I think we need to take a step back here. For the record I stand by my opinion and what I wrote in the original article. But at NO time did I mention anything about a lawsuit. I did say that someone was at my table that evening text messaging someone “in the know”. I used the quotes as a means of sarcasm ( of sorts ). What I can say is this person stated to me that the person on the other end would know something about the situation. Lets keep in mind that many people would probably state they know someone like this. I can't confirm or deny the credibility of the supposed “source”. I can only tell you what was told to me that evening. Which is what I wrote in the original article. I fully stand by my opinion and what I wrote. Also keep in mind I DID NOT ask this person to contact anyone for me. They were in fact texting this person on their own and the conversation came up as to what they had been told in that communication.
Maybe I should have been more clear that this person could have been anybody and may in fact know nothing. That was my reason for the quotes. Anything else that was stated in the article was my gut feeling. Along with some general feelings on how many people – especially the traditional media come off as overly arrogant and self centered towards the online community. I also pointed out that we all have egos and that this has gotten many a person in trouble from time to time. I think I clearly pointed out that this wouldn't be the first time an employer has taken this type of action over speech.
While I'm more than willing to admit my gut feeling was wrong if proven so in the end. I'd tend to bet that if the true story is ever given. We will in fact find out that the discourse online was in fact a factor in things. Vegas oddsmakers would tell you that the odds of this being a coincidence are very low. So either someone knew the axe was coming and decided – hey let me go take it out on those people who don't agree with me online. Or the actions that took place online where in fact a direct cause for the dismissal.
The odds of the radio group deciding that very same week to have a format change or to bring in newer blood is rather unlikely. Especially if the listener numbers being throw around online are considered good for this market.
Again lets be clear – at no time did I mention anyone is getting sued!! I did in fact make mention that I was told secondhand that counsel may have been hired. For what purpose would be pure speculation at this point. Although I don't think it would be unheard of if someone retained a lawyer if they felt they were fired do to what they felt was a free speech issue. Or if the person(s) felt they were unjustly fired or that a stipulation within their contract was violated.
Also keep in mind that Midwest Radio Group encourages employees to invest within the company. I'm not sure how any such investment would be handled upon termination of employment.
I think if you read the different links offered in the original article. It is clear to see that an ego was living large on the internet. I think that words expressed by that person clearly show how they feel about non traditional media. If you review those words and what they stated on their own site. It's very hard not to come to the conclusion that they felt the internet is the wild west with no chance of being held accountable for your actions or words. Again I'll point out that readers and online peers are more than happy to try their best to keep things honest and upfront.
Either way I hope what I've written above clears up my intent. If someone felt that my words had a hidden meaning of a lawsuit is coming. That wasn't the intent of my comment in regards to a lawyer. However it would not surprise me if lawyers get involved. Do my thoughts I've expressed above.
Did Bloggers kill the radio star – Iggy Uncensored
jeromeprophet Should Dave Be Sued