The High School and The End

April 17, 2010

I wrote a piece that is appearing in today's Sacramento Bee about why KDND 107.9 The End's license to broadcast should be taken away.  See it here.

I have been reading comments on the SacBee site;  so far, they generally follow the post-trial public opinion that Jennifer Strange was dumb and responsible for her own death.  They miss the fact that Jennifer Strange, with no college education, was earning nearly $60,000 a year in the medical field.  She was no dummy.  And they miss the fact that the jury who actually heard the case unanimously and quickly decided that Mrs. Strange would not have died had it not been for that contest, and that of the twelve jurors, only two thought she had some (not full) responsibility for her death;  ten said she had no responsibility whatsoever.

Somehow, people today seem to think that a corporation which invites (lures?) people into a contest so they can increase their own profits are not to be held responsible when their own contest goes awry, to the point of killing someone.   These people cite personal responsibility; let's not forget, corporations are "persons" too;  where's their personal responsibility?

I am reminded of the Roald Dahl short story "Man from the South."   It's the story of a man who makes a bet with a second man to light a cigarette lighter ten times in a row.  If the second man succeeds, the first will give him his car.  If he fails, the first man will cut off one of the second man's fingers. 


So what if a radio station sponsored a contest like that?  Not too many people know you can die from drinking too much water, but any fool knows what having your finger cut off would mean.   So would it be okay for a radio station to put on a contest like that?  You know it would be a ratings bonanza, and ratings mean advertising dollars.  Why not just allow corporations to prey on stupid people and make a fortune doing it?  After all, they're not killing anybody.


Part of the answer is radio stations are licensed to serve the public interest.  Clearly, a contest like that does not serve the public.  Neither did The End's water drinking contest. 
 

L.A. Puts the Public Back into the Public Interest

March 11, 2010

Broadcasters are licensed to serve the public interest.   If a radio or TV station does not serve the public interest, the FCC can take its license to broadcast away, and give the opportunity to make millions using the public airwaves to someone else.  

Yes, we the people do have some power over what is broadcast in our own communities, at least in theory.  But in fact, as shown in my film, Public Interest Pictures' Broadcast Blues, petitions to deny stations' licenses languish for years, and the FCC has no record of the last time any station's license has been pulled.  Even the case of a TV station that a court ruled deliberately distorted the news didn't meet the FCC threshold of not "serving the public interest." 

It used to be that stations had to prove they were serving the public interest every three years;  now they just send in a postcard to get rubberstamp approval every eight years.   It used to be that stations had to produce hours of local community programming to satisfy their license requirements;  now, most claim they serve the public by producing local news.  And local TV news is key:  Pew reports 68% of people say local TV news is their primary news source.  So is local TV news serving the public interest? 

Today's USC Annenberg Norman Lear Center report entitled "LOCAL TV NEWS IN THE LOS ANGELES MEDIA MARKET: Are Stations Serving the Public Interest?" co authored by Center Director Martin Kaplan, PhD and Seton Hall's Matthew Hale, PhD, quantifies the answer.  The big news from the report is that only about half of the news is news at all.  Of a typical local news half hour, just 15 minutes 44 seconds deal with real news (the remainder of time is made up of teases for other programs, advertisements, and sports and weather.)  And roughly half of that is not local news. 

The report documents what most of us intuitively know:  if it bleeds it leads.  One in three lead stories involve crime: common crime, celebrity crime, crime in Los Angeles, or crime anywhere else.  Crime stories fill an average of 2 minutes 50 seconds in a given newscast.  Oddball stories at 2:26 and entertainment at 2:02 are a close second and third.  Stories that actually inform the local community about issues of civic importance add up to just four minutes daily;  local government coverage – including budget, law enforcement, education, layoffs, new ordinances, voting procedures, personnel changes, city and county government actions on health care, transportation and immigration – get a whopping 22 seconds.

So.  Back to the public interest.

Certainly people enjoy stories about sports, about entertainment, about the guy who gets stuck in a washing machine.  Yet hours of profit making programming already cover those topics.   Those kinds of stories are quick and cheap and easy to produce, as opposed to sending a reporter to sort through City Hall meetings.

But if TV news doesn't tell us what we really need to know about what's happening at City Hall, who will?  The study also compares TV news to LA Times coverage; the Times comes out better, but not much better.  But there is a big difference:  anybody can start a newspaper.  Yes, you may need more money than God, but by God, you can do it.    Nobody can just start a new TV station;  the frequencies, even in this digital age, are scarce, and the FCC has already licensed their use to others.  You might be able to buy one of the stations if you're rich and lucky, but there is zero opportunity to start one anew. 

