Left In Lowell

Equal Same Ol’

26 Responses to “Equal Same Ol’”

1. Teddy P. Says:
   October 27th, 2009 at 9:54 pm

   Couldn’t let this one pass by Lynne, without at least an explanation, since Jackie’s post wasn’t exactly how things transpired. (I also tried posting a response on Jackie’s blog, but was unable to)

   Prior to this incident, Jackie Doherty has never once called or contacted me to ask about appearing on my show to touting a motion or proposal that she’s pushed. When she did, I mentioned to her the FCC guidelines regarding elections and that I thought it would be unfair to have her on to promote one of her projects so close to the election. I did assure her that we would discuss the matter with either a member of the state delegation that was actually bringing it up for discussion on Capitol Hill, or with the Superintendent of schools during her weekly on-air visit. Sure enough, the next day Dr. Scott was asked a specific question about this issue and we discussed it for a couple of minutes, during which Jackie was credited with helping push the motion forward. WE DID NOT IGNORE THE NEWS, as Jackie’s post would have one believe. We talked about it openly and honestly, without allowing one of seven candidates vying for an elected seat to come on the air and tout their involvement in it.

   If Jackie would like the voters of Lowell to know about all the things she’s done to help the children of the Lowell school system, she has avenues available to her through the radio station, which all other candidates for School Committee (plus your PAC) have chosen to use. Only Jackie and one other candidate for SC have chosen not to take advantage of those avenues. A five minute free call-in, without the same opportunity given to other candidates, is not one of those avenues. I’m sorry if that sounds a bit harsh and business-like, but it would be grossly unfair to the other candidates who’ve taken time and money out of their resources to tout their accomplishments and get their message heard.

   Now then, on the issue of having Alan Kazanjian being on for an hour to discuss his potential legal problems: I would be willing to venture a guess that none of the other candidates, city council or school committee, would trade places with him just so they could get an hour of air time. This is a MAJOR news story, one with FBI involvement. We simply cannot bury our heads in the sand and pretend this doesn’t exist, and having the councilor on to discuss an investigation apparently centering around him is very much allowed under the FCC guidelines regarding fair elections.

   And on the issue of Rita Mercier, her segment previewing the upcoming City Council meetings has been a regular feature of our afternoon show for nearly a year now. She didn’t just call us up two weeks before the election asking for a forum to promote her accomplishments. She talks about the council agenda. There is a huge difference between what councilors Mercier and Kazanjian have done on our airwaves and what Jackie Doherty was asking to do. Besides, at all times with Rita and with the hour with Councilor Kazanjian, other candidates (incumbents and challengers) were told they were free to call in and give their thoughts on the issues, which some have taken advantage of.

   As for why Rita and not other councilors, well, she is a senior member of the council and a colorful speaker. Part of what we do is also entertainment. Could we rotate all councilors? Possibly, but coordinating 9 schedules doesn’t work, and certainly isn’t as easy as having a set time with one person. There have been many occassions where other councilors have been asked to be on air. Sometimes they can do it. Other times they can’t. But to have a weekly feature at the exact same time, you need someone who can make that commitment ALL the time, not back out at the last minute because of other commitments. Hence, Rita Mercier is the person chosen to fill that role. I realize she might not be a favorite of some on this blog, but then again, I haven’t heard any of you complaining that the City Manager has had a weekly 1/2 hour spot on our air since the day new ownership took over.

   Thanks for the time!

2. Bob Forrant Says:
   October 28th, 2009 at 8:44 am

   How about a serious shake out of the ways in which commentators are selected for all of the city’s media after the election?

   We’ve got a newspaper, WCAP and the local news/commentary program on mornings now on LTC. I occasionally appear in/on all three but I do think there is a maddening sameness as to who appears in the loops of coverage and has ‘talking heads’ access on local radio and TV.

   In the present economic fix we are in and with numerous challenges facing the city and entire region a more all-sided conversation needs to take place to inform residents and stimulate some new ideas about our collective futures.

