Browns end local TV deal when station plays 911 call

[Bearcat729]

http://www.cleveland.com/sports/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/sports/115321182351350.xml&coll=2


Browns opt to end deal with Ch. 19
Tuesday, July 18, 2006
Tony Grossi
Plain Dealer Reporter

Less than a month before their first preseason game, the Browns are looking for a new television partner after terminating their relationship with WOIO Channel 19.

The Browns notified the station of their intention on Thursday, three days after Channel 19 aired the 911 tape of Nancy Fisher, sister of Browns owner Randy Lerner, finding her 6-year-old daughter drowned in a creek on family property in Mantua.

Channel 19 was the only station to air the gruesome portion of Fisher's emergency call.

Bill Bonsiewicz, Browns spokesman, confirmed the team is looking for a new station to air its four preseason games and other programming throughout the season. He declined to elaborate on the reason for the abrupt switch.

The Browns were entering the second year of a three-year agreement with Channel 19.

A source said Channel 19 paid $2 million a year for the Browns' TV rights in a deal negotiated by former club president John Collins. WKYC Channel 3 had been the team's local flagship station from the expansion year of 1999 through 2004.

Bill Applegate, WOIO's general manager, could not be reached for comment. A message for news director Dan Salamone was not returned.

The airing of the 911 call was the last straw in a relationship that was rocky from the start.

Last year the Browns were at odds with the station over an on-air interview with Braylon Edwards that left the rookie receiver and his mother uncomfortable and complaining to team officials. Neither the team nor the station was satisfied with local ratings of programming supplied by the Browns on Saturday and Monday nights.

The Browns might choose to air their midweek programming on cable outlets Fox Sports Net Ohio or SportsTime Ohio. But they are obligated to televise all preseason games on an over-the-air station.

The first exhibition game is Aug. 10 in Philadelphia against the Eagles.

[Franklinnoble]

Good for them.

[st.cronin]

This is why people don't care about the First Amendment.

[Franklinnoble]

What does this have to do with the First Amendment?

[st.cronin]

What does this have to do with the First Amendment?

Because the media always uses the First Amendment to defend shit like this.

[wade moore]

What does this have to do with the First Amendment?

My thoughts exactly.

This is about capitalism, not the First Amendment.

[Franklinnoble]

My thoughts exactly.

This is about capitalism, not the First Amendment.
Precisely.

Now, if the ACLU or some other entity decides to sue the Cleveland Browns on behalf of the TV station citing the First Amendment, I would hope that any sensible judge would throw the case out and make it a non-issue.

The team has every right to spend it's money on another television station. If there's any legal action, it should be related to the contract itself, and shouldn't have anything to do with free speech.

[wade moore]

Precisely.

Now, if the ACLU or some other entity decides to sue the Cleveland Browns on behalf of the TV station citing the First Amendment, I would hope that any sensible judge would throw the case out and make it a non-issue.

The team has every right to spend it's money on another television station. If there's any legal action, it should be related to the contract itself, and shouldn't have anything to do with free speech.

Yup, although I think after st. cronin further explained you and I are barking up the wrong tree with him, but I agree...

And on the flip side, if someone tried to censor the TV Station VIA the government/legal system then it is a First Amendment deal I'd have a problem with...

[JonInMiddleGA]

I'm just surprised that there was an out clause on the deal that could be triggered so easily.

edit to add: Makes me wonder if the station wanted out of the deal as badly as the team apparently wanted to end it.

[Franklinnoble]

I'm just surprised that there was an out clause on the deal that could be triggered so easily.

edit to add: Makes me wonder if the station wanted out of the deal as badly as the team apparently wanted to end it.

Maybe there was no out clause. Think maybe the Browns were prepared to eat the remaining $4 million on the deal over this?

[spleen1015]

There is a commercial running here in Indy about a kid drowning in a pool.

Mom is carrying a birthday cake for one of the kids out to the pool. Dad is behind the video camera. As the move out to the pool you see 2-3 two-four year old kids playing by the pool. Mom asks Dad where little johnny is. Dad doesn't know. Mom screams, cake goes to the ground, mom runs to the pool. Dad drops the camera and it is kind of pointing towards the pool. You see them drag a kid out and start CPR.

The last 6 seconds of the commerical is the Dad trying to save the kid and the mom screaming her lights out.

When the screen fades, the words "It only takes a few seconds"

I was overly disturbed by the entire thing. I don't know if I have ever felt like I did when seeing before.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Maybe there was no out clause. Think maybe the Browns were prepared to eat the remaining $4 million on the deal over this?