That's why it is so important that these stations, which in 2002 were profiting as much as 46% according to the FCC, put some of that profit back into serving the community.  Local groups understand that, and came out in force today to support the findings of the study.  Says California Common Cause Executive Director Kathay Feng, “Our city is on the brink of bankruptcy, social services are being watered down, but we receive so little coverage from local TV stations,” "The concentration of ownership of local television stations has resulted in a massive failure of local TV being responsive to the needs of the communities they are supposed to serve,” says Tapia Martinez-Russ, co-founder of the Los Angeles Media Reform Group.    

“There is serious cause for concern here,” says Manatt, Phelps & Phillips attorney George Kieffer, a member of the Los Angeles Civic Alliance. 

Kieffer says that he expects the civic community now to begin to weigh in on license renewals based on the degree of local hard news coverage.  That means people filing petitions to deny or revoke stations' licenses. These petitions represent the only means the public has to hold local stations accountable to the public interest.  The FCC has ignored them for too long.

 But these local groups have a big ally;  FCC Commissioner Michael Copps stood along side the report's authors in L.A. to lend his support.  Copps, long a hero of media reform advocates says the FCC license renewal process is today “a paper tiger.” Copps says “every time a media company comes in to renew a license, it should have to prove it is serving the public interest."

It's time to give that tiger some teeth.

Brad Friedman, the New York Times, and the Need for News Quality Standards

February 24, 2010

I met Brad Friedman in January 2008 at a journalism conference in Santa Cruz, California, where I was promoting the idea of a Good Housekeeping-style "seal of approval" for journalists.  The idea, now promoted at Ceasespin.org as a “News Quality Rating System,” is to provide online readers with some measure of bloggers' accountability to ethical journalistic standards.   Not all writers are journalists, and not all journalists are created equal, and I thought then (as I still do today,) that it would be helpful for people to cut though the chafe to the wheat of genuine news reporting.

Friedman, the venerable investigative reporter at Bradblog.com, bristled a bit at the concept.  It seemed like a good idea, overall, but he said, "Why just bloggers like me?  Why not the New York Times?"  I had to admit that he was right.  

What I didn't know was that he was prescient.

In recent days, a battle has escalated between blogger Friedman and NY Times public editor Clark Hoyt, over the "paper of record's" reporting on the now infamous story by James O'Keefe, purporting to reveal that ACORN employees had advised O'Keefe, dressed like a pimp, with his pretend girlfriend, Hannah Giles, posing as a prostitute, how to avoid paying taxes on her night time income.  

Two problems with that story.  Friedman's careful examination of the transcript of the unedited ACORN video showed the non-profit's employees had actually advised Giles she had to pay her taxes.  

The second, more ingrained in the American psyche (thanks to You Tube) was of a ridiculously pimped out O'Keefe strolling into ACORN offices, promoting the idea that ACORN dealt with people in like get ups everyday.   But that image was a creation of careful video editing;  O'Keefe actually dressed like an everyday college student for the hidden camera set up.  His partner in pseudo journalism Giles admitted as much on videotape,  and O'Keefe's erstwhile employer Andrew Breitbart was also forced to so admit last week at CPAC.

But the New York Times refuses to correct its coverage about the pimp costume, even though it has called O'Keefe's reporting unethical.  In a letter to Bradblog, Public Editor Hoyt says, "the story says O’Keefe dressed up as a pimp and trained his hidden camera on Acorn counselors. It does not say he did those two things at the same time."

A blog comment on this brought a smile to my face.   "Just because I write 'I got drunk and took my kids for a car ride' doesn't mean I did them at the same time." No, no, of course not.  Why would anyone think that?

Now Hoyt accuses Friedman of having a political agenda, and at the same time, a petition has cropped up online asking the Times to correct its reporting.  

It's fun to watch.

But it does bring back the idea of the benefit of some kind of metric for readers to understand journalistic standards.   On a scale of one to five, I'll give Bradblog five stars, the New York Times two, and O'Keefe...  well, maybe a jail term.

  

Boycotting Beck on Fox "News" - an Issue of Credibility

 February 16, 2010

     What started as a Twitter campaign by a lone law school student in Madison Wisconsin has morphed into Glenn Beck's worst nightmare:  advertisers are dropping him like flies, and his show in the UK does not have even one advertiser.   Still, thanks to the power of News Corporation, the show goes on.