   When the status quo is overly represented in these media outlets it breeds a disdain for the electorate and a sense of entitlement to the offices held. We need thoughtful probing, questioning of what everyone is projecting about the region’s economic future, and not simple slogans about how a Target opening means all is well in the valley of the walking wounded and the city is moving forward. Indeed parts of the city are moving ahead - but as the continuing excellent Sun series on homelessness demonstrates - parts of the city are crying. (Note to Jim C: do you read your own paper?)

   In case the media outlets missed it: unemployment around here is dangerously high with almost zero jobs for young people; the city budget is so out of whack even I can see it and no math whiz am I; there are lots and lots of empty second and third floors in many downtown buildings while more office space will soon come on line in the JAM area; large segments of Lowell are politically disenfranchised by an electoral process that caters to the sensibilities of ‘old Lowell’; foreclosed properties are a blight on far too many streets.

   This list can be added to, I’m sure. But during this election cycle, for the most part, WCAP, the Sun, and the news and commentator guys on WCAP have made out anyone who questions the status quo to be the crazy ones. To me, one definition of crazy is when you cannot see reality as the two-by-four is set to rearrange your face.

   Media’s job ought to be looking behind the curtain for reality not whistling a happy tune as Lowell slides on by the graveyard.

3. Lynne Says:
   October 28th, 2009 at 9:46 am

   Sorry, I don’t see how running Kaz for an hour of denial denial denial on a subject he won’t talk much about because he’s under a pending investigation is really useful. I just don’t.

   I used to proDUCE a radio program, and I know that you don’t wait for someone to call you, you have to chase your program down. So that’s a little bit of a cop out in my opinion. No one ran my show for me, I had to make decisions on who to go after for interviews. And that was on my tiny little 15 minute a week show. So, seriously, it’s great to blame Jackie or whoever else for not coming to you, but that’s not how things go.

   Radio’in is hard work. (And I do actually mean that. It’s hard work. But if you’re there every week running a show you better be sure you can do that work.)

   Sorry, the same goes for the weekly Rita thing. Sure, it’s been a long running segment. But I seem to remember you (very politely) asking Mimi and I to step aside from our Monday “blogger” slot while the election was going on so you could use the air time for candidates. Seems to me that the Rita segment was also something you should have considered changing while the election was running, or again, shifting to ASKING others to come on in rotation. As in, do the damn work to produce real show.

   Finally, anyone who has a regular segment with Pat M every week has poor judgment in my book. He has been proven an unreliable source and I don’t think you do yourselves any favors in allowing his rants on the air regularly. I also still have an issue with the time you decided to accuse (though in a vague sense) me or my colleagues for the guy who dropped out of the race at the last minute, of putting him up to it to prove a point about the preliminary. I can’t even remember his name, that’s how much we DIDN’T know who he was. I never did get a satisfactory explanation from you on that.

   I like you, Ted, I think you generally do a good job over there, and certainly a damn far cry from WCAP’s previous incarnation. But you are in the news and information business and you need to learn to take criticism instead of trying to justify everything.

4. Teddy P. Says:
   October 28th, 2009 at 10:09 am

   Believe me Lynne, I can take criticism. It’s part of the job. Trust me when I tell you, the City Manager, Councilor Kazanjian and that camp, Councilors Milinazzo-Martin-Broderick and their camp ALL think we are being unfairly harsh on them and unfairly promoting the “other” side. You know what that tells me? Tells me we’re doing something right and giving ALL sides a fair shake.

   So criticism I can take. Misrepresentations of what I said or did, I can’t. Jackie and those of you agreeing with her without first asking me or the radio station for comment are giving the false impression that we ignored a news story because Jackie Doherty was the one involved in the story. FALSE, FALSE, FALSE. We covered the story and even got Jackie her props with the Dr. Scott speaking on her behalf. If Jackie wants anything more than that, she can feel free to do what her counterparts and challengers have done…buy air time and get her message out to the public. Calling me to ask for a prime time appearance two weeks before an election is not the way to go about it and is not in the spirit of fair election laws.

