.comment-link {margin-left:.6em; font:75%;}

This is your one-stop shop for commentary about the state of modern-day radio from Josh C. The Radio Blog covers everything from what individual stations are doing wrong and how they should fix it to how Clear Channel Radio and post-consolidation corporate radio sucks and why. Josh also takes a look at opinions of others and debates them into submission, forcing them to agree with him. He's always right anyway.

Friday, April 28, 2006

How this escaped my notice until today...

...I'm not quite sure.  AllAccess reports:
 
WKZL And Morning Man Jack Murphy Sued
DBC Top 40 WKZL/GREENSBORO and morning man JACK MURPHY are being sued by a local woman, VERLA ENGLERT, who alleges that MURPHY made defamatory statements about her on his radio show in APRIL 2005 in connection with her criminal record, which has damaged her business.

According to the WINSTON-SALEM JOURNAL, a woman called in to MURPHY's show asking about ENGLERT's background, and the suit charges that MURPHY said that "ENGLERT had been convicted eight times for assault with a deadly weapon and that the caller to the radio station should be concerned about ENGLERT because she was obviously dangerous." No comment from WKZL or MURPHY.

This could get ugly.  According to the Journal article, she was charged with assault with a deadly weapon amd simple assault on two separate occasions.  She wasn't convicted in either case, but those charges still show up on her record.  Nevertheless, those facts prove Murphy's statement wrong, unless he has some records that the Journal wasn't able to get a hold of.
 
An interesting note: Englert's dermabrasion business isn't on North Carolina's books.  That, in addition to the charges that have been broght against her in the past, certainly says something about her character.
 
Now I've been listening to Jack Murphy since April of 2000.  I've never known him to say something without the proof to back it up.  I have, however, heard him slip up and say things that are incorrect, however they've always been in the context of actual events and they've always been mistakes that, if you're familiar with that event, you know what he meant to say.  Could this be one of those cases?  I don't know.  I didn't hear this particular broadcast.  But I tend to think it is.
 
Problem is, though, that Murphy's got his back to the wall here.  If he doesn't have the proof to back up the claim he made, this could be a major problem for both him and Dick Broadcasting.
 
I'll keep my eye on this story.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home