Last Friday was an interesting one at CNN and then later at 98.5 The Sports Hub. Colleagues were left baffled by comments from Don Lemon and Tony Massarotti that can be described at best as “ill-advised.” It’s harsher, but probably fairer, to call the comments just plain dumb.
Lemon started the day by wanting to discuss when a woman is in her prime in response to a very reasonable suggestion from a presidential candidate that maybe we should make sure the elderly are competent before we let them run the country. Mazz capped the afternoon by telling partner Mike Felger that he should be wary of the two Black men sitting behind him.
One comment was misogynistic and felt vaguely sexual. The other was racist. Both men claim the perception of their comments was not in line with their intent. I am not totally sure I buy either protest, but they are entitled to them.
Rather than damn either Don Lemon or Tony Massarotti, I wanted to get some insight on a moment like this. When a talent says or does something dumb and wildly objectionable, someone is charged with making a decision. They are the ones that get to decide how the station or network responds.
I spoke with two programmers to get their opinions. One of the first things I wanted them to consider is the audience. Right or wrong, we talk a lot about cancel culture. Some people are constantly ranting about not being able to say whatever they want without consequence anymore. That has made the audience skeptical when those people are then offering apologies for something objectionable they said.
How do you cut through that cynicism? I asked Raj Sharan, program director of 104.3 The Fan in Denver how he would approach that kind of challenge. He told me it starts with making sure the talent has a reason to want to apologize.
“If a host gives their opinion about a topic inappropriate for our brand, I’d have a conversation to reinforce previously discussed expectations about what we should and shouldn’t talk about,” he said in an email. “Data is very helpful in these situations to help show why we avoid certain conversations based on what our audience has told us they like and don’t like. As you mentioned, audiences can be skeptical of on-air apologies- and a big part of that is authenticity. If a host genuinely wants to apologize for something they said, it will come across much more sincere to the audience.”
Tim Spence is the PD of San Antonio’s Sports Star. I asked him what the best time is for action. Does a station wait to see if there is real outcry or is it smarter to act first?
“Wait for the tornado to hit? Never,” he told me. “Control the chaos. Don’t let it control you.”
CNN boss Chris Licht got swept up in that chaos. Demands for action and answers came not only from outside critics, but from his own staff. A report says he was asked what he planned to do about Lemon’s comments by more than 30 employees during an informal meeting.
By the following Monday, Don Lemon was off the air. The network denied it was a suspension, and maybe that is true, but the public had made up its mind about what it believed. CNN had lost control of the story.
Spence added that there is another very important reason you act quickly. The people complaining aren’t the only ones that were paying attention and you may not be the only one they are complaining to.
“The advertisers will be responding to not only what has happened but also, HOW YOU ULTIMATELY HANDLE IT,” he pointed out. “Be smart and think through your decisions. Don’t ignore or just think it’ll go away or simply wait for the next shoe to drop before acting.”
What if an advertiser is among the offended? What if he or she is not satisfied with the way you respond to whatever dumb thing it is that was said or done on your airwaves? How much are you willing to let that person or business have a say in how you do your job?
Acting quickly is the best way to avoid getting to that point Spence says.
“The longer it goes or the longer you wait to resolve, the more the client (advertiser) will want a voice in the decision-making. That is when you realize you’ve not only waited too long to tackle the problem but also, too long to even attempt at fixing.”
Both Don Lemon and Tony Massarotti said something dumb. Both of them got the chance to apologize on air. Whether he was sorry for what he said or just sorry he said it out loud, I believed Massarotti was genuinely ashamed and sorry that he hurt his listeners. I didn’t so much believe Lemon was sorry.
That could be the result of ingrained bias. I don’t have particularly strong feelings on Mazz, so I was a little more open-minded with him. I think Lemon is the epitome of the personality-less TV newsman, so I don’t think he really feels anything he says.
While both men had to apologize, only Massarotti sounded like someone that wanted to apologize. I asked Sharan how he would approach that. It is the wrinkle that we think about the least. What if the talent digs in his or her heels? If apologizing is what is best for the station and for their career but they still do not want to, how do you convince them to show some contrition without sowing the seeds of resentment?
“I would begin with a conversation with the host about the incident to get an understanding of why they said what they did,” he answered. “We try to create an environment of striving for excellence, which creates a desire among our hosts to put on the best show possible. Because of that culture, explaining how their statements could potentially hurt their show’s performance is a great teaching tool and motivator to avoid future instances.”
It’s really cool to be in the media business, particularly in radio where things are less structured and hosts can be themselves. It’s fair to say that hosts have to walk a tight rope and sometimes the rules of what is and isn’t in poor taste change without anyone being alerted.
That isn’t what happened to Don Lemon. It isn’t what happened to Tony Massarotti. Both of them spouted dumb, offensive garbage and created a problem for themselves, their bosses and their colleagues.
Sometimes, what is deemed offensive can be debated. Maybe not every complaint necessitates a response. When your host is clearly in the wrong though, the best course of action is moving swiftly to ensure they understand what is at stake.