   Finally, as for my “work ethic” or “knowledge of how to do a radio program” (whichever you were referring to, or both), I don’t think I have to make any apologies. I’ll simply leave it at that.

   We CONSTANTLY have open phone lines for any and all politicians to take advantage of. We CONSTANTLY invite guests from all sides to be on our air. Some choose to do it. Others don’t, for whatever reason. But rest assured, ALL of them and their opinions are always welcomed on our air, and they are given every opportunity to state their case without being shouted down or interrupted. Can you say the same thing?

5. Lynne Says:
   October 28th, 2009 at 10:36 am

   Did your comment get let through? ‘Nuff said.

   But seriously, “keeping the phone lines open” and “going after guests” are two different things. I applaud you for engaging and answering critiques though, as I think that speaks volumes about you and your radio station. I just think some of the explanation is a little off is all.

6. Teddy P. Says:
   October 28th, 2009 at 10:50 am

   We go after all guests, even bloggers. In political season, no. But at all other times, hell yeah.

   And yes, I haven’t been censored yet….though I bet if I talk long enough, I just might….LOL

7. Lynne Says:
   October 28th, 2009 at 10:57 am

   You and me both!

   Say, I’ll ask you here since you’re posting here…are you guys doing election night coverage at the Shamrock or elsewise? Just curious.

8. Teddy P. Says:
   October 28th, 2009 at 1:37 pm

   Yes we are. We’re on the air from 7pm till results are in and analysis and interviews are done. Also keeping tabs on Lawrence, Methuen and Haverhill mayoral races.

9. Jackie Says:
   October 28th, 2009 at 4:39 pm

   I think Teddy P. needs to read my original post again. I said nothing about ignoring an issue, nor did I have any control over when it was going to be heard at the State House. My initial impetus to contact him was prompted by a conversation with co-owner Sam Poulten. As I admitted in my post, the more I thought about how others had been allowed time on-air, the more annoyed I was with the brush off I received with little explanation from him except for the “tip toe” comment. That is, until I shared it online. Glad to hear a fuller explanation–the fact that I never mentioned it before the hearing for instance and that I haven’t bought radio ads–gives us all a clearer understanding. BTW, his comments are on my blog as well.

10. Eleanor Rigby Says:
    October 28th, 2009 at 8:49 pm

    Teddy I have a few issues with your statements.
    First:

    “…Jackie Doherty has never once called or contacted me to ask about appearing on my show to touting a motion or proposal that she’s pushed. When she did, I mentioned to her the FCC guidelines regarding elections and that I thought it would be unfair to have her on to promote one of her projects so close to the election.”

    And then you go on to say:

    “…Dr. Scott was asked a specific question about this issue and we discussed it for a couple of minutes, during which Jackie was credited with helping push the motion forward. WE DID NOT IGNORE THE NEWS,”

    So you have basically just said that Jackie, as a public official asked to come on your show to discuss what you yourself describe a news item and you refused.

    Then you stated:

    “…And on the issue of Rita Mercier, her segment previewing the upcoming City Council meetings has been a regular feature of our afternoon show for nearly a year now.”

    Because Rita is a regular feature of the show, she triggers the Equal Opportunity rule. See page 8 of the link below.

    http://www.dwt.com/LearningCenter/portalresource/12-07_PoliticalBroadcasting(Guide)

    Bottom line, the actions have placed the station at risk of fines and litigation. Not a good call for either democracy or the good of the station.

11. Eleanor Rigby Says:
    October 28th, 2009 at 8:57 pm

    For some reason that link won’t open. Try this:
    http://www.broadcastlawblog.com/2009/02/articles/political-broadcasting/reminder-equal-time-and-lowest-unit-rate-rules-apply-to-state-and-municipal-elections/

    click onto Political Broadcasting Guide in the third paragraph.

