Wednesday, September 18, 2013

WABC Radio Bombshell: "He's a Paid Hack"

Not a political operative

Wow!

MSV got quite the scoop: an anchor on WABC 77AM radio's 5:00AM On-Air News Hour gave some fascinating commentary about a competitor's report of the Eli Manning fundraiser; the anchor was careful not to name the station but instead imitated the tick-tick-tick sound of 1010WINS News.

Here is what the WABC AM radio anchor said at 5:14 AM this morning:
The guy who's doing the story, I don't know him but I know who he is, and I know that he's a hack for the other side, for the, for the, for the people who are trying to beat Dawn Zimmer, and he does the story on Dawn Zimmer, but never during the course of the story does he identify that he's a paid hack for the other side... how do you do that?  How do you leave that out?  At the end of the story you could have said I'm a paid hack, well you wouldn't say paid hack you'd say paid professional for the other side... but he never mentions that in the story... 
Holy cow!  The WABC 77AM Radio anchor "knows" that the anchor for 1010WINS Radio covering a story about Dawn Zimmer is a "paid hack for the other side"!

Wow, word sure does travel in the radio biz.  And their offices are located in New York City, not Hoboken. 

Well, GA has obtained this gentleman's name.  I served 1010WINS yesterday.

You know, when an alleged "not a political operative" "paid hack for the other side" is claiming damages "in excess of $2,000,000" well... I've got plenty of questions for everybody.

 

11 comments:

  1. Looking Dapper, Douche!
    http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-AzsCd7zx75A/T2IR-gBKTvI/AAAAAAAACAw/agt5dqrYwng/s1600/cammarano+bajardi.jpg

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Love the pic. It so is cute that Lane and Beth had matching little outfits.

      Delete
  2. Maybe WNBC would want to cover the douchebag suing two dozen pro-Zimmer bloggers.

    I'll bet 1010WINS' competitor would love this story. Can't wait till Bertoli blows it up. Boom.

    ReplyDelete
  3. is there any way to find a tape or transcript of what the hack said on 1010wins? it's been so long since the squirt attended a council meeting, i miss hearing that buttery voice and dime-store spin.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Anon @ 8:31 AM. I just responded to this inquiry on MSV.

      The 1010WINS audio has no value in Plaintiff's defamation claim. Zero. He is reading on-air what his station writes for him.

      Just remember where the burden of proof is, the bar that needs to be met to prove it and how his claims (read the complaint) are undermined by a WNBC broadcaster publicizing his belief to a tri-state audience that "the guy doing the story" on a competing network is a 'paid hack' for Zimmer's opposition.

      It's good stuff.

      Delete
  4. It depends on whether Mr. Bajardi simply read the story as written or ad libbed a snide remark. If all he did was read the script he was simply doing his job. If he ad libbed there's a serious problem that WINS should be anxious to address quickly, particularly in light of the fact that the defamation case has made them well aware of his history of involvement in local politics.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, your point has merit. I am sure Plaintiff has read many Hoboken stories on-air particularly since Hurricane Sandy when Mayor Zimmer and Hoboken were daily national stories. So one could go back to review all of those to look for ad-libbing and snark.

      This WNBC on-air commentary that he is a 'paid political hack' has value of another kind.

      Delete
  5. I don't get the "value" of the WNBC remark. If someone calls him a "paid hack" isn't he running the risk of litigation himself if he can't prove said person is paid. Help us understand this better.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. First you need to understand that: (1)Plaintiff is a public figure which implicates the actual malice standard (2) and saying that he's a 'paid hack' is non-actionable and falls in the categories of privileged speech which include: (1) time barred by the statute of limitations, (2) true, (3) substantially true, (4) opinion, (5) not of-and-concerning Plaintiff(s) (6) non-defamatory, (7) satire, (8) rhetoric, and/or (9) hyperbole. The burden of proof is on the Plaintiff, not the accused.

      These matters are not decided on blogs or in the court of public opinion. I won't get into legal arguments of this case, but you can look at documents on file if you wish to understand them better:

      http://www.scribd.com/doc/152069005/Lane-Bajardi-and-Kim-Cardinal-Bajardi-Litigation-Pincus-Motion-for-Summary-Judgment

      Delete
    2. It's fine to call him a paid hack because he is, in fact, a paid hack. And since the core of his legal argument is that he is not, in fact, a paid hack, when, in fact, he is, the "value" of the WNBC remark is self-evident and warrants no explication.

      Delete
    3. But if a paid hack falls in the forest and there's no one to hear him, did he make a sound?

      Delete