Wednesday, August 15, 2012

We carry on at Rich Lieberman 415 Media

This is going to be brief because I'm not into long, drawn-out infomercials. It's really just some notes that will hopefully shed some light to Tuesday's post.

A few organized trolls threatened to sue. Initially, I didn't take them seriously, but had some sort of inner emotional tweak run amok.

I momentarily went into deep thought, (first problem).

I made a few calls after the beasts went further and was told I must be hallucinating; shut up, quit the gyrations and go back to what you're doing, pal. Righto.

For the record: Nobody; nobody, no company of any real significance that I know of made any direct threats. The aforementioned buffoons, who of course are somewhere out in cyberville decided to test me. After careful thought and some time to chat with trusted friends, I've come to the realization that in this world, people can do a lot of harmful things and hide at the same time. How quaint. Civilized. Nevertheless, every e-mail, comment, and observation that goes beyond the norm, (here anyway), has to be gauged. I'm sorry for dragging you all into this internal mess, but I wanted you all to know what was going on.

Speaking of which, I try to do my best with all the comments that you write. Yes, I'm the editor. I don't wantonly "select" which comment gets selected, it's all a matter of what I deem posts that are relevant to the topic at hand, personal stuff, (some of which I will allow based on context and appropriateness); racial epitaphs, sexual slurs, will not be tolerated. New rules.

Those of you who inferred that I "selectively" choose to publish comments are misinformed. It's a delicate balancing act and I'm no expert. I use the common sense approach. Cursing is raw and at times, crude, but if its directed in a general manner without any real specific target, then it will be published.

Anonymous comments that get real nasty; whether directed at me or anybody else, will not be published nor tolerated. This is a very delicate process that is an on-going dilemma; bear with me as I try to formulate the most common sense policy. It's a work-in-progress.

Finally...we move forward and continue to bring you news and commentary, the material you expect and look forward to reading here. And I never take you all for granted. I understand this site has become your go-to for all the latest media news and I strive to keep all of you well fed. This momentary hiccup hopefully will not push you out of the venue. And just for the record, it was not some trumped-up device to seek money for legal resources. I'm not a lawyer and even I know that nothing I have said in the past; nothing even remotely worthy of any legal involvement; from the commenters too, warrants any thoughts of litigation. Willful disregard, malice, all those elements have never entered into this domain.

So I carry on. And I thank you all for your support and kind words. No, I'm not backing down. Today, tomorrow and into the future. We will continue to bring you news, provide thought-provoking and unique content and give you the inside dope on all media news you have come here to embrace and look forward to receiving.

*Follow me on Twitter


  1. Bravo Mr. L now let's kick some backside! I would have used ass but thought you may censor me...:)~

  2. Hey Rich - Ponder this! Blogger loses $2.5 Million Defamation Case

    ". . . although defendant is a self-proclaimed "investigative blogger" and defines herself as "media," the record fails to show that she is affiliated with any newspaper, magazine, periodical, book, pamphlet, news service, wire service, news or feature syndicate, broadcast station or network, or cable television system. Thus, she is not entitled to the protections of the law."

    This blogger used the same tactics as you - 1) Selectively posting defamatory comments. 2) Taking anonymous tips and not calling to confirm or verify information.

    Keep it up Genius!

    1. Poster at 9:13am
      Are you by any chance, Brian Copeland?

  3. Here's more to chew on Rich:

    But even after establishing that comments made on blogs can be damaging to others' reputations, the question still remains as to whether these damaging comments are protected under the First Amendment. The Georgia Supreme Court ruled that
    bloggers are not in fact protected by the Constitution (also upheld in four other state libel cases).

    There are four criteria to consider when evaluating if a comment
    is libelous, as outlined by a collection of court cases over the
    last decade.

    Should these four elements of defamation be present,
    one is at liberty to take legal action against the person who authored or published said comment.

    First, it must be shown that the defendant made a
    defamatory communication to a third person.

    Second, the plaintiff must prove that the statement was, in fact, false.

