Replies

WABC History

Two years after its debut, WABC-AM -then known as WJZ- moved from a small studio in New Jersey to New York City in May of 1923. In 1953 the flagship station of the American Broadcasting Company, operating on 50,000 watts of power, changed its call letters to WABC. A decade later, the station introduced an exciting and innovative format called "The Sound of New York," commonly referred to as "Top40." Growth continued for WABC, and by 1976 it boasted a weekly audience of more that 5 million listeners. Visit Musicradio 77 WABC on the web here.

Times change, and WABC changed with them. In May of 1982, the station switched to a talk format By the early 1990's, WABC had carved a niche for itself as a personality-driven talk radio station. In February of 1996, ABC merged with The Walt Disney Company, which only strengthened WABC committment to radio excellence. With two of the world's leading entertainment and media companies joining forces, the combined conglomerate is a dynamic force reaching audiences worldwide and providing them with unparalleled news, information and entertainment both inside and outside the home.

From it's heyday as the pioneer of "Top 40" radio, to its success as the most-listened-to talk radio station in the country, WABC continues to reflect the spirit, energy, and excitement that is New York.

BOB GRANT WAS THE MAN ON WABC until the PC got CLOUT!

In 1988, George Wilson began complaining about Bob Grant's talk-radio show asserting that through the show Grant contributed to a climate of racism. He called Grant to confront him on the air about the views he expressed during his broadcasts; the calls were often heated and confrontational. In 1992, Wilson began to monitor and tape the show, and wrote several letters of complaint to WABC, the show's broadcaster. He requested that WABC replace Grant and accused him, and WABC, of "overt racism against people of African ancestry." Wilson stated in one letter that because the station took no action to correct the problem he would commence a public campaign against it. In furtherance of his mission to have Grant removed, he wrote newspaper articles and letters to various publications, complaining about Grant's broadcasts, and accusing him of racism. He continued to tape Grant's show and provide copies of the tapes to other people and organizations.

During Wilson's campaign to remove him, Grant discussed Wilson on his radio broadcast. He referred to Wilson as a "little weasel", a "vicious swine", and a "sick cookie", among other things. In October, 1994, a copy of one of Wilson's tapes of the show was furnished to the Lautenberg and Haytaian campaigns for the U.S. Senate, and it became a debate issue between the candidates. After the debate, Grant, on the air, referred to the tape as "ridiculous", and "compiled by a virtual stalker", and referred to George Wilson by name. Grant added that "I also hear that [he] .. has been in Marlboro State Hospital." On a February 13, 1995 broadcast, while not directly referring to Wilson by name, he implied that he was a "pot-smoking, wife beating skunk."

Wilson sued Grant, WABC Radio, and others, for libel, intentional infliction of emotional distress and invasion of privacy for revealing that he had once been a patient at Marlboro Psychiatric Hospital. The Superior Court Law Division, Union County, granted summary judgment for the defendants as to some counts because of the statute of limitations, and as to the remaining counts on the ground that the words spoken by Grant were said in such a context as not to be defamatory. Wilson appealed, though only from the dismissal of the libel count and the count alleging unreasonable public disclosure of private facts. The motion judge had dismissed the Litter count on the ground that it was so intertwined with the dismissed defamation count that it couldn't stand on its own.

Held: Affirmed. The Court agreed with the motion judge that Grant's words were not actionable, characterizing even "wife beating", in its context, as mere non-defamatory "name-calling or verbal abuse." The Court also found it relevant that Wilson had voluntarily injected himself into a public controversy and that as a result of his activities had become a limited public figure. As to the invasion of privacy claim, the Court affirmed summary judgment for the defendants, but for a different reason than that of the motion judge. The Court noted that to establish the tort of invasion of privacy by unreasonable publication of private facts, a plaintiff needs to show that the matters revealed were actually private, that dissemination of such facts would be offensive to a reasonable person, and that there is no legitimate public interest in being apprised of the facts publicized. The court agreed that the plaintiff had satisfied the first two elements, but held that in this case the public had a legitimate interest in being apprised of the acts. Because the tort allows recovery for truthful disclosures, said the Court, there is significant potential for conflict with the guarantees of the First Amendment to the Constitution. Therefore, a factually accurate public disclosure is not tortious when connected with a newsworthy event even though the disclosure is "offensive to ordinary sensibilities." The Court found that there was an appropriate nexus between Wilson and the fact that he was hospitalized. Taking into account the social value of the facts published, the depth of its intrusion into ostensibly private affairs, and the extent to which the plaintiff voluntarily acceded to a position of public notoriety the Court concluded that the balance was tipped in this case in favor of the newsworthiness privilege.

Dr. Foote comments: Wilson's lawsuit against Grant included allegations of intentional infliction of emotional distress. Several issues involved in establishing such claims are of interest to forensic clinicians.
In most jurisdictions the claimant must establish not only that the defendant's conduct was "outrageous," but also that the defendant was in a position of authority over him. Psychological or psychiatric evaluation can assist the judge or jury here by exploring the nature and extent of that authority relationship. In some cases, the authority may not be obvious to a nonprofessional. For example, if the offending person was the best friend of the plaintiff's father, the power inherent in that authority relationship may depend upon the quality of the relationship between the plaintiff and his father. Were the father/son relationship a strong bond, the power to inflict emotional damage to the plaintiff may be augmented.
Another issue in determining whether the conduct is "outrageous" is whether the offending person had knowledge of the plaintiff's vulnerabilities. The clinician may evaluate the plaintiff's history and diagnosis, especially one of child sexual abuse or other trauma, an underlying depressive disorder, or other well understood psychological vulnerabilities. It would be relevant if the offending person took advantage of the plaintiff's sensitivities. For example, if the plaintiff had a morbid fear of closed places, a threat to shut her in a closet may be much more traumatic—and much more actionable if the offender knew of it.

Another major issue in establishing intentional infliction of emotional distress is how severe the plaintiff's emotional reaction is. There are two generally recognized elements of severity: intensity and duration. Both of these factors are clearly within the realm of psychological testimony. Intensity may be subjectively defined based upon the client's vulnerabilities as outlined above. For example, a narcissistic surgeon humiliated by a superior in front of a hospital's medical staff may experience a much more severe emotional reaction than a person with a less fragile ego.

In the same sense, duration may be subjectively defined. For extremely humiliating or degrading experiences, a duration of three or four days may be sufficient to produce a severe emotional reaction in an individual. The sex abuse literature demonstrates a strong duration effect for repeated sexual abuse. Longer duration produces greater emotional changes. In some cases of long duration the condition may be an extreme Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. [Herman, J.L., in J.R.T. Davidson & ER. Foa, Post Traumatic Stress Disorder: DSM IV and Beyond (1993)]
Psychological reactions to traumatic events is a rapidly developing area of psychological study. [Briere, J., Psychological Assessment of Adult Post-traumatic States (1997)] This is a legal arena in which psychiatric and psychological testimony can clearly assist the court in determining the issue.