     It started on July 2, 2009, when Angelo Carusone began a campaign called StopBeck.com , Tweeting his followers to pressure companies to stop advertising on Beck's FOX News TV program.  It was a maverick journey, but not for long:  on July 28, 2009, Beck told his legion of viewers,  Obama "has a deep seated hatred of white people."  That's when Color of Change, the largest African American online political organization in the country used its muscle to target Beck with its own campaign.  To date, 285,000 people have signed onto the CC campaign's petiton to call on advertisers to drop Beck.  

     Within three months, Fox News' Glenn Beck Show had lost 80 advertisers; that number has now grown to 116.    The only advertisers remaining on Fox News in the US are purveyors of gold, Rupert Murdoch owned organizations like the Wall Street Journal, the State of Utah, and ironically, Murdoch's Direct TV competitor, Dish TV. 

     StopBeck's Carusone then took it a step further, targeting UK sponsors of the Glenn Beck Show in the United Kingdom.  Brits apparently take their sponsorship PR seriously; for the past six days running, not a single company has purchased ads on the Glenn Beck Show.  Instead, Rupert Murdoch's Sky News now runs in timeslots previously sold to advertisers. 

     Fox still shows no sign of abandoning their populist hero; how shareholders will react to lower earning reports remains to be seen.

     Beck's cable TV ratings, in the US at least, continue to rise.  His FOX News viewership of 617,000 (as of Friday Feb 12, according to mediabistro.com,) is second on cable only to Bill O'Reilly's 713,000. 

     While StopBeck and Color of Change tout victories over Beck in TV land, Beck's radio show continues to thrive unabetted.  Carusone is trying to boycott companies that advertise on Beck's radio program, which garners 9 million listeners, nearly 15 times his TV audience, but is finding the terrain more difficult.  Whereas companies like Best Western and Kraft are senstive to their logo being visibly associated with Beck on FOX News, "radio sponsors have a right wing agenda going in and don’t really care" about a negative association, says Carusone. 

     Color of Change campaign manager Dani McClain says that targeting the show on Fox News is important, precisely because it is Fox "News."  "Fox News says they are a news organization.  When people tune in, they should have the expectation of getting real news, not misinformation, distortion of truth and race baiting."  Executive Director James Rucker adds that this is an issue of credibility.  "When you have so many mainstream companies, from AT&T to Walmart, who don’t want to be affiliated with Beck, it strips Beck's ability to position himself as mainstream.  Could all these companies possibly be in the pocket of the left?"

Get the Message?

February 3, 2010 

Last Friday, many Americans witnessed a rare bit of political theater when President Obama addressed the GOP Retreat in Baltimore. By insisting that live TV cameras be allowed into the exchange, the President took his one opportunity to take control of his message in full view of the public, calling out the GOP on their lies and dirty tricks, and challenging them to tone down their rhetoric so Washington could focus on issues rather than the next election. Headlines burst from newspages: "Extraordinary!" "Remarkable!" "Historic!" The GOP instantly regretted their decision to allow cameras. It was a big moment for Obama to get his message out; but how many more will he get?

CSPAN, CNN, and MSNBC ran and reran the discussion.  But FOX News chose not to show the actual exchange at all, instead choosing to "characterize" it for their audience, editing an hour and twenty minutes into a few meaning-twisted soundbites, prompting Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman to confront FOX CEO Roger Ailes about his network's "deliberate misinformation" Sunday on ABC's This Week.

It is doubtful that FOX, the "most trusted news network" according to Public Policy Polling, will ever stop misinforming the public; doing so would interfere with the GOP message, and he who controls the message controls the masses.

Messaging is the new buzzword on Capitol Hill. For three days, the President has been using the bully pulpit to take his message to the people, first at the GOP retreat, next at a town hall in New Hampshire, today at the Senate Democratic Caucus.  He understands he must reach the American public with the facts.  Still, Fox News and more importantly, Talk Radio will not allow their audiences to hear the unvarnished truth.

“I just can’t understand how the President lost the message,” These the words of Cokie Roberts on ABC News’ This Week January 24. Before Christmas, Roberts, on the same program, said “I think if people understood what was in the healthcare bill, they would really like it. But the Democrats aren’t getting the message out."

As shown in Public Interest Pictures' media reform documentary Broadcast Blues, the reason Democrats have not succeeded in getting their message out is that the GOP, while complaining about a non-existent "liberal media," has for a generation created a Right wing media juggernaut which excludes facts and debate. And while Inside the Beltway pundits recognize the cheerleading power of cable TV's FOX, they have not yet recognized the messaging forest through the talk radio trees.

