Fox Toledo takes issue with Wilson's portrayal of mediation

I happened to be watching Fox Toledo news at 10 and I saw a 1-3 minute editorial by Karl Rundgren on Wilson column in this week's edition of the Toledo Free Press. Fox 36 did not post the editorial on their site (yet), so don't quote me on any of this. Karl basically they said they did not report the WSPD/Mayor incident until it went to court. They wanted to remain neutral and thought the problem was driven more by egos on both sides. They maintained they would report it once it became a legal issue. They thought that if WSPD was serious, they would follow suit, which they did. They also took issue with the mediation portrayal in the article. The article says Fox 36 wanted exclusive rights, but they said the mediation proposal specifically says they would share the video with other interested parties. You can read the proposal at:

http://www.foxtoledo.com/dsp_story.cfm?storyid=72843&RequestTimeout=500

Anyway, I never saw an editorial on Fox 36, so my eyes popped up when I heard it. It was not a short one either which is why it was probably more like 2-3 minutes. They did report on today's case.

Update: You can now read the Wilson piece at:
http://www.toledofreepress.com/?id=4681

What do you think?

No votes yet

Not trying to be an asshole here, but I didn't think a local newscast would need one.

The editorials are usually seen on the 4pm show, which is why you probably haven't seen them before. Denny Schaffer used to do them from his studio, then Bob Frantz from the news set, now it's (usually) Brad Fanning or Grizzly from 'IOT.

Can't say for sure, but maybe Fox Toledo was staying away from the story because of its relationship with 'SPD/Clear Channel. Any attempt to report the story would be seen as biased toward the radio station due to that relationship, and get their asses in trouble with King Carty. As for the mediation and exclusive rights, I'm not even gonna touch that one. Fox isn't big enough to shut out the rest of the city's media and earn their wrath.

In the end, Brian didn't see it that way and tore Fox a new one in the City Paper. Maybe it's time for Fox to re-evaluate that relationship.

Fox's response to a situation where a party was prohibiting media access was a meeting - WITH prohibited media access?

C'mon...........

If you're here to tell me it's my fault - you're right. I meant to do it. It was alot of fun. That's why I have this happy smile on my face.

I can see both side's points; Fox being cautious, possibly in hopes of an exclusive and Brian's wider issue that this is a first amendment issue that all media should be fighting vehemently, instead of jockeying for coverage/ratings.

All things considered, and IMO, Fox was being just a tad chicken-shit in its behavior. . .

And I suspect that there might have been a brief chill towards their "buds" at Fox, sweeping down the halls of ClearChannel.

Hooda Thunkit

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.