Possible, I suppose, but since the station was paying them/had paid them and then had time invested in their own sales efforts, I'd think this would have to be a case of the team not only walking away from the remaining rights fees but also facing some payback to the station as well (assuming the station wasn't just looking for any opportunity to rid themselves of the whole deal).

I just don't see a franchise being willing to take a seven-figure hit over something like this. {shrug}

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

Maybe there was no out clause. Think maybe the Browns were prepared to eat the remaining $4 million on the deal over this?

After the station did something like that? Absolutely. And then they'll place a call to their lawyers to see if they can sue the shit out of that station, it's owners and affiliates to recover some of that $4 mil.

Edit to add: or just not pay the remaining amounts due under the contract and force the station to sue them. That'd be great for the station's PR, doncha think?

[st.cronin]

Yup, although I think after st. cronin further explained you and I are barking up the wrong tree with him, but I agree...

And on the flip side, if someone tried to censor the TV Station VIA the government/legal system then it is a First Amendment deal I'd have a problem with...

My point is that the media in this particular case and in many others commits absolutely reprehensible acts, harming individuals with zero consequences because they can hide behind the 1st amendment.

[Franklinnoble]

My point is that the media in this particular case and in many others commits absolutely reprehensible acts, harming individuals with zero consequences because they can hide behind the 1st amendment.

Good point.

[ISiddiqui]

What would they sue the station for again?

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

My point is that the media in this particular case and in many others commits absolutely reprehensible acts, harming individuals with zero consequences because they can hide behind the 1st amendment.

Don't disagree with you there.

But what do you consider consequences? If the Browns don't have to pay the remaining fees due under their contract, seems like there will be a financial consequence to that station.

[st.cronin]

Don't disagree with you there.

But what do you consider consequences? If the Browns don't have to pay the remaining fees due under their contract, seems like there will be a financial consequence to that station.

It may turn out that there are some minor financial consequences in this case, but I would applaud the FCC for pulling the station's license.

[wade moore]

My point is that the media in this particular case and in many others commits absolutely reprehensible acts, harming individuals with zero consequences because they can hide behind the 1st amendment.

Yeah, that's what I thought your point was after you clarified, but not when I initially read it...

Can't disagree with you. But, when the system "works", if it is that bad then it will hurt them in lost ratings, lost ads, etc... that's why I'm happy about this situation. I'm a fan of "self-policing" rather than government doing it.

[JonInMiddleGA]

After the station did something like that? Absolutely. And then they'll place a call to their lawyers to see if they can sue the shit out of that station, it's owners and affiliates to recover some of that $4 mil.

Edit to add: or just not pay the remaining amounts due under the contract and force the station to sue them. That'd be great for the station's PR, doncha think?

Umm ... the station pays the Browns $2m a year, not the other way around.

I really don't see this being a huge deal, 911 calls are played pretty commonly in Atlanta & have been for years. I don't much like 'em, but they certainly aren't unusual to hear either.

Once the 911 call is recorded, the contents are generally a matter of public record, so I don't see anything remotely actionable by the family members, etc.

edit to add: "commonly" isn't really the word I'm looking for here. It's not like you'll hear one on every newscast or something. But it isn't unusual to hear them either, the higher the profile of the incident or the more dramatic/traumatic the call is, the more likely you are to hear it.

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

Umm ... the station pays the Browns $2m a year, not the other way around.

D'oh! That's what I get for trying to work and read threads at the same time.

I'm just going to stop working now.

[ISiddiqui]

Yeah, it was kind of amusing to read about it like it never happens that 911 calls are replayed in their entirety before. :D

[ISiddiqui]

I'm just going to stop working now.

You have chosen.... wisely :D.

[st.cronin]

D'oh! That's what I get for trying to work and read threads at the same time.

I'm just going to stop working now.

That's the spirit.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I'm just going to stop working now.

Good call :D

[st.cronin]

Yeah, it was kind of amusing to read about it like it never happens that 911 calls are replayed in their entirety before. :D

I know this is not unusual, and I also know it's not going to change anytime soon. But if the FCC can spank Howard Stern for playing the piano with his penis or whatever, I don't understand why they can't step in here and say "Hey! That's the very definition of INDECENT!" To me, it's a billion times worse.

[Farrah Whitworth-Rahn]

Howard Stern can play the piano with his penis? Wow. He must get all the chicks.

[ISiddiqui]

I know this is not unusual, and I also know it's not going to change anytime soon. But if the FCC can spank Howard Stern for playing the piano with his penis or whatever, I don't understand why they can't step in here and say "Hey! That's the very definition of INDECENT!" To me, it's a billion times worse.

While I despise the FCC, the reason is simple. 911 calls are newsworthy. It tells you what exactly happened. Howard Stern playing the piano with his penis... isn't.

