Eye on Oshkosh hosts/producers respond to citizen’s public statement
At the August 24, 2004 meeting of the Oshkosh Common Council, Oshkosh resident Mark Schumerth got up during the Citizen Statements portion and spoke very negatively about a local cable access show and its hosts. Mr. Schumerth, for whatever reason, chose not to specifically name the show or its hosts. However, our identity and that of Eye on Oshkosh seemed pretty apparent to those who watched. Intentional or not, Mr. Schumerth's comments -"veiled" and "discreet" as he may have thought they were - pointed folks in our direction, as evidenced by the calls of support we have received since then. Some of the folks who have called us have suggested we respond – something we agree with completely – and following are both Mr. Schumerth’s comments and our formal response.
MARK SCHUMERTH STATEMENT
He prefaced his statement by saying he does not have cable TV, but went on to say that someone was kind enough to have given him a copy of a show in which his name was mentioned (during one of our Another Viewpoint segments after he appeared at a July Common Council meeting). He said he was “aghast and appalled” and he followed with this…
“The stock and trade of the hosts was to totally and absolutely misquote the people with whom they disagreed and then belittle the misquotes which they themselves had made. In fact, in the brief viewing I had there was not one accurate quote. This was accompanied by a liberal dose of character assassination and name-calling. There was absolutely nothing that bore even a vague resemblance to enlightened political discourse. Slander and libel flowed freely and it was clear that the hosts of the show have no clue as to the difference in how those terms apply to public figures and private citizens. Since the city is the stakeholder in public access cable it might be a good idea for the council, the city manager and the city attorney to make clear to all of those involved in public access broadcasting, the legal ramifications of slander and libel. The worst part of this is that such programming stifles public discourse. Good citizens with valuable ideas and input could be constrained from speaking out for fear they might be ridiculed and made public spectacle by such crude program hosts. One doesn’t want to abrogate the right of free speech. But these types of programs clearly remind us that no one has the right to shout FIRE in a crowded theater, and slander and libel are against the law.” – Mark Schumerth, Aug. 24, 2004
RESPONSE FROM EYE ON OSHKOSH
Let us begin by saying that, as is noticed on each and every one of our programs, Eye on Oshkosh is copyrighted and we did not give permission for anyone acquainted with Mr. Schumerth to make a copy of it. While we thank them for “publicizing” the show, we hereby ask that they adhere to the same conditions everyone else does, and that is to ASK AND OBTAIN PERMISSION FROM US BEFORE MAKING COPIES. That’s one of the basic premises and requirements of copyright law.
Now specifically to the depth and breadth of Mr. Schumerth’s statement; we are not going to take the time to address each and every one of his comments. We believe they speak for themselves, while at the same time our program, the work we do and the viewership our program has speak for themselves. However, a few points do need to be made.
First, Mr. Schumerth clearly misspoke when he said we quoted people. In the portion of the show where his name was mentioned we paraphrased what had been said. There is a difference. We recognize that the difference between an actual quote and a paraphrase of what someone has said is a concept with which some people have difficulty grasping. Let us try to clarify. A direct quote is just that, a direct quote – in other words, what someone has said, verbatim, or word for word – just as Mr. Schumerth’s statement above is a direct quote (hence, the quotation marks). And on the show, we always say whether something is a quote or not. If we don’t say so, then one should not make the assumption that someone has been quoted. To do so would be an error on their part and could possibly only lead to further confusion for people. Before lobbing accusations and making public statements about their having been misquoted, it might be advisable for people to understand the basic terminology of the words they are throwing around in their dissertation.
There also needs to be an understanding of the difference between character assassination and pointing out the problems we personally have with votes made by elected officials or inaccurate statements made by a citizen in a public setting. And while there indeed are differences between private citizens and elected officials, when a citizen makes a statement in a public meeting, especially one that is aired on TV, or when they write a letter to the editor of a print publication, that statement or letter is fair game for being challenged, especially when it contains inaccuracies or is misleading, as Mr. Schumerth’s statements were on both occasions. Moreover, had we been in attendance at the meeting, we could have challenged his statements right then and there. There really would have been no difference.
