an illustrator and illustrated the book. Although I have not read it, I understand the illustrations are sexually explicit.
The book gets challenged and pulled from public school libraries for graphic sexual content. The left maintains conservatives want to ban the book because of an anti-LGTBQ+ crusade. The objections wouldn’t be different if the depictions were of heterosexual sex. It isn’t age-appropriate and therefore shouldn’t be in a school library.
I wondered if I could find “Gender Queer” at a big-name brick-and-mortar bookstore throughout Florida. I checked more than a dozen Barnes & Noble bookstores. Many had the hardcover and paperback in stock and ready for pick up in two business hours or less.
There are no banned books in Florida. Adults can buy any title they want and read it where they choose.
Some restrictions on content (such as keeping sexually explicit content out of public school libraries) are legitimate. Other objections might come from outside the community impacted by the decision or by small minorities or religious groups. Radio people understand these situations.
It reminds me of a tale of three wise men named Howard Stern, Mel Karmazin (Infinity Broadcasting President), and Don Buchwald (Stern’s agent).
In November 1986, three months after we began simulcasting The Howard Stern Show on WYSP, Philadelphia (where I was program director), the FCC started investigating three indecency complaints.
Two of them were from Reverend Donald Wildmon of Tupelo, Mississippi. Wildmon was the director of the “National Federation for Decency.” The third was from Mary Keeley, the mother of a 15-year-old girl. “Morality in Media,” an organization similar to Wildmon’s, instructed her on how to file an FCC complaint.
The FCC gave WYSP’s parent company, Infinity, 30 days to respond. Karmazin answered with a vigorous defense in December 1986. He “urged the Commission to conclude its inquiry without further action.”
In April 1987, the FCC rejected Infinity’s defense and concluded that Stern had aired indecent material, even though he did not utter any of the famous “Seven Dirty Words” previously understood to comprise the standard. Because he dwelled on sexual or excretory matters, not just fleeting references, the FCC found the material “patently offensive.” The FCC was also concerned because “there was a reasonable risk that children may have been in the audience.”
Because the Commission clarified its standards, it limited its action to warning Infinity and other broadcast licensees that future cases would be actionable by fines or license penalties.
The FCC’s ruling confused broadcasters. What could you say and what couldn’t you say on the radio? What made something indecent?
Steve Lerman was the principal regulatory counsel to Infinity. I had several meetings with Lerman and can only imagine how many sessions the Stern crew had with him trying to understand where the FCC had drawn the line.
Steve is a great guy, and the smartest lawyer I’ve ever met, but his personality has never been described as dynamic. If you’ve seen “Ferris Bueller’s Day Off,” you know what he sounds like. Recall the scene with Bueller’s teacher, played by Ben Stein: “Bueller, Bueller, Bueller? Anyone?” That’s Steve Lerman.
Lerman told us to imagine him reading a transcript of what Stern said before the Supreme Court as they sat in their robes stone-faced. “That should give you a pretty good idea of whether it’s indecent,” he taught us.
In 1988, Stern added his third station, WJFK, Washington. Otherwise, life seemed to go on as normal. Then came the annual Christmas Party Show in 1988, resulting in more complaints to the FCC.
In the Fall of 1989, the FCC asked Infinity to explain the complaints about the Christmas Party show. The FCC rejected Infinity’s argument that the material was no more offensive than daytime television programs and, therefore, not indecent. The Commission slapped each of the three stations with a $2,000 fine and Notice of Apparent Liability (NAL), which could result in license forfeiture.
That day was the first time I was asked to appear on Nightline. Of course, I didn’t accept. The program director at WYSP didn’t speak for Howard Stern or Infinity on FCC matters. Nightline showed press conference footage from earlier that day. I recall seeing Stern visibly shaken.
Infinity (later CBS Radio) fought legal battles over indecency with the FCC for several years.
In the meantime, the three wise men displayed their brilliance.
Everybody wanted to know exactly what Stern had said to incur FCC fines. We couldn’t rebroadcast those bits and didn’t want to discuss them. The combination of Howard, Mel, and Don recognized people were curious, and nothing is more desirable than something banned. That was the genesis of “Crucified by the FCC.”
“Crucified by the FCC” was a box set released in CD or cassette formats, plus a 12-page booklet about the show’s history and battles with the FCC. It was released in early 1991 and included material from the Christmas Party show that brought the FCC fines.
Sold directly through an 800 number and promoted heavily by the stations during Stern’s show and throughout the day. Howard did promotional appearances, including this appearance with David Letterman:
No sales records were released, but we were told it sold several hundred thousand copies.
Prohibiting books from school libraries today may present an opportunity for a financial bonanza for authors and artists.
My friend Joe thinks it could be the DeSantis literary program. Ban Romeo and Juliet due to underage sex, and teens will flock to Shakespeare.
If I were selling books today, I would borrow from the three wise men.
If I had a brick-and-mortar bookstore, I would cordon off an area like video stores did for adult movie titles. I’d make a sign that read “BANNED BOOKS” or “Banned by the Governor.” Online I’d make a “Banned Books” button prominent.
Since nobody is really banning books in America, I’d use the lessons three wise men taught me about controversy and use the objections to some titles to sell books that otherwise few people would be interested in reading.
Andy Bloom is president of Andy Bloom Communications. He specializes in media training and political communications. He has programmed legendary stations including WIP, WPHT and WYSP/Philadelphia, KLSX, Los Angeles and WCCO Minneapolis. He was Vice President Programming for Emmis International, Greater Media Inc. and Coleman Research. Andy also served as communications director for Rep. Michael R. Turner, R-Ohio. He can be reached by email at firstname.lastname@example.org or you can follow him on Twitter @AndyBloomCom.
Ray in Bowie
March 7, 2023 at 10:58 pm
We still do not know where the virus originated. The Dept. of Energy, with low confidence, has said they believe it was a lab leak.
When Trump pulled that theory out of his ample ass, it was just to have a villain and switch the attention away from the confusion in his administration in taking appropriate public health action .
It made ZERO difference as to how to mitigated the virus’ spread, and likely caused an anti-Asian reaction, sometimes violent, by Trump’s simpleton followers.
The media knew that the lab leak theory was nothing more than a coin-flip guess. Get over it.