Courier-Journal/Dorsey: John Ziegler Off Air, Talked About Ex-Girlfriend

[Anon Guy]

The Courier-Journal (Louisville, KY)
8/28/03

WHAS takes Ziegler off the air
By TOM DORSEY
The Courier-Journal

Controversial WHAS Radio talk-show host John Ziegler, who lived by
the verbal sword, was impaled by it yesterday when he was taken off
the air for statements he made about an ex-girlfriend last Friday on
his show.

"John Ziegler is no longer on the air," said a terse statement from
Bill Gentry, senior vice president of Clear Channel Radio Central
Region, which owns WHAS. "Recent on-air statements during the `John
Ziegler Show' were inappropriate and inconsistent with the station's
standards and commitment to present quality programming."

The statement said neither that he was fired nor that he resigned.
WHAS officials declined to answer any questions.

Ziegler, who has two years remaining on a three-year contract, said
in an interview last night that he is negotiating a settlement.

The comments in question came last Friday when Ziegler was discussing
the resignation of former WDRB-TV "Fox in the Morning" co-host Darcie
Divita, who he had once dated.

Ziegler made references to her physical attributes that some listeners
and station management found offensive.

"I have made statements that were far more explosive on the air at
WHAS without ever being talked to," Ziegler said last night. "I talked
about Paul Patton's inability to give orgasms to Tina Conner, and no
one said a thing."

But Thomas Clay, Divita's lawyer, had something to say about
Ziegler's comments.

"We intend to notify WHAS Radio by letter that we demand a retraction
and an apology for inappropriate comments made by Mr. Ziegler," he
said.

"We intend to file a lawsuit against WHAS among other things alleging
an invasion of privacy. We believe WHAS has been warned previously
about Mr. Ziegler's inappropriate conduct in relation to this matter
and yet until the most recent outburst has failed to take appropriate
corrective action."

Asked if he felt the decision to remove him was unfair, Ziegler said
he believed "the conclusions we are coming to are completely
unnecessary and counterproductive to all parties.

"The situation is far more complex than they lead people to believe."
He would not elaborate.

Ziegler was not on the air Monday, but he and WHAS officials denied
that his absence was because of anything he had said on the air.
Instead, they said, he was in a meeting with station management about
an offer from a Boston station, which he declined after his contract
with WHAS was adjusted. He said yesterday the Massachusetts job
was no longer on the table.

If listener reaction wasn't the cause of his dismissal, pressure from
sponsors might have been.

"I think you could describe it (Ziegler's comments about Divita) by
saying that from a moral, ethical standpoint, his comments didn't just
cross the line. They shattered the line," said Jim Harris, a
management partner for the Neil Huffman Auto Group, which has
advertised on WHAS Radio.

He declined to say whether he had pulled advertising off WHAS but
added that anyone could "read between the lines."

Not everybody was down on Ziegler.

"I think he's a marvelous radio talent," said Terry Meiners, a close
friend and colleague at WHAS. "He just needs to learn a little more
patience."

Ziegler, 36, was No. 1 in his time period on the air with all
listeners over 12 years old in a recent ratings survey.

Ziegler said he frequently talked about his personal life on the air
because it seemed to intrigue and horrify listeners.

The fact that his style offended some listeners didn't appear to
bother WHAS. The station said it was looking for someone on the
cutting edge.

"To use an old expression, he's not afraid to tell people when their
baby is ugly," said Kelly Carls, his immediate supervisor.

WAVE-TV said it still plans to air its face-off between Ziegler and
LEO's John Yarmuth at 7:15 tonight.

http://www.courier-journal.com/features/2003/08/20030828ziegler.html

[Anon Guy]

Post by Anon Guy
The Courier-Journal (Louisville, KY)
8/28/03
WHAS takes Ziegler off the air
By TOM DORSEY
The Courier-Journal
Controversial WHAS Radio talk-show host John Ziegler, who lived by
the verbal sword, was impaled by it yesterday when he was taken off
the air for statements he made about an ex-girlfriend last Friday on
his show.