    Third, it must be proven that the defendant was at fault in communicating the statement.

    Fourth, damage to the plaintiff must be shown.

    If these four elements of defamation are present, a person is able to sue the offender regardless of what medium was used to publish the damaging comments.

    This four prong litmus test diminishes some of bloggers'
    freedoms by making it easy to identify libel as it is defined according to today's legal system.

    The other side of the argument- that bloggers should not be
    immune from libel suits- is more straightforward. Should a person
    fulfill the four criteria of defamation, many hold the opinion that this person is unequivocally guilty of libel. People have become increasingly more aware of this definition, which is evident by the amount of cases against bloggers and by the ruling of Banks v. Milum

    1. And for the poster at 9:25am.

      Let me guess, this is Ronn Owens writing?

    2. Actually, you could narrow it down like this:
      1) is the statement false?
      2) is it reckless disregard of the truth
      3) is it actual malice

      Try that on for size for libel. That will be the ultimate test, just like libel for print and slander for broadcast.

      So, when I say that Ronn Owens and Jared Hart are thieves, am I stating something that is false, in reckless disregard for the truth and out of actual malice?


      Ronny boy and Jared the Heartless admitted on air to ILLEGALLY downloading movies without paying for them.

      To me, that is theft.

      So, when you see comments like mine, calling Ronn Owens and Jared Hart of Cumulus thieves, sue me. Go ahead. I'll call SPJ and have my legal representation help me out. Idiots.

      How would Cumulus feel if I tape the idiot Karel's inflammatory comments and play them on one of my Web sites? Cumulus would sue me, but before that, I would receive a nasty letter from their scumbag attorneys (that's my opinion, protected by the First Amendment) threatening me with all kinds of things.

      And yet Cumulus tolerates thieves on air. Check it out. Ronn Owens and Jared Hart actually discussed their thievery ON AIR.

      Thus, comments you may think are libelous ARE NOT because they are NOT FALSE.

    3. Oh, I apologize. I forgot to add that even though my statement that Ronn Owens and Jared Hart are THIEVES may hurt their reputations, they could sue me for libel and they will lose.

      I have the day and time they discussed their thievery on air, and Jared the Heartless, at that time, said he continued to do it, although I believe Ronn said he had stopped (he's still a thief for his past illegal downloading). And Jared the Heartless said all his friends do it, too.

      This is the demographic that Cumulus wants to reach, too, by the way.

      I would have terminated them both for their admitted thievery. Theft is usually a reason for terminating an employee, even if the theft is not from the company they work for.

      Thus, by me saying Ronny Owens and Jared Hart are thieves and work for Cumulus, which tolerates thieves, I could be sued but I would be vindicated because I am

      1) telling the truth
      2) Ronny and Jared admitted it on air in a discussion, both giggling about it
      3) it is not false and reckless since they both admitted it
      4) it is not out of actual malice because I actually like Ronn and have written to him before and he has responded, and I don't know Jared; to me, he's a heartless icon. He matters nothing to me.

      So, again, their reputations must be hurt by my saying this, at least for some readers of this blog who think stealing movies is theft. Go ahead, Ronny and Jared. Sue me. Let's have fun with this. Let's see how much Hollywood makes you pay back when it makes you guys the West Coast test case and sues you for hundreds of thousands of dollars.

      Bring it on.

    4. Were they under oath, or entertaining?

      Tough legal battle for you to win, but with regard to their public identities, if they made those comments then you could judge them as thieves on an equally public blog.

      They would have to produce the evidence.

  4. Hey Rich- Glad the 'trolls' didn't get to you. Speaking of which;
    how does a 10-15 dollar an hour Cumulus 'troll' threaten someone like you anyway? These odd looking, misinformed, pathetic little dweebs who are happy to take crumbs from the Dickheads certainly have no to power to sue anybody. Besides, why are they even mad at you?
    They should be mad at their bosses for treating them like indentured servants, which is pretty much what they are anyway! Sad little weasels!

  5. You're right Rich. Lots of people are brave behind their computer screens, but don't have the cojones to say the same thing to your face.