12. Teddy P. Says:
    October 29th, 2009 at 8:18 am

    ER, I’ll respond to #11 quickly, then get back to you on #10 and Jackie’s.

    The link you provided for the fairness guidelines refers to station employees. Not sure if you realize, but Rita Mercier is not a station employee, and neither is Bernie Lynch, Niki Tsongas or any of our other regular contributors to the shows.

13. Teddy P. Says:
    October 29th, 2009 at 8:35 am

    “By the way, The Sun did cover the issue before and after the hearing. Besides being news with far-reaching impact on costs and kids, House Bill 481 is not done yet; we now need speedy passage, which is where the bulk of my energy will be invested next.”

    That comes directly from your blog Jackie, and the implication is pretty clear: The Sun covered the story…we did not, which is untrue.

    “Most would agree, however, that House Bill 481 is as newsworthy as a subpoena, which leads me to conclude that getting on WCAP these days isn’t about equal time or even newsworthiness, but rather, it is about who is asking.”

    That one, again directly from your blog, calls into question not only the station’s integrity, but mine. Forgive me if I take offense at that. I’ll put my ethics up against anyone’s, yours included.

    Tell you what though…if you ever become the target of an investigation, I’ll give you a full hour, too. And just so you know, Councilor Kazanjian hasn’t bought time on the radio either, so who gets on air isn’t determined by advertising…just one more thing you’re wrong about.

14. Teddy P. Says:
    October 29th, 2009 at 9:08 am

    ER, back to #10.

    Nobody ever said it wasn’t a news story. The way to present the news story is what this is about.

    The way it usually works is WE contact the parties to set up news interviews, not the other way around. In this case, as you correctly stated, a public official running for re-election was asking to talk about a news issue that at that point was in the hands of the state house delegation. Had Jackie contacted us when first pushing the issue, before the election period, she would most certainly have been given an opportunity to address it on air.

15. waittilnextyr Says:
    October 29th, 2009 at 10:39 am

    Without getting wrapped up in the specific request by Jackie Doherty, it is patently unfair to the City Council candidates to provide one candidate free air time once that candidate has qualified for the election. Not questioning your ethics, but maybe your judgment.

16. Teddy P. Says:
    October 29th, 2009 at 10:56 am

    WTL, I would agree with you if she was promoting her candidacy, but she’s not campaigning…she’s running down the agenda for the next council meeting. And after every one of her appearances, every other candidate is invited to call in and talk about the items on the agenda.

    It’s really no different than an incumbent president, senator or governor addressing the media to discuss government business during election season.

    I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree with some folks…..

17. Lynne Says:
    October 29th, 2009 at 11:05 am

    It has the same effect however. More face time equals more votes. Therefore, a really good effort to bring in new voices rather than have her there weekly would be, in spirit, more fair.

    You canNOT tell me that certain people do not use their non-campaigning face time (even on the floor of a CC meeting) to grandstand and campaign nonetheless!

18. Bob Forrant Says:
    October 29th, 2009 at 1:03 pm

    Teddy,

    For many radio listeners, your having the same councilor or commentators on over and over implies a vote of confidence by the radio station and its on-air personalities whether this is intended or not. There is a vast difference between the city manager being on to report on city business because he is not asking your listeners for votes. Rita M. or anyone else on running down a council agenda week after week does indeed give her an edge - the process screams ‘this woman is the city council’, again whether intended or not.

    How you look at it vs. how listeners hear it out there in radio land are quite different things. Maybe the station ought to call a halt to the taking place three months before an election?

    Sitting councilors already get over an hour of free TV face time every meeting - why the need for more for a ’special’ councilor?

19. Eleanor Rigby Says:
    October 29th, 2009 at 10:20 pm

    Teddy
    You are missing, or ignoring, the point. Because Rita is, as you called her, a regular on the afternoon program, then she would be considered an unpaid employee.