SNIP

Post by Anon Guy
http://www.courier-journal.com/features/2003/08/20030828ziegler.html

Louisville.com
9/3/03

Life on the other end of the microphone
by John Ziegler
LEO
September 3, 2003

Just two weeks ago (it seems like much longer than that),
I was the host of the most highly rated and fastest
growing mid-morning radio show in Kentuckiana. I
thought I was about to come to an arrangement with
WHAS-AM that would enable me to stay here in
Louisville for a very long time (of course, when you do
provocative talk radio, that may only mean a couple of
years).

A week ago, I was suddenly and unceremoniously
removed from that radio show on a permanent basis.
What led to that stunning turn of events and what has
transpired since is a fascinating and somewhat shocking
tale that I plan to tell in full at a more appropriate time.
For now, I will focus on the media coverage of my
dismissal and some of the 'facts' that have been
reported that are untrue, as well as other important
elements of the story that have been completely ignored.

First, a few personal reflections on what it has been like
to be on the other end of the microphone over the past
week or so.

Where's Yarmuth?

The day I was pulled off the air for good at WHAS,
Aug. 27, is one that I won't soon forget. I think the
image that will be forever emblazoned on my memory is
that of me answering the door to my apartment and
seeing the WHAS-TV news van parked outside (where
they had already been for several hours) while
WAVE-TV reporter James Zambroski was standing
there drenched from head to toe from the thunderstorm
that was still pelting down pea-sized hail on my front
porch. All the while I was on my cell phone with
Zambroski's ultimate boss, WAVE general manager
Steve Langford, talking to him about the future of
'Yarmuth & Ziegler,' which airs on WAVE, so I would
have a better idea of what to say in my interview with
his own reporter. Just then the other phone rang. It was
Tom Dorsey, who writes for the newspaper (The
Courier-Journal) that I made a living bashing, desperately
needing comment before his 6 p.m. deadline.

This comedy turned sublime when - just minutes after
being told by my boss at WHAS radio, Kelly Carls, that
the official statement announcing I was 'no longer on the
air' would not be released until he called me back - I
was handed a piece of notebook paper by WHAS-TV's
Kerri Richardson. She had just transcribed the Clear
Channel statement from the boys back in her newsroom.
To add injury to insult, the statement was nothing like
what I had discussed with Kelly and his boss, WHAS
general manager Bill Gentry, just an hour or so earlier.

As a talk show host, I have been a frequent and
passionate critic of the news media. I believe a closer
look at the reporting of my demise at WHAS reveals
many of the flaws and foibles of the industry.

The first aspect I find to be out of kilter in the media
circus surrounding my departure from WHAS is the
sheer magnitude of the story itself. TV stations that
never would have credited my show with any
significance were suddenly pretending that my departure
was the biggest event in Louisville. Things got so
ridiculous that, at one point, WHAS-TV, which had
ceased covering my show once the TV station stopped
doing the weather on WHAS radio, actually asked for,
and used, Mayor Jerry Abramson's reaction to one of
the very few thorns in his side (me) being at least
partially removed.

But I understand it was a very slow news week and,
heck, it was actually flattering to have this story
completely overblown. I just wish I had been nearly this
'important' when I HAD a radio show!

What was far more troubling, however, were some of
the myths that were created and/or allowed to go
unrepudiated by the coverage of these events.

MYTH: THE COMMENTS I MADE

REGARDING DARCIE DIVITA CAUSED

LISTENER/ADVERTISER OUTRAGE/REACTION

This is almost completely false. I received only four
e-mails (of the dozens I get on a slow day) that even
mentioned the incident, while my boss got all of one.

As for advertisers, I was told on good authority that one
car dealer, Jim Harris, did threaten to pull money from
the station and did, in fact, force the WHAS-AM sports
show to be removed, at the last second, from a
previously scheduled remote at a Neil Huffman
dealership. After being confronted by angry listeners,
Harris now dubiously claims his involvement was purely
personal, which is contradicted by his own statements in
The Courier-Journal and by what I was told
uncategorically by Bill Gentry about Harris' threat to pull
advertising.

What is more interesting is that HARRIS ALSO HAS
DATED DARCIE DIVITA, a fact that NOT ONE
media outlet has reported, despite having quoted him
directly on the story and allowing him to condemn my
'morality!!!'