  6. I bet its one of those reputation .com types who do things like block Wiki pages of corporate types and who write bloggers "Dear sir,If you insist on allowing posts calling Mr. Nail a neo Nazi,we will sue"..and of course that's hot air sabre rattling.

    I've never read a sexual slur here..but good your going to keep it that way.

  7. And I see others think the same as I do. Its one thing for a corp. to say they can afford to sue you more then you can afford to be sued..IF that happened,every blog on the internet would be on your side, it would be front page Huffinton post. AND THAT is NOT what those corps want.
    Your safe.

  8. Why all the drama?

    If it was just a couple of "buffoons", why the "They Want to Shut Me Down" headline? Just another incorrect story like Roberta Gonzales out at KPIX?

  9. Anonymous comments that get real nasty; whether directed at me or anybody else, will not be published nor tolerated

    Not true, you consistently publish tasteless comments about Radnich's physical defect. And you also block comments citing Radnich's status as the Number One on-air personality at both KNBR and KRON. That is, you selectively edit to advance your own agenda, AND NOT because they are vulgar or nasty.

    1. LOL!..THAT guy. Hey,Raddy has taken plenty of shots at Rich. On 50,000 watts. I heard them. Hey 1029, see how many pro Rich phone calls you can get on KNBR.
      In conclusion 1029,blow it out yer ass!

    2. Hey HTML guy, pointing out someone has a three fingered hand is not a put down. It is the truth, no big deal. Raddy makes fun of Raider Mort for having jet black hair at the age of 70. No biggie. He is a big boy. Now take your HTML and stick it..

    3. @10:39 Radnich barely knows Rich exists but that wasn't the point of the 10:29 post. The point is that Rich selectively edits based on viewpoint rather than merely on vulgarity and nastiness as he claims.

    4. @10:48 Whether it's accurate or not, the point of mentioning Radnich's physical thing is clearly intended to ridicule him. Often it's accompanied with a derisive name.

      Normal people understand that it's tasteless to mock others for congenital physical shortcomings.

    5. Greg, Santa Rosa:

      I don't know where you keep getting these "radnich deformity" comments from. I've read every post this blog has put up for the last 3 years and never once recall Rich taking a shot at Radnich's deformity. Keep up the good work Rich, in the words of the WAR "don't let no one get you down"

    6. Greg, the issue was Rich's policy for publishing posts. He does not censor posts that mock congenital physical abnormalities but does censor others based on editorial viewpoint.

  10. Hey $10/hr Cummulus/Dickey/KRON 4 with no benefits interns: Read Lieberman's Lips.

    1. I read Lieberman's words and realized he's a hysterical drama queen.

  11. Richard,
    Please keep doing what you are doing. You have always reported the truth... Those who hide behind false identities, post as anonymous, and/or other lying SOBs... (oops editorial comment!) do not have any place on blogs, editorials, or as a part of civilized society. We should follow your example...say what we mean and mean what we say...and stand behind our fact and opinion.
    Thank you for all you do,

  12. You had me worried. I thought one of the evil doers had sent you a letter or given you a phone call or had left a horse's head on your bed (no horseface jokes please!). Glad it was all in your mind. Look, they did make some very thinly veiled threats but they are just blowing smoke. Keep up the great work! I will contribute later today...

  13. Keep up the good work, Rich. I don't agree with everything you say, but more often than not do. Even if I didn't, you are indeed working within the framework of Free Speech, and I haven't seen anything that would seem slanderous or libelous here. Gnarly responses? Sure. Fiery ones to say the least. Libelous? Not that I can tell.

  14. Hi,I like your post because you share some important and true facts here. I noticed that you always try to say against bad.It's highly recommended.Please keep up your good job.

  15. Cabrera is suspended for juicing. Breaking news! Oh no! What will happen to the douchey Melkmen!? Unemployment lines!!??

    1. Nah, they'll go back to the Giant's promotion office from whence they came. Or their summer intern positions were ending anyway and they have to go back to Chico State or Sac State.