The most interesting part of Mr. Schumerth’s Aug. 24 statement was his assertion that he was somehow libeled and slandered. We don’t know from which legal dictionary Mr. Schumerth has gotten his definitions, but for the record, libel cannot be committed in a broadcast medium. Rather, it can only be committed in a print medium. Further, there was no slander committed against him, either. To slander someone you must say something that is not true and it must, at least in most cases, somehow harm that person’s good name, reputation or standing in the community. That simply DID NOT happen. In fact, it would appear that if anyone has slandered anyone, it is we who may have been slandered by Mr. Schumerth through his comments, misstatement of fact and innuendo during his Aug. 24 statement. And again, simply because he did not name the show or hosts by name, the law recognizes that slander can be committed if it can be reasonably inferred who someone is speaking about. That clearly is the case here.
It is too bad Mr. Schumerth only saw, as he called it, a “brief viewing.” Otherwise he would have seen there is a full disclaimer at the beginning of every public access show which states that the opinions expressed on cable access shows are those of the hosts and/or producers only. That, in and of itself, would seem to hold the city harmless from any potential litigation arising from a host and/or producer exercising their right to free speech on a variety of issues. Additionally, the very nature of the show we taped to which Mr. Schumerth referred is clearly subtitled “Another Viewpoint.” There is absolutely not one shred of proof or validity to Mr. Schumerth’s claim that he, or anyone else for that matter, was somehow libeled and/or slandered by us. Again, the term “libel” doesn’t apply and the claim of slander has no proof to support it. Interesting how it appears that Mr. Schumerth wants to be able to exercise his own right to free speech while somehow stifling ours. But the Constitution and its amendments were written for all citizens, not just those who agree with a certain point of view.
Additionally, no public discourse has been stifled by our infrequent, if not rare, comments about citizen statements or written editorials in the local newspapers. That is evidenced by Mr. Schumerth’s own appearance and citizen statement, even after we mentioned him on one of our previous shows.
And to compare our editorial comments on a show which has full disclaimers and where anyone viewing it - even for the first time – can see when we are stating our opinions, to shouting “Fire” in a crowded theater, is to make a quantum leap. There is no realistic comparison between the two and it is a stretch of mammoth proportions, no matter how you look at it.
Finally, we couldn’t agree more with Mr. Schumerth’s comment that libel and slander are against the law. But just as it is important for people to understand that these acts are against the law, it is equally important for people to understand what the words truly mean before they so freely toss them around, claiming to have had these acts committed against them.
Cheryl Hentz and Melanie Bloechl
Hosts/producers, "Eye on Oshkosh"
MARK SCHUMERTH STATEMENT
He prefaced his statement by saying he does not have cable TV, but went on to say that someone was kind enough to have given him a copy of a show in which his name was mentioned (during one of our Another Viewpoint segments after he appeared at a July Common Council meeting). He said he was “aghast and appalled” and he followed with this…
“The stock and trade of the hosts was to totally and absolutely misquote the people with whom they disagreed and then belittle the misquotes which they themselves had made. In fact, in the brief viewing I had there was not one accurate quote. This was accompanied by a liberal dose of character assassination and name-calling. There was absolutely nothing that bore even a vague resemblance to enlightened political discourse. Slander and libel flowed freely and it was clear that the hosts of the show have no clue as to the difference in how those terms apply to public figures and private citizens. Since the city is the stakeholder in public access cable it might be a good idea for the council, the city manager and the city attorney to make clear to all of those involved in public access broadcasting, the legal ramifications of slander and libel. The worst part of this is that such programming stifles public discourse. Good citizens with valuable ideas and input could be constrained from speaking out for fear they might be ridiculed and made public spectacle by such crude program hosts. One doesn’t want to abrogate the right of free speech. But these types of programs clearly remind us that no one has the right to shout FIRE in a crowded theater, and slander and libel are against the law.” – Mark Schumerth, Aug. 24, 2004
RESPONSE FROM EYE ON OSHKOSH
Let us begin by saying that, as is noticed on each and every one of our programs, Eye on Oshkosh is copyrighted and we did not give permission for anyone acquainted with Mr. Schumerth to make a copy of it. While we thank them for “publicizing” the show, we hereby ask that they adhere to the same conditions everyone else does, and that is to ASK AND OBTAIN PERMISSION FROM US BEFORE MAKING COPIES. That’s one of the basic premises and requirements of copyright law.