As Danny Goldberg, one time CEO of now defunct Air America Radio wrote for Alternet, the power of talk radio is the problem for Democrats and Democracy.

"One-hundred-thirty-eight million people commute to and from work in automobiles, where they have no access to computer or TV screens. For around a third of them, or 48 million, AM talk radio is their entertainment of choice. Of the top 10 AM talk radio shows, nine are hosted by extreme conservatives, giving the right wing a captive audience of around 40 million listeners a week—at least seven times greater than the combined audiences of Fox News, CNN and MSNBC. Talk radio's audience dwarfs that of every other category in the news political arena, including the network news and Sunday shows, NPR's public affairs shows and political Web sites." 

And what did talk radio listeners hear about the Obama/GOP exchange? King Rush bellowed, "Obama lies! He's delusional! This business that he 'inherited a $1.3 trillion budget deficit' is a lie. It's a lie through and through." (Except, of course, it isn't. Government statistics are clear. But who will the 15 million people who heard Rush's message, but not the President's, believe?)

Consider, also, that talk radio reaches into every corner of the country: every home, car, barber shop and garage can tune in to free AM radio and hear Rush and Glenn and Hannity and Savage. But few of those little corners get to hear Thom or Ed or Randi or any liberal perspective, the corporate radio owners see to that. And remember, these are places that, because of the digital transition, no longer get free TV. But they get free radio (just not free speech.)

Conservatives understand that new government policies could undermine their grip on the public airwaves, and are mounting attacks to maintain it. The right leaning Heritage Foundation recently put out a "National Survey on the Obama Agenda." Under the heading "Free Speech," they ask, in push poll fashion, "Do you believe that President Obama and/or Congress will take action to destroy conservative talk radio?" (As if a popular billion dollar industry could just go away.)

But today, there is new evidence that the Obama administration does understand that talk radio is the road to the message. On his Organizing for America website, the President is asking people across the nation to research talk radio: to focus on three pre-identified radio shows, determine whether they are political, what language they are in, and whether they take callers.

What exactly will Obama do with that information? Restore aspects of the Fairness Doctrine? Rewrite the 1996 Telecommunications Act? This much is certain: he has broken through the right wing messaging juggernaut once; it is a safe bet he's on the road to do it again.

Hocus Pocus SCOTUS

January 29, 2010

     Note that the Supreme Court decision in Citizen's United V FEC is really a media reform issue.  

     In my film, Public Interest Pictures' Broadcast Blues, (which was generously funded in part by the Streisand Foundation, thanks Barbra!) I detail how 75% of politicians' time is spent fund raising, and how all that money goes into TV/Radio Advertising.  The SCOTUS decision will exacerbate that situation.   The winners are the broadcasters, who are licensed to serve the Public Interest, but who are earning as much as 46 percent profits.  The losers are the public, whose interest is being co-opted by Corporate Money and Corporate Media.

     So media reform is a new front in the battle to regain power for We the People. 

     Here's what is possible:

     With a stroke of his pen, Pres. Obama could tell the FCC to restore the Fairness Doctrine, which would require broadcasters to provide time to political candidates, and to give equal time to all of them. It wasn't until after the Fairness Doctrine was repealed under Reagan that money began to pour into TV and Radio coffers.  Some people don't like this idea because they think it infringes on Free Speech;  but let's be clear: Radio and TV speech is not free, it is owned and managed by a few corporations who solely decide which points of view to air.  (See my post here at Sue Wilson Reports for more on that issue.)

     Congress could also enact free airtime rules, or it could enact public financing rules. Either would take an act of Congress; any bets on that happening anytime soon?

     The single most important thing Congress must do is to repeal those sections of the 1996 Telecommunications Act which stack the deck against We the People.  

     President Obama made media an issue in his State of the Union address.  It is time for a revolution, this one to retake that which is ours:  the media that informs our democracy.

The Plame Case Could Be Reopened, IF...

January 13, 2010

In December, I reported that there was a possibility that the Valerie Plame case could be reopened, given the revelation of millions of missing White House emails that could shed new light on the outing of the covert CIA spy.  A spokesperson for Patrick Fitzgerald in Chicago's US Attorneys' Office told me,   "the matter may only be opened for purpose of responding to congressional or other requests."  

But the Plame case is a federal case, and further investigation reveals steep hurdles to reopening the case which caused untold damage to our National Security.  

