News Talk Reaction To The Verdict

[JustPastBuffalo]

Commercial talk radio is where listeners go to react, often in a visceral, "ready, fire, aim" manner. Frankly, the verdict being as anticipated as it was, I was surprised (and disappointed) that WBFO didn't (immediately) offer in-depth discussion and analysis, which is why I scanned from 88.7 to 107.7 when WBFO returned to Terry Gross.

Tom Bauerle, he brings passion, logic (even if I may not agree with it) and opinion to the game, even injecting a dark humor when a caller wanted to talk "closed circuit" to which TB properly responded, "it's a call-in talk show... that means we talk on the air." Click. "Justifiable Phonercide." Phil makes a legitimate point about TB shouting at and hanging up on the attorney who was explaining legal nuance. Rude. But later in the hour ample time was accorded attorney Paul Cambria (I'm told an associate of the attorney on whom Bauerle hung-up.) "Make-good." Cambria is unperturbed in the line of fire and like Senator Chuck Schumer, has a well-honed sense of "camera, microphone and talk radio radar." His take on the trial and verdict was speculative, yet articulate and informative, especially when compared to callers that sound like bar room barristers. It's these types that have driven me almost exclusively to NPR for news and talk.

Of genuine concern is the report of death threats made against the defendant, defense attorneys and jurors in this trial. Although I believe the jury got the verdict wrong, there's absolutely no place in our society for the type of lunacy that would inflict violence on anyone involved in this trial. One hopes that talk radio doesn't fan the passions of numbskulls who might harm those who were properly fulfilling their responsibilities and defending the rights guaranteed under the Constitution.

The Buffalo News offers an analysis of the trial and a juror's though process here: http://www.buffalonews.com/topics/dr-james-corasanti-trial/article884833.ece

[jas2525]

The Buffalo News offers an analysis of the trial and a juror's though process here: http://www.buffalonews.com/topics/dr-james-corasanti-trial/article884833.ece

Ya know, I was initially pretty hard on that jury myself, but after reading that article, I have to admit, I've come to the conclusion that they are even bigger morons than I originally thought.

[Element9]

I've been rather hesitant to attack other radio stations now that my identity is rather known to many on this board who pay attention to such things.  But I can't hold back from criticizing Tom Bauerle for his utter unprofessionalism in his interview with defense attorney Barry Covert.  I was astounded that Mr. Covert didn't hang up on Bauerle.  I would have!  Why would he put up with such an attack.  Yet, Mr. Covert continued to calmly present his views while Bauerle actually yelled at him in the course of the interview.  It's one of the reasons why I rarely tune into WBEN anymore.  It's not worth aggravating myself.

A point well made. If only WBFO-AM 970 had planned ahead. If only WBFO had offered live coverage after the verdict was announced.  If only WBFO presented an opportunity for listeners and the community to react and rationally discuss the verdict in one of Western New York's most important trials in the last two years.  You and others might have been spared the aggravation.  Also disappointing, the WBFO reporter on the live break-in first announced the verdict as "guilty" before recovering and correcting himself.  WBFO is staffed (some critics might say "over-staffed") with seasoned reporters who could have shed plenty of light on this trial and the verdict.  Listeners wouldn't have heard a WBFO talk show host hang up on an attorney who offered a reasoned viewpoint contrary to a gasbag acting as judge, jury and executioner.  If only WBFO had planned ahead.  WBEN's immediate coverage and call-in show following the verdict may have been typical of commercial news-talk radio, but what was the alternative?  Therefore, the verdict can only be a summary judgement in favor of WBEN.   

[Philip_Airtime]

I've been rather hesitant to attack other radio stations now that my identity is rather known to many on this board who pay attention to such things.  But I can't hold back from criticizing Tom Bauerle for his utter unprofessionalism in his interview with defense attorney Barry Covert.  I was astounded that Mr. Covert didn't hang up on Bauerle.  I would have!  Why would he put up with such an attack.  Yet, Mr. Covert continued to calmly present his views while Bauerle actually yelled at him in the course of the interview.  It's one of the reasons why I rarely tune into WBEN anymore.  It's not worth aggravating myself.

A point well made. If only WBFO-AM 970 had planned ahead. If only WBFO had offered live coverage after the verdict was announced.  If only WBFO presented an opportunity for listeners and the community to react and rationally discuss the verdict in one of Western New York's most important trials in the last two years.  You and others might have been spared the aggravation.  Also disappointing, the WBFO reporter on the live break-in first announced the verdict as "guilty" before recovering and correcting himself.  WBFO is staffed (some critics might say "over-staffed") with seasoned reporters who could have shed plenty of light on this trial and the verdict.  Listeners wouldn't have heard a WBFO talk show host hang up on an attorney who offered a reasoned viewpoint contrary to a gasbag acting as judge, jury and executioner.  If only WBFO had planned ahead.  WBEN's immediate coverage and call-in show following the verdict may have been typical of commercial news-talk radio, but what was the alternative?  Therefore, the verdict can only be a summary judgement in favor of WBEN.   

