The Ralph Barbieri- Cumulus/KNBR settlement--reported here first--has generated a ton of e-mail. We'll address that in a future posting.
Just got a text from Barbieri attorney, Angela Alioto, who gave me this statement:
"The matter has been resolved. The terms and conditions are confidential."
Under terms of the settlement (normal legal confidentiality), Alioto would not disclose the amount of the award although a source familiar with the details of the agreement told me that the figure was $4 million. The source spoke on condition of anonymity due to the nature of the case.
*Follow me on Twitter
It NEVER ceases to amaze me how corporations are allowed to settle a case "without admitting guilt". (I am assuming they settled "without admitting guilt". It seems to be an SOP in pretty much all litigation)
ReplyDeleteWhat this means is that, in effect, they are allowed to go ahead and continue their coitus of everybody else!!!!
That should NOT be allowed!!!!
Obviously, Cumulous is guilty of all the charges Barbieri and Alioto brought up, or they wouldn't have settled. To allow them to get off the hook so they don't have to go through a protracted and expensive litigation is wrong.
If they want to settle, they should HAVE to admit guilt!!!
Civil lawsuits don't involve guilt or innocence. They resolve differences between two parties.
DeleteThe idea that "if they want to settle, they should HAVE to admit guilt" is nonsensical. There is no "guilty" party.
> It NEVER ceases to amaze me how corporations are allowed to settle
ReplyDelete> a case "without admitting guilt" ..
> What this means is that, in effect, they are allowed to go ahead
> and continue their coitus of everybody else!!!!
> That should NOT be allowed!!!!
Agreed wholeheartedly. I would not allow them to settle. I'd go to court. I know people say, Yeah, you'd think differently if they were waving a bag of money in front of your eyes, but I wouldn't. First of all, four million ain't that much. After taxes (taxed at a very high rate, because this is "unearned"--pathetic excuse) and lawyer's fees and other related expenses, it's more like $1.5 million, tops. Life-changing? Nope.
On another subject, Rich, maybe you could do a little source-pumping to find out how this Willie L. Brown Bay Bridge BS got pumped through the state assembly. If they had to do it in the dead of night then they knew it would face stiff opposition and probably wasn't even legal. You talk about how the media was all uncritically over the new span without investigating; well, I see the same laziness here with this story. Why bother investigating; just get a goon with a camera to catch Da Mayor outside his favorite lunch spot and read a press release and there's your "story." And in this age of hyper-inflated titles, people like this don't even call themselves reporters anymore. They're "journalists." Edward M. Murrow would have called them tools.
Mr/Mrs/Ms Anon
DeleteHow fortunate for you that one and a half million net would be cast aside as an insult. According to estimates of Ralph's KNBR income that would represent six to eight years of net income.
Not life changing? With Mr Barbieri"s health concerns along with his son's needs, Ralph may beg to differ since he agreed to the settlement.
Thank you Rich. Let's be entirely clear.
ReplyDeleteNo one, other than a single unidentified source, has stated anything about the terms of the agreement. Lieberman has chosen to report what that unidentified source told him as actual news.
**Let's Be Entirely clear, indeed**
DeleteNO ONE had the original STORY either. It broke HERE, FIRST.
That's the RECORD.
And as for the settlement award, I'm comfortable with what I reported. Frankly, you sir/madam, have issues and a jealously with me--fine, I understand.
Have a nice day.
Traditional journalism requires a story be double-sourced to confirm its validity, Otherwise, a single person, with unknown motives and credibility, can plant a false story for whatever his/her purpose might be.
ReplyDeleteRegardless of whether or not Lieberman trusts his source, this still is not a double-sourced.
You mean traditional journalism like KTVU and Namegate?
Delete> You mean traditional journalism like KTVU and Namegate?
DeleteActually that WAS double-sourced. That's the sad thing.
Translation = Alioto took the first settlement terms offered.
ReplyDeleteShe and Ralph were desperate to settle knowing their case was weak.
Cumulus threw them both a bone.
Terms and Conditions are confidential. Any guessing to the amount and terms of payment is just that, guessing.
ReplyDeleteUnless the source is Barbieri (who couldn't keep a secret even when he was coherent), you should take the settlement amount with a grain of salt.
Agreed, it's only a guess. Just because Lieberman publishes the amount in bold text doesn't make it believable.
Delete> Terms and Conditions are confidential ...
ReplyDelete> Unless the source is Barbieri ... you should take the settlement
> amount with a grain of salt.
If the source *is* Barbieri, he probably just voided his terms since they are, as you say, confidential. That's the whole point of not going to court. The defendants calculate that elusive thing called "good will" and try to come in with an out-of-court settlement under that amount.
Source probably someone in Alioto's office who is eager to create the impression that it was a big win for their side. Since the agreement itself is confidential, no one can prove otherwise. Good PR for Alioto law firm but not necessarily believable.
DeleteOne thing that makes Rich story so questionable is the extent to which Lieberman is patting himself on the back for getting the story the same time he is telling us what the story is.