    Your program will certainly fall under the exempt rules but as those rule apply to employees Rita triggers the Equal Opportunity provision.

    As far as denying Jackie access to the airwaves to discuss what I believe (and I could be wrong) her initiative before the legislature then you are again wrong. If Jackie did not initiate the legislation and you insteade had reps, etc on then there is no issue.

    My point is that because you have stated that Rita is a part of the programming of WCAP and has been for over a year then the Equal Opportunity rule applies and that any member of the city council or challenger can demand equal time. At this point in the process that would be difficult to do so litigation would probably be the next step.

    That is something that could easily have been avoided.

20. Teddy P. Says:
    October 30th, 2009 at 7:51 am

    Again, we can agree to disagrere on judgment. What I’d aks you to remember is at all candidates have equal access. They’re all encouraged to call in after Rita’s segments, and some have. They are not being denied any chance to speak about the city council agenda.

    As for the power of incumbency Bob, well, that’s not a WCAP issue. That’s a national and locl TV, Radio and Newspaper issue. It’s an advantage incumbents have always, and will always, enjoy. They’re in office, so naturally, when they speak it’s news.

    Which reminds me, some of you sit on the board of LTC…how come no hue and cry to stop televising the meetings before elections? You know why? Because it’s a public service, the same that we provide.

21. Mimi Says:
    October 30th, 2009 at 12:06 pm

    Teddy:

    Since I am the only one on this blog who sits on the LTC Board, I am assuming the comment was aim at me. Public Access television and commercial radio have a different mission. LTC provides educational, community and government programming.

    The arguments raised by ER and others, if I understand correctly, is during the FCC law which applies to campaign season.

    And as far as CC R. Mercier’s weekly appearance, I like to raise another issue. Don’t you think WCAP would expand its listenership base if on a revolving basis, you had a different CC member appearing in that segment?

22. Lynne Says:
    October 30th, 2009 at 12:18 pm

    Not to mention, Ted, that LTC has some pretty strict policies on campaign stuff going on - they are ceasing political programming (though not meeting as they are not campaigns) as of end of day today. They won’t be airing the episodes I made for them of my candidate videos past today, nor any of the other political shows. They don’t have to have this policy (they are cable and not so much FCC regulated) but they do anyhow, in the spirit of fairness in light of the upcoming election. The thing is, public airwaves are held to another standard all together as they should be (being that they are owned by the commons as it were).

    You might be in perfect accordance with FCC regulation by law, but again, you are not so in spirit. You are in effect deciding to make someone’s incumbency far more powerful than it is already with your programming. You can argue that the problem is bigger than just what happens over the public airwaves, but this does not excuse the station’s part in this.

23. Teddy P. Says:
    October 31st, 2009 at 2:07 pm

    That wasn’t a shot at you Mimi or Lynne, just an example that incumbents simply have an advantage over challengers because they can better take advantage of all the communication forms out there. LTC, while non-political in its mission statement, is still a forum that incumbents can take advantage of. LTC made a decision that broadcasting city council meetings is a public service (which I agree with, BTW), just as we made that same decision that previewing and reviewing them is a public service.

    Oh, and Mimi, will you at least grant that we’re a little less biased than the LTC talk show…the same one I believe is still airing?

24. Mimi Says:
    October 31st, 2009 at 3:49 pm

    Teddy:

    I find you personally to be unbiased; you are open to talking to everyone and more importantly listen. And yes, I do agree that some programs on LTC have their obvious bias.

25. Teddy P. Says:
    October 31st, 2009 at 4:57 pm

    WOW! I’ll stop talking now. That’s as good as I’m gonna get!

    LOL

26. Lynne Says:
    October 31st, 2009 at 8:09 pm

    LTC is member driven. If there were more people with time on their hands and nothing better to do, they could run a daily two hour show on LTC same as anyone, so long as they adhere to LTC’s guidelines.

    Just FYI.

Leave a Reply