Now specifically to the depth and breadth of Mr. Schumerth’s statement; we are not going to take the time to address each and every one of his comments. We believe they speak for themselves, while at the same time our program, the work we do and the viewership our program has speak for themselves. However, a few points do need to be made.
First, Mr. Schumerth clearly misspoke when he said we quoted people. In the portion of the show where his name was mentioned we paraphrased what had been said. There is a difference. We recognize that the difference between an actual quote and a paraphrase of what someone has said is a concept with which some people have difficulty grasping. Let us try to clarify. A direct quote is just that, a direct quote – in other words, what someone has said, verbatim, or word for word – just as Mr. Schumerth’s statement above is a direct quote (hence, the quotation marks). And on the show, we always say whether something is a quote or not. If we don’t say so, then one should not make the assumption that someone has been quoted. To do so would be an error on their part and could possibly only lead to further confusion for people. Before lobbing accusations and making public statements about their having been misquoted, it might be advisable for people to understand the basic terminology of the words they are throwing around in their dissertation.
There also needs to be an understanding of the difference between character assassination and pointing out the problems we personally have with votes made by elected officials or inaccurate statements made by a citizen in a public setting. And while there indeed are differences between private citizens and elected officials, when a citizen makes a statement in a public meeting, especially one that is aired on TV, or when they write a letter to the editor of a print publication, that statement or letter is fair game for being challenged, especially when it contains inaccuracies or is misleading, as Mr. Schumerth’s statements were on both occasions. Moreover, had we been in attendance at the meeting, we could have challenged his statements right then and there. There really would have been no difference.
The most interesting part of Mr. Schumerth’s Aug. 24 statement was his assertion that he was somehow libeled and slandered. We don’t know from which legal dictionary Mr. Schumerth has gotten his definitions, but for the record, libel cannot be committed in a broadcast medium. Rather, it can only be committed in a print medium. Further, there was no slander committed against him, either. To slander someone you must say something that is not true and it must, at least in most cases, somehow harm that person’s good name, reputation or standing in the community. That simply DID NOT happen. In fact, it would appear that if anyone has slandered anyone, it is we who may have been slandered by Mr. Schumerth through his comments, misstatement of fact and innuendo during his Aug. 24 statement. And again, simply because he did not name the show or hosts by name, the law recognizes that slander can be committed if it can be reasonably inferred who someone is speaking about. That clearly is the case here.
It is too bad Mr. Schumerth only saw, as he called it, a “brief viewing.” Otherwise he would have seen there is a full disclaimer at the beginning of every public access show which states that the opinions expressed on cable access shows are those of the hosts and/or producers only. That, in and of itself, would seem to hold the city harmless from any potential litigation arising from a host and/or producer exercising their right to free speech on a variety of issues. Additionally, the very nature of the show we taped to which Mr. Schumerth referred is clearly subtitled “Another Viewpoint.” There is absolutely not one shred of proof or validity to Mr. Schumerth’s claim that he, or anyone else for that matter, was somehow libeled and/or slandered by us. Again, the term “libel” doesn’t apply and the claim of slander has no proof to support it. Interesting how it appears that Mr. Schumerth wants to be able to exercise his own right to free speech while somehow stifling ours. But the Constitution and its amendments were written for all citizens, not just those who agree with a certain point of view.
Additionally, no public discourse has been stifled by our infrequent, if not rare, comments about citizen statements or written editorials in the local newspapers. That is evidenced by Mr. Schumerth’s own appearance and citizen statement, even after we mentioned him on one of our previous shows.
And to compare our editorial comments on a show which has full disclaimers and where anyone viewing it - even for the first time – can see when we are stating our opinions, to shouting “Fire” in a crowded theater, is to make a quantum leap. There is no realistic comparison between the two and it is a stretch of mammoth proportions, no matter how you look at it.
Finally, we couldn’t agree more with Mr. Schumerth’s comment that libel and slander are against the law. But just as it is important for people to understand that these acts are against the law, it is equally important for people to understand what the words truly mean before they so freely toss them around, claiming to have had these acts committed against them.
Cheryl Hentz and Melanie Bloechl
Hosts/producers, "Eye on Oshkosh"
posted by Cheryl Hentz at 9:35 PM
<< Home