ReplyDeleteIf he's so eager to get credit for "breaking" an "exclusive" news story, that undermines his credibility. Racing to report something, anything is more important than worrying about it's accuracy.
I can't remember Walter Cronkite ever saying, "and now here in an exclusive report that you'll only get on CBS news..."
You're comparing me to Cronkite--Thank You.
DeleteOne thing Cronkite said: "Sure, get it first...but get it right, first."
Patting myself on the back? Damn right. This is about a story involving a major Bay Area media personality who was fired; filed suit; took the case to court; and ultimately suit was settled.
That's NEWS. And yes, I worked, with e-mails, phone calls, back-up, background etc, and it was brought to my readers, HERE FIRST, EXCLUSIVELY. Fact.
Hate to wreck your day but thanks for reading and responding.
No, not comparing you to Cronkite, contrasting you with Cronkite.
DeleteAmid all your self-congratulations there is no independent confirmation of your single-source claim about the settlement.
Just writing, "HERE FIRST, EXCLUSIVELY. Fact" doesn't make it so. The amount of the settlement IS NOT A FACT. At this point it's no more than a rumor.
Facts aren't created by a person proclaiming that something is true. A fact requires verifiable confirmation of its truth. So far there's been no verifiable confirmation about the details of the settlement.
Looks like you have a lot of time to write to me.
DeleteI've made my point. We disagree. It's OK. The story is fact. The amount of the award is based on information from a source. I believe the source. Therefore, I regard the number as fact. You do not. Swell.
Take care.
Hey Mr. Pious Jew. Will you be fasting for Yom Kipur by going to Top Dog to eat non-Kosher meat and drinking Coke?
ReplyDeleteHey, that is really nasty and uncalled for.
DeleteOh, BTW Orthodox Jews keep kosher while Conservative and Reform are more flexible.
Whoever anonymous is, the last comment should force him back into whatever stinking hole he came from.
ReplyDeleteDunno if this is THE Bill in Chico... Certainly agree with the sentiment here.
DeleteBTW, John Rothmann filled in for Dr Bill a couple weeks ago on TRN. That was great appointment radio. Complete with a call from Eid in Berkeley. Don't always agree with Johnny R. but he knows his stuff and it made for great appointment radio. Rothmann has Middle East credibility that is sorely lacking elsewhere. If the Cumulus folks cared about making money they'd put KGO back to something like it was with Dr Bill, Rothmann & Craft on the lineup....
Lieberman can't differentiate his opinion from provable fact.
ReplyDeleteThis is like the built in conflict of interest in being both a media critic and an aspiring media participant. That is by definition a conflict of interest. Yet Lieberman insists that since in his own mind, there is no conflict, a conflict of interest does not exist.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinions. But claiming opinions are facts to make them more believable, means nothing.
i.e. I really believe the moon is made of cheese. It's a fact.
Why does everyone have such a problem with the 4 Mil figure? The fact is, the suit has been settled. I doubt Ralph's side would have settled for much less than that and I also doubt Cumulus would have paid much more to settle. (in my opinion, Ralph had a pretty weak case) 4 million seems about right to "make it go away" and not have the company dragged through the mud of a public trial. Who knows what might have been exposed? And for that, I'm truly sorry it didn't go to trial. It would have been VERY enlightening, I'm sure.
ReplyDeletei was the building engineer for twenty five years that has shadow/metro etc. and got to know some of the on air radio and t.v.people.with a few exceptions they were good to deal with.thats.. why i read this blog.why spend so much time bitching,its Rich's blog. i can tell you all life is short.regards to all.mike h.
ReplyDeleteDamn, Lieberman obviously has a source. Researched and reportedly verified. Information that most were not privy to. Why attack the man? He reports on media and works within media. Who knows more than those who actually work within the medium? The information disclosed within this site isn't for broadcast, so why not just back off and contemplate the information disclosed? I wonder how many blowhards would comment if the "anonymous" option were no longer available?
ReplyDeleteYes, Lieberman has sources and hears rumors. Lieberman publishes rumors. It's irresponsible to present a rumor as a fact.
DeleteReal journalists understand the difference. Lieberman, and apparently some of his readers, do not.
What "rumor" have I published here? The story is out there and has been verified and in fact been picked up by some of the national trades and a few local sites.
Delete"Real Journalists", eh? Yeah, like that TV station that published fake Asian pilot's names?
You're a putz.
Anyone who questions Lieberman is a putz?
ReplyDeleteSo Rich Lieberman takes time off from his observance of the Day of Atonement to call someone a putz. Classy!
ReplyDeleteI don't see either side refuting or leaking any other number..
ReplyDeleteRalph is one big scumbag, glad we never have to hear his dumb voice on radio ever again. Go to Europe Ralph since you think USA stinks. Please go away soon!
ReplyDeleteWhat a sad, sour, and unhappy person you must be 5:54 anon! If you didn't like Ralph so much, you could have always turned the radio to another station! Instead you prefer, like so many other 'haters' to expose your acid tongue and anger to the rest of us. Go take a chill pill!
ReplyDelete