Most Federal crimes have a five year statute of limitations, but there are a few exceptions.  Had Cheney/Libby/Rove molested a child, they could still be held accountable.  Had they burned down the Plame/Wilson home, they could be held to account.  Had they fled to another country as Roman Polanski did, rather than hiding in some undisclosed location, they could be held accountable for their crimes at any time.

But perjury and obstruction of justice in a case involving the leaking of classified information?  Hide out for five years, and you can beat that rap.  

So the only hope to resurrect the Plame investigation appears to be hidden in the Wartime Exclusions section of Federal Code Title 18, Part II, Chapter 213: 


Sec. 3287. Wartime suspension of limitations

-STATUTE- When the United States is at war or Congress has enacted a specific authorization for the use of the Armed Forces, as described in section 5(b) of the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1544(b)), the running of any statute of limitations applicable to any offense (1) involving fraud or attempted fraud against the United States or any agency thereof in any manner, whether by conspiracy or not, or (2) committed in connection with the acquisition, care, handling, custody, control or disposition of any real or personal property of the United States, or (3) committed in connection with the negotiation, procurement, award, performance, payment for, interim financing, cancelation, or other termination or settlement, of any contract, subcontract, or purchase order which is connected with or related to the prosecution of the war or directly connected with or related to the authorized use of the Armed Forces, or with any disposition of termination inventory by any war contractor or Government agency, shall be suspended until 5 years after the termination of hostilities as proclaimed by a Presidential proclamation, with notice to Congress, or by a concurrent resolution of Congress. 

So MAYBE, if a Congressperson were so inclined, he or she could request the case be reopened under this statute.  Guess we shall wait and see.
 
 

Emails found, evidence also?

December 21, 2009

Last weeks revelation that the Obama administration has discovered 22 million missing Bush White House emails, including those concerning the outing of covert spy Valerie Plame, has brought the veracity of the Bush administration back into the light.  The Washington Post reports that the public will not see any of those emails until any least 2014.

But could the man who convicted Lewis (Scooter) Libby of perjury and obstruction of justice in that National Security breach get those emails regarding the Valerie Plame case?  Is it possible that Patrick Fitzgerald could reopen the Plame case, and reveal who really leaked the covert spy's name to the press?  Is it possible that Dick Cheney could be questioned again?

According to the US Attorney's office in Chicago, the answer is yes.  A spokesperson for prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald told me, "the matter may only be opened for purpose of responding to congressional or other requests."  

So are there such requests?   I'm looking into it.  DC is snowed in and it's hard to get answers. More when I know it.

Entercom Sacramento licenses under challenge

November 11, 2009

Entercom Communications 2008 Annual Report states that  petitions to deny the licenses of all of six Entercom Sacramento radio stations are pending at the FCC, and that licenses of other stations are

under challenge due to listener complaints.

Entercom's Report notes that should the FCC conclude that programming broadcast by their stations was obscene, indecent or profane, they could face loss of licenses or fines up to $325,000 for a single incident, with a maximum fine of up to $3.0 million for continuing violations.

From the 2008 Annual Report:  "In the past, the FCC has issued Notices of Apparent Liability and a Forfeiture Order with respect to several of our stations proposing fines for certain programming which the FCC deemed to have been indecent. These cases are the subject of pending administrative appeals. The FCC has also commenced several other investigations based on allegations received from the public that some of our stations broadcast indecent programming. We have cooperated in these investigations which remain pending."

Several calls placed to the FCC by this reporter on this matter have been ignored.  If anyone has more information about these complaints, please contact this reporter at suewilsonreports@gmail.com .

Jennifer Strange Trial: Insurance Will Pay $16 Million Award

November 11, 2009

According to Radio Online, the $16 million awarded by jurors to the family of Jennifer Strange in the KDND Entercom water drinking contest will be fully paid by Entercom's insurance company.

See post here:  http://news.radio-online.com/cgi-bin/rol.exe/headline_id=n19985

This brings a whole new meaning to the DeeJay's comments during the Morning Rave contest, "Be sure we have insurance on this."

Radio Magic

November 6, 2009

Dateline:  June, 2007.  Republican President George W. Bush had the support of the opposing Democratic party to pass his immigration reform legislation;  by most political calculations, the bill should have sailed through Congress.  But then Conservative Talk radio went on an anti-immigrant tirade, and a majority of the president's own party rose up to defeat the bill.  Senator Trent Lott, R-MS, then told the New York Times that "Talk radio is running the country," which in turn inflamed the Talk Jock rhetoric toward Lott.   Lott has since retired from his Senate seat.