(Editor's note: Contacted by LEO Tuesday, Harris
denied threatening to pull ads. He acknowledged having
a conversation with Gentry on Friday, Aug. 22, about a
variety of topics, and that Ziegler came up in that
conversation. Harris also maintained that the
rescheduling of the remote was coincidental, and he said
comments attributed to him in The Courier-Journal story
were taken out of context. As for Divita, he
acknowledged they had dated briefly but said he has not
seen or talked to her since before she left WDRB.)

MYTH: WHAT I SAID ON THE AIR WAS
COMPLETELY INEXCUSABLE

AND INAPPROPRIATE

It is one thing when the news media decide these
comments shouldn't be repeated in their stories (under
what pretext, I have no idea, since no 'profane'
language was used), but it is a totally different matter
when reporters brazenly brag about not even
KNOWING what was said and then still describe those
statements as 'inexcusable and inappropriate,' as
Courier-Journal columnist Bob Hill did Saturday.

Had Bob and others actually heard the show (or even
bothered to talk to me), they would have better
understood the context of my comments.

Darcie had, in the past, VOLUNTEERED information
about her cleavage on my program when reporting from
the Academy Awards, where she claimed that actor
Mickey Rourke was fixated on her breasts. She had also
discussed my brief relationship with her, on the 'Terry
Meiners Show' on WHAS-AM (where Terry asked her
what it was like to kiss me), as well as in the newspaper
and on her former TV show, 'Fox in the Morning' on
WDRB-TV.

It is also important to note that my comments about
Darcie occurred on the day that she was in the news
because she was leaving WDRB-TV, and they were
made almost entirely in response to questions from
listeners during a segment called 'Ask John Anything,' in
which I promise totally honest answers to almost any
inquiry, no matter how personal.

Finally, contrary to popular perceptions, the comments I
made about Darcie's physical attributes were
EXTREMELY positive in nature.

MYTH: DARCIE HAS A

LEGITIMATE LEGAL CLAIM

This one may be both the most prevalent and most
baffling of all the myths perpetrated by the news
coverage. I am continually appalled by how few media
people seem to have an even rudimentary knowledge of
the law when it comes to on-air statements. For Darcie
to have ANY legitimate case against Clear Channel, what
I said about her (since she is clearly a 'public figure')
would have to be false, I would have to know it is false,
I would have to have malice in saying it, and damage
would have to have been done to her. None of those
factors are CLOSE to being in play here.

While I can certainly understand that a woman might not
want to hear on the radio that her surgically enhanced
breasts are very well crafted, or that she doesn't wear
underwear and is 'well kept,' it is nowhere near being
'actionable' for me to say those things. If Darcie's
'case' ever goes to trial (which it won't), I will gladly
promise to donate my entire severance package to the
Rev. Louis Coleman if there is any judgment in her
favor.

By the way, Darcie's attorney, Thomas Clay (whose
reputation for working the media is well known), claims
he wants an apology and a retraction. Well, I have
already apologized, and as far as a retraction goes, what
does he want - for me to say Darcie's boobs are NOT
really that spectacular?

MYTH: MY COMMENTS ABOUT

DARCIE WERE 'INCONSISTENT'

WITH WHAS STANDARDS

This one is a real whopper. Not only has Darcie herself
talked on WHAS-AM's air in the past about intimate
elements of her life, I have gone much further with other
public figures, without incident.

On a number of occasions I mocked Gov. Paul Patton
for his inability to bring Tina Conner to orgasm (which
she revealed on my show). No one from management
ever even mentioned it to me.

It is also relevant to point out that Clear Channel, right

Post by Anon Guy
here in Louisville, broadcasts 'The Howard Stern Show'

out of the very same building from which WHAS-AM

Post by Anon Guy
transmits. Had Howard Stern been talking about Darcie,

and known as much about her mysterious past as I do
(the basis for my on-air comments challenging her
veracity), I can assure you that what I said would have
not even rated a 1 on a scale of 10 on the 'shock jock'
meter.