  16. And on a positive note, our favorite 415 media blogger will not be suspended for steroids.

  17. You should probably expect to be sued when you run a blog like this. You just need to make sure you are within your rights at all times. If you are, then no sweat. If they sue you without cause, then you can counter sue.

  18. "No, I'm not backing down"

    What a crock of horse bleep! First you say you can't go on, then you're saying you're not backing down, and you're supposed to be some kind of a hero?

  19. Rich the ill-mannered mob seems to find a way to shut down the opposition.
    Don't let them bully you.
    Here we are in hip, chic and very tolerant San Francisco and some fools are trying to censor a blog. Amazing.
    What can you say, free speech is alive and well in the hip Bay Area . . . . so long as I agree with your point of view.
    Good enlightenment folks!

  20. thanks for the explanation, Rich. I can't count how many times someone threatened to sue me over a story, column, editorial and/or headline. If I could have collected $1,000 for each threat, I'd be in easy-ville now, when I think back over nearly a quarter-century.

    By the way, no one sued. How could they? I never wrote anything that was false. I never wrote anything out of actual malice (which in America is NEARLY impossible to prove).

    These individuals and any corporate hooligan behind them would be very foolish to go after you. After all, I would start a blog, and although I don't have your contacts, I'm sure I could soon establish my credentials in your absence, or until you got back.

    And, as an SPJ member, I have some legal backing.

    So, go ahead, those who don't like Rich. There are many others like me who have the competence, the journalistic history and expertise to make your life even more miserable than Rich does.

    1. And, as an SPJ member, I have some legal backing.

      So, go ahead, those who don't like Rich. There are many others like me who have the competence, the journalistic history and expertise to make your life even more miserable than Rich does.

      WOW, an SPJ member! And you're going to make my life miserable? Why?

    2. Rich, I have an editorial suggestion. How about banning HTML use by commenters? This guy is running wild thinking he is tech savvy because he writes HTML code...

  21. Maybe Ronn should have spent more than six weeks in law school . . .

  22. I don't know which was more disappointing; Melky getting suspended for 50 games or Rich deciding he wasn't quitting after all.

  23. Rich, my bet is that Angela Alioto, or one of her legal bretheren, would be to your aid like white on rice, possibly pro bono.

    First, it appears to be a First Amendment issue. It's gold. (There is a reason why our Founding Fathers put it number one!)
    Second, it's almost a slam dunk!
    Third, they love to be seen as protecting the "little guy".
    Fourth, they most likely would take on the corporate carpetbagger who most locally dislike.
    Fifth, the kicker... there would likely be little work, but a TON of positive PR!

    This is kind of the exact opposite of what happened today, how a very shrude and savvy PR machine prevented the Melky case from getting bigger. Obviously, the Giants and Melky were given a heads up call. They likely called in some professional PR group like Singer Associates (see them here), and they said: "Admit to it, admit to what you did, say you're sorry, and move on." The Giants and Melky did just that, so this story won't continue to evolve like Monica Lewinsky, Barry Bonds and Mark McGuire.

  24. Rich, keep doing what you do and don't worry about anonymous posting punks and their threats. They can ESAD as far as people are concerned.

  25. Larry Baer of the Giants and Comcast's Ted Griggs are going to have to figure out what to do with all of those 'Melk-man' and ' Melk-maid' outfits now that the 'Melk-man' has been sent home from the play-pen. Baer doesn't care though, because as long as the bleating sheep that make up most Giant fans continue to storm through the turnstiles, (and they will!) it doesn't matter if Melky is out on the field or not. Giant fans loved Bonds because he delivered big hits, and they loved Melky for the same reason. The only reason they're upset about it is because the 'Melk-man' got caught. What an idiot!

  26. Keep fighting the good fight, Rich.

  27. I wonder... what was your position when "Spocko" went after KSFO a few years ago? Did you cheer him on? Now that a son of Spocko came after you, you panicked, right? Shoe, meet other foot.

  28. Amazing concept you have served here.Really I liked to read this post.Keep it up dear.