I compared an unedited recording of the show segment, taken from the transmitter signal. The actual segment was about two minutes and forty three seconds in length. Someone, at the newspaper cut a total of about one minute and seventeen seconds out of it, leaving a carefully edited sound bite of about one minute and twenty six seconds that was used on the Fastrack Local News on the newspaper WEB site. It is quite clear that the newspaper cherry picked segments of the original audio to create a new context. In communication the context is just as important as the actual words. Whether it is from the same medium or converted from one medium to another, as in audio to print, the definition of Transcript is an accurate copy of the material. What they called a Transcript in the newspaper was not an accurate copy of the original material or even their edited sound bite. By calling it a Transcript they lied. Although some things may have been better left unsaid, IMO the segment, in context, should not of been a fireable offense. It would appear that many, if not most, of the people that formed their opinions based on the newspaper article, including possibly the financial institution and radio station officials, were IMO victimized by a Yellow Journalism Hit Piece that would have been better in the opinion section rather than masquerading as a news story.
Thank you for your post. Yes, I suspected that was the case, that the transcript was “edited” to make Stanton lose worse!
Stanton just stepped on the wrong toes, and it is very sad to see a popular radio host lose their job!!
Look at this way. Hillary Clinton running for President in 2008.
2008: NO ONE on the air to stop her.
Scary thought!! I don’t know if Stanton was a fighter, but every downed-on-air-personality is precious these days!!