I'm thinking that the WBFO-AM 970 news team learned from the Corasanti situation and prepared well for the next big news event, which occurred today.  While WBEN was airing Rush Limbaugh, WBFO pre-empted the first segment of its noon-hour show and presented live coverage of Mayor Brown's news conference about the shooting at ECMC.  I heard a nice 20 minute package, featuring the news conference with Brown and his police commissioner, Dan Derenda, followed by a Q & A between anchor Jim Ranney and Eileen Buckley on the scene about what was happening.  And I'm hearing promos on WBFO that there will be live coverage of the Wallenda walk on Friday night.  So, perhaps WBFO is ready to give WBEN a run for its money in breaking news situations.  I do know this.  Eileen has won AP's top award for excellence in individual reporting the past couple of years.  And her coverage of the Flight 3407 crash a few years ago garnered her some prime airtime on NPR as well as a first prize for breaking news in a national public radio news competition.  Jim and Eileen are solid broadcast journalists.  Now that they and their respective teams are working together, I can assure readers of this board that things will only get better. 

[stratace05]

I've been rather hesitant to attack other radio stations now that my identity is rather known to many on this board who pay attention to such things.  But I can't hold back from criticizing Tom Bauerle for his utter unprofessionalism in his interview with defense attorney Barry Covert.  I was astounded that Mr. Covert didn't hang up on Bauerle.  I would have!  Why would he put up with such an attack.  Yet, Mr. Covert continued to calmly present his views while Bauerle actually yelled at him in the course of the interview.  It's one of the reasons why I rarely tune into WBEN anymore.  It's not worth aggravating myself.

A point well made. If only WBFO-AM 970 had planned ahead. If only WBFO had offered live coverage after the verdict was announced.  If only WBFO presented an opportunity for listeners and the community to react and rationally discuss the verdict in one of Western New York's most important trials in the last two years.  You and others might have been spared the aggravation.  Also disappointing, the WBFO reporter on the live break-in first announced the verdict as "guilty" before recovering and correcting himself.  WBFO is staffed (some critics might say "over-staffed") with seasoned reporters who could have shed plenty of light on this trial and the verdict.  Listeners wouldn't have heard a WBFO talk show host hang up on an attorney who offered a reasoned viewpoint contrary to a gasbag acting as judge, jury and executioner.  If only WBFO had planned ahead.  WBEN's immediate coverage and call-in show following the verdict may have been typical of commercial news-talk radio, but what was the alternative?  Therefore, the verdict can only be a summary judgement in favor of WBEN.   

I'm thinking that the WBFO-AM 970 news team learned from the Corasanti situation and prepared well for the next big news event, which occurred today.  While WBEN was airing Rush Limbaugh, WBFO pre-empted the first segment of its noon-hour show and presented live coverage of Mayor Brown's news conference about the shooting at ECMC.  I heard a nice 20 minute package, featuring the news conference with Brown and his police commissioner, Dan Derenda, followed by a Q & A between anchor Jim Ranney and Eileen Buckley on the scene about what was happening.  And I'm hearing promos on WBFO that there will be live coverage of the Wallenda walk on Friday night.  So, perhaps WBFO is ready to give WBEN a run for its money in breaking news situations.  I do know this.  Eileen has won AP's top award for excellence in individual reporting the past couple of years.  And her coverage of the Flight 3407 crash a few years ago garnered her some prime airtime on NPR as well as a first prize for breaking news in a national public radio news competition.  Jim and Eileen are solid broadcast journalists.  Now that they and their respective teams are working together, I can assure readers of this board that things will only get better. 

I have to agree that WBFO/AM 970 upped their coverage. It was refreshing to hear some great journalists "stretch their legs" on the story. That being said, at the Mayor Brown press conference, I would have liked to have had a better audio signal then what they had - obviously via a cell phone. When questions were being asked to the Mayor and police commisioner, I couln't make out what the heck they were asked/saying...In the age of new technologies (internet, smart phones, etc..) Couldn't you have used a little better audio transmitting source. Heck, hook up a usb mic to a iphone and use a VOIP service if your not willing to pay the bigs bucks for a live truck...Just sayin!

[SirRoxalot]

Oh, you've hit a sore spot on that one. The quality of remote audio these days is atrocious. Considering the alternatives available - from Hotlines that digitize audio and repackage audio on regular phone lines to the plethora of Internet options - there are WAY too many cell-phone remotes. Cell phones are the lowest rung of the telecom ladder. They make Skype sound good (although nothing can make Skype look good). Marti units lie unused. I'm not sure if it's because the interns & promotions assitants that they send out to set up remotes are clueless, or because they can't keep them in repair with the ever-smaller engineering staffs.

No matter what the reason, there's stuff getting on the air these days that would NEVER have been allowed 10 years ago.

[heydaybegone]

here's stuff getting on the air these days that would NEVER have been allowed 10 years ago.

Good point Rox.

It's now accepting the acceptable.  Any one's cell phone reception perfect? (not likely, but acceptable).  Dropped calls?  (happens but acceptable).  Skype (radio, not likley used...TV maybe....crap signal, but acceptable)  Etc., Etc. Etc.
As far as economics....well you touched on that, and it's a no brainer.

HDBG