Finally, regarding the issue of on-air standards, of
course, any WHAS listener knows that for the past
couple of years the station has been running endless
commercials for a 'natural male enhancement' pill.

For the record, I have never used the stuff.

MYTH: MY ON-AIR APOLOGY WAS

FORCED AND INADEQUATE

I WAS told during my meeting on Monday, Aug. 25 - a
meeting that ended with my boss, Kelly Carls, promising
to work on improvements to my contract, which I
thought I had been previously promised - that it was
expected that I would address the 'Darcie comments'
from the previous Friday. I was NOT (as I had been
once before regarding comments I made about the
Catholic Church) 'forced' to apologize.

In fact, I volunteered that I WANTED to say that I had
made a mistake and had gone too far in my
complimentary description of her physical characteristics.
I had actually already said so on the air
IMMEDIATELY after I made the comments.

I did pretty much my normal show on Tuesday and
addressed my mistake in the final segment. Right after
the show was over, my boss shook my hand and
enthusiastically congratulated me on the program and the
apology.

One of the most painful aspects of this entire affair has
been that someone whom I considered to be my best
friend in Louisville, Terry Meiners, has revealed himself
to actually be actively working against my interests.
While I will save the details of why Terry has gone from
a 'friend' to an 'enemy' for a later time, his description
of my on-air apology deserves to be immediately
addressed.

Terry, for some reason, has decided it is in his best
interests (perhaps to help Clear Channel in the event of a
lawsuit?) to demean my apology, even though he never
said ANYTHING about that to me in any of our many
conversations during this ordeal. Of all the hundreds and
hundreds of responses that I received regarding this
incident, I recall only one listener writing to express
agreement with Terry's 'born again' view of my sincere
admission that I had gone too far in describing how nice
Darcie looks while naked.

Terry has also attacked me for my lack of 'discretion,'
even though he had never mentioned that to me, either,
and had often (including just after the 'Darcie' show)
complimented me profusely on what 'balls' I had. Being
lectured on 'discretion' by Terry Meiners, who, 15
years ago, before he 'sold out,' was every bit as edgy as
I am, is perhaps more bizarre than being chastised about
'morality' by a car dealer.

MYTH: I WAS FIRED FOR

COMMENTS I MADE ABOUT DARCIE

This situation is FAR more complex than any one
incident. The circumstances that have conspired all at
once have created a 'perfect storm,' in which the
'Darcie incident' is really only the resulting thunder and
lighting.

The best proof of this is that I was put back on the air on
the Tuesday after I made these allegedly horrible
statements on Friday. Why was I 'air worthy' on
Tuesday and not on Wednesday - AFTER I had made
an on-air apology for which my boss congratulated me? I
still don't have a clear answer to that question - I
probably never will - but I do know that it was not
because of some comments of questionable taste but of
unquestionable legality about a former TV host whose
show had failed miserably.

Currently, I believe this situation transpired because of
dominoes that were set in motion after I was approached
by another station in Boston and declined that
opportunity so I could stay here. When WHAS-AM
backed off its promise to change my contract, it seems
management had already (wrongly, but understandably)
concluded that I would be leaving and had begun making
preparations to that end. Once they realized those
preparations were unnecessary, the dominoes were
already tumbling at such a pace that they could not be
reversed. If my comments about Darcie had not created
momentum for this effect, I am reasonably sure
something else I said would have.

So why does WHAS REALLY want its most talked
about personality off the air? I will save my theory about
that for another time. For now, I am focused on making
'Yarmuth & Ziegler' (on WAVE-TV every Thursday at
7:15 p.m.) and the pre-election prime-time specials we
have scheduled as professional as possible, while also
trying to figure out some way to remain in Louisville for
as long as feasible.

After all, someone has to keep tabs on the mostly
pathetic news media in this city, and after this past week
I am even more qualified than ever to do just that.

Editor's note: This story contains assertions by the writer
that LEO has no way of verifying. More about this
situation can be found (and John Ziegler can be
contacted) through www.johnziegler.com.

Photo caption:
With friends like these, who needs enemies? John Ziegler
at home with a few of his bobbleheaded friends.

http://www.louisville.com/indexdisplay.html?article=12644