In David Brooks' October 2  New York Times article entitled "The Wizard of Beck," he likens talk hosts Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Sean Hannity to the little man behind the curtain creating grand illusions in the Wizard of Oz.   But their real wizardry is to make illusory mountains out of molehills; and while it’s easy to sweep aside a molehill, a mountain is hard for a politician or the press to ignore.

Case in point, the tea parties. 

According to TaxDayTeaParty.com, the tea parties started with "just three online grassroots organizations with an idea."   Had the tea party promotion remained online, it likely would have resulted in a molehill of a protest with a few hundred angry citizens making their views known locally.  

But then talk radio host Glenn Beck and Fox News decided to cross the line from reporting on the tea parties to promoting them.  According to the research group Media Matters,  Fox News featured at least 20 segments on the "tea party" protests and aired at least 73 in-show and commercial promotions for the events.  Other conservative talk hosts joined the cheerleading squad on radio stations nationwide, and soon the Tea Party Protests were a phenomena.  A mountain of people showed up. 

But the real slight of hand is how the wizards conjured up a spectacle that news could not resist;   News organizations like McClatchy's Sacramento Bee covered the Tea Parties on the front page.   Although polls showed otherwise, the wizards created the impression that most Americans, on April 15, 2009, had already had enough of President Obama and wanted change.  The mainstream media was magically transformed into a public relations pawn for the right wing war of words.   

Fast forward to November, 2009.    Just days before a critical House vote on Healthcare reform, Rep. Michele Bachman, R-MN, staged a Tea Party protest in the nation's capital.   Again, Fox News and Radio Talkers Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck and other on thousands of radio stations moved into action, using their giant microphones to whip up public sentiment against healthcare reform.  The thousands who showed up at the Capitol made news in national publications from Washington to Los Angeles, and according to a poll from USA Today, the Tea Partiers are making inroads into gaining the coveted independent vote.  

It's not that the Tea Partiers don't legitimately believe in their cause;  it's that the media wizards are using the public airwaves to publicize only the views of this vocal minority, while ignoring the voice of the majority who do support reform and the "public option" (57% of Americans according to a recent Washington Post/ABC News poll.)

So, thanks to the wizards, the molehill of opposition against the public option in healthcare now looks like Mt. Everest, when it should look like a speed bump.  And there's no magic way for the rest of us to be heard.

Good trick.

Strange Trial Analysis

October 29, 2009

Today, a divided jury rendered a unanimous verdict against Entercom Sacramento in the case of Jennifer Strange, a mother of three who died as a result of radio station KDND's water drinking contest in January 2007.  The jury of seven men and five women awarded Jennifer's family more than $16 million compensation.

For much of the past two months, I have been observing and live blogging the trial. (suewilsonreports.com .) There is much to process before I comment at length.  But in brief:

KDND 107.9 "the End's" Morning Rave ruled the airwaves in Sacramento's morning drive.    The on air personalities ruled the radio station, too, the proverbial inmates running the asylum. And they clearly knew a person could die from drinking too much water: just a month before the contest, the Morning Rave spent an entire show making fun of a local college kid who had died from water intoxication.   They made fun of Matthew Carrington's death , and they knew someone could die from drinking too much water.  

But the Morning Ravers never gave Jennifer or any other contestant that information when they sponsored the "Hold Your Wee to Win a Nintendo Wii" contest.  Instead, they encouraged contestants to drink first 48, then 96 ounces of water an hour in a party atmosphere, while at the same time they were joking on the air about the potential of someone dying from water poisoning.  Listeners were calling into the contest (nurses among them) to warn the on air crazies that someone could die from water intoxication, but Lukas and Trish and Maney laughed them off, saying contestants had signed release forms, so the station wasn't responsible if somebody died.  (Contestants couldn't hear any of the radio comments.)

The jury understood.  They rendered a very careful verdict. 

But the public doesn't get it.  They don’t get that the release form Jennifer signed was deemed worthless by the court; and that the radio station actually withheld information about danger from the contestants.  No, by a two to one margin on online polls, the public thinks that Jennifer Strange is responsible for her own death.  And the comments are vociferous.  

So a radio station, a broadcaster licensed to serve the public interest, sponsors a contest it knows is dangerous.  A woman dies as a result; and the public stands up for the corporation who was trying to profit from the stunt.

There's so much more to this story.     Later.

See video of the Broadcast Blues Jennifer Strange story ond hear audio from the contest at broadcastblues.tv
.