[kcchief19]

My point is that the media in this particular case and in many others commits absolutely reprehensible acts, harming individuals with zero consequences because they can hide behind the 1st amendment.
Then you have no point since this has nothing to with the First Amendment.

I would be very interested in knowing what reprehensible acts and harming individuals with zero consquences have been performed that then involve "hiding" behind the First Amendment. Saying something inflammatory sounds good, but just saying it doesn't make it true.

But since you seem to be suggesting that this case had "zero consequences," I don't know what you think losing a TV rights contract and facing severe public backlash is, but those sure seem like consequences to me. And thus far I don't see anyone invoking the first amendment.

[Subby]

I know this is not unusual, and I also know it's not going to change anytime soon. But if the FCC can spank Howard Stern for playing the piano with his penis or whatever, I don't understand why they can't step in here and say "Hey! That's the very definition of INDECENT!" To me, it's a billion times worse.
Do you really not understand? It seems kind of obvious to me.

[spleen1015]

While I despise the FCC, the reason is simple. 911 calls are newsworthy. It tells you what exactly happened. Howard Stern playing the piano with his penis... isn't.

True, but when you're the station showing the Browns, you have to make better decisions than this, especially when every other station in the city decides not to do it.

[wade moore]

Umm ... the station pays the Browns $2m a year, not the other way around.

I really don't see this being a huge deal, 911 calls are played pretty commonly in Atlanta & have been for years. I don't much like 'em, but they certainly aren't unusual to hear either.

Once the 911 call is recorded, the contents are generally a matter of public record, so I don't see anything remotely actionable by the family members, etc.

edit to add: "commonly" isn't really the word I'm looking for here. It's not like you'll hear one on every newscast or something. But it isn't unusual to hear them either, the higher the profile of the incident or the more dramatic/traumatic the call is, the more likely you are to hear it.

This may seem to contradict what I said earlier, but I agree with this too.

I guess my poinit is, if it is so "distasteful" then they will feel the effects in the marketplace. In most cases, the viewing audience doesn't seem to find it distasteful since they keep tuning in.

In this case, they picked the wrong person to play a tape of, and their were consequences in the marketplace. If the viewers don't tune out because of it, it's probably not a huge impact. But, I applaud the Browns for doing something they feel strongly about, but you do have to realize that every other time that 911 tapes were played the Browns didn't drop this station...

[Glengoyne]

While I despise the FCC, the reason is simple. 911 calls are newsworthy. It tells you what exactly happened. Howard Stern playing the piano with his penis... isn't.
It stands for news here at FOFC.

[JonInMiddleGA]

To me, it's a billion times worse.

{shrug}

Like I said, I don't much like them but they're the single most accurate portrayal of the event. I mean, I can't describe a call as well as the call itself.

I haven't heard the tape, but it isn't an absolute long shot to guess that there might be something less than flattering to the mother displayed by the call (which would account for the upset of having it played).

Having read the newspaper article on the actual incident, I'd say the parental negligence that led to the death of a 6 year old is a billion times worse than playing the 911 recording.

Naturally, YMMV.

[st.cronin]

I would be very interested in knowing what reprehensible acts and harming individuals with zero consquences have been performed that then involve "hiding" behind the First Amendment. Saying something inflammatory sounds good, but just saying it doesn't make it true.


Judith Miller comes quickly to mind.

[sportsfan13]

I live in Cleveland and this newscrew on 19 is nothing but a bunch of jackasses. They do their best to be rude. I'm not sure any one in Cleveland respects these people.

[JonInMiddleGA]

... but you do have to realize that every other time that 911 tapes were played the Browns didn't drop this station...

Oh this is clearly personal for them to make an issue of it now, because this wouldn't be a shocker for the station to run.

The station in question has been at the bottom of the news ratings for quite a while, and since being acquired by the current owners a few years ago, they've been accused of being "tabloid journalism". But since taking that approach, they've also improved their ratings & at least become more competitive in the market, something that seems reasonably attributable to their aggressive/tacky/tawdry style.

[st.cronin]

{shrug}

Like I said, I don't much like them but they're the single most accurate portrayal of the event. I mean, I can't describe a call as well as the call itself.

I haven't heard the tape, but it isn't an absolute long shot to guess that there might be something less than flattering to the mother displayed by the call (which would account for the upset of having it played).

Having read the newspaper article on the actual incident, I'd say the parental negligence that led to the death of a 6 year old is a billion times worse than playing the 911 recording.

Naturally, YMMV.

Touche.

[dacman]

Howard Stern can play the piano with his penis? Wow. He must get all the chicks.

Look Ma! No hands!

[Franklinnoble]

I guess channel 19 figured nothing was indecent in comparison to broadcasting Browns games.