VOCM apology to Innu people - Sincere? or...

The headline in the Telegram says it all - or does it?

Steele Communications apologizes on air for behavior of radio host

VOCM - it's parent company, Steele Communications, Randy Simms, and general manager Mike Murphy have all publicly apologized to Simeon Tshakapesh and the Innu people for remarks made by Openline Host Randy Simms.

Obviously an apology was deserved and the man behind the mic should be watched carefully - however was the apology sincere?

Randy Simms and Paddy Daley have oft in the past allowed or made comments on air that were false, misleading, offensive, and personally damaging - yet they continued on - no apology - no retraction. In fact - they usually justify by saying that some private citizens are not private because they call a talk show. This apparently justification for using their power behind the mic for whatever reason they choose.

The difference is they will not apologize to women, particularly to a woman they have always felt comfortable attacking - probably with the government's blessing.

Refresh your memory click HERE  or  HERE  or  HERE

I am not the only one that VOCM, Steele Communications, Newfoundland Capital Corporation, Randy and Paddy allow to be slandered - there are many more.

The difference right now is that the Government of Newfoundland and Labrador, the multi-millionaires, and certain business interests need the Innu people to work with them. This I'm sure VOCM will assist in when they can. The government does not need me or many other citizens of this province and would prefer if we would just go away. The public attack on people such as myself assists the government in their efforts to avoid critique, tough questions, and opposition to ill-fated policy positions.

In my opinion this apology to the Innu people was necessary not sincere. The truth is always in the facts somewhere - we just have to open our eyes and look.

Conspiracy Theories and Pillars of our Community

The Pillars of our Community

As you read the post below - remember that all these people were "successful" - "trustworthy" - and some even "heroes". Then remember there were those who tried to do the right thing - tried to stop these things from getting worse and prevent the victim list from getting larger. Those people were not listened to - the perpetrators were protected by society while more and more people suffered.

Never stop asking questions - never stop peeling back the layers of onion - never stop sniffing when there is a stink - never place anybody on a societal pedestal so high as to become untouchable.

Those who plan to or are currently involved in frauds against society or crimes against children and seniors - think again. You ALL get caught.

Below is just a sample of the thousands of pillars that crumbled and fell. The problem is we should be trying to dig out the schemes, the frauds, and the dirt before more and more children are harmed, before more economies of countries fall, and before our children's future is robbed from them.

1. In January 2011, Joe Paterno learned prosecutors were investigating his longtime assistant coach Jerry Sandusky for sexually assaulting young boys. Soon, Mr. Paterno had testified before a grand jury, and the rough outlines of what would become a giant scandal had been published in a local newspaper.

That same month, Mr. Paterno, the football coach at Penn State, began negotiating with his superiors to amend his contract, with the timing something of a surprise because the contract was not set to expire until the end of 2012, according to university documents and people with knowledge of the discussions. By August, Mr. Paterno and the university’s president, both of whom were by then embroiled in the Sandusky investigation, had reached an agreement. Read More Here

Mr. Paterno was to be paid $3 million at the end of the 2011 season if he agreed it would be his last.

2. J P Morgan disclosed on Friday that losses on its botched credit bet could climb to more than $7 billion and that the bank’s traders may have intentionally tried to obscure the full extent of the red ink on the disastrous trades.

Mounting concerns about valuing the trades led the company to announce that its earnings for the first quarter were no longer reliable and would be restated. Federal regulators, who were already examining the trades, are now looking at whether employees of the nation’s biggest bank by assets intended to defraud investors, according to people with knowledge of the matter. Read More Here

3. In September 1988, Fr. James Hickey pled guilty to 20 charges of sexual assault, gross indecency and indecent assault involving teenage boys while he was a parish priest on the Burin Peninsula. He spent five years in prison. Despite Hickey’s criminal conviction the Roman Catholic Church fought the victim’s claims for compensation for over 20 years.

In February 2009, the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and Labrador ruled that the Roman Catholic Church in St. John’s was responsible ("vicariously liable") for the sexual abuse of eight former altar boys by disgraced priest, Reverend James Hickey. Read More Here

4. Accounting firm Arthur Andersen had already been found guilty in the court of public opinion, and paid a heavy penalty. Clients deserted; employees fled. In fact the Chicago firm was barely alive, but one question remained: What would its epitaph be, the lesson for others? An answer came last Saturday, when a Houston jury found Andersen guilty of obstructing justice. It provided a moment of vindication for investors who lost more than $60 billion in the spectacular collapse of Enron, whose books had been audited by Andersen. But the verdict held a twist: at first the case seemed to hinge on whether an Andersen employee ordered tons of Enron paperwork to be shredded before investigators arrived. Read More Here

5. A man many people saw as a possible heir to Danny Williams as (Newfoundland & Labrador) premier was handcuffed and escorted to jail Friday (April 17).
Ed Byrne-a former cabinet minister and the first politician named in the constituency spending scandal that rocked the province three years ago-was sentenced to two years less a day in jail in provincial court in St. John's.

The 45-year-old had pleaded guilty to two fraud charges and was given the prison term for fraud over $5,000. He was also given 18 months in jail for a single count of frauds on the government. Both sentences will be served concurrently. Read More Here

6.  U.S. Attorney William J. Hochul, Jr. announced today that Sean Ola-Ojo, 31, of Brooklyn, New York; Angelo Louissaint, 38, of West Babylon, New York; and Jennifer Johnson, 36, of Dix Hills, New York, have been indicted by a federal grand jury and charged with conspiracy, mail fraud, and wire fraud. In addition, Louissaint is charged with money laundering. The defendants are accused of defrauding Flaherty Funding, a mortgage company located in Rochester. The charges carry a maximum penalty of 20 years in jail, a fine up to $500,000 fine, or both.

In one instance, the purported seller of the property did not even own the property that was sold to the straw-buyer. Defendant Johnson prepared fake title insurance for this transaction, creating the appearance of valid title in the property, in order to induce Flaherty Funding to issue a mortgage loan. As a result of this scheme, Flaherty Funding issued three mortgage loans to straw-buyers in the amounts of $533,850, $533,850 and $646,300, totaling $1,714,000. The vast majority of the mortgage loan proceeds went to defendants. In addition, Ola-Ojo, Louissaint, and Johnson submitted two other false applications, but those transactions did not close. Read More Here

7.  U.S. federal agents have arrested a telemarketer who once ran a government-supported call centre operation in Newfoundland. The Department of Homeland Security says in court documents that it has been investigating Michael Mouyal “for running an international telemarketing scheme,” and committing mail fraud, wire fraud and money laundering. Read More Here

8. An independent review of six decades of Scouts Canada records revealed that the organization failed at least 65 times to report allegations of sexual misconduct to authorities. Not all of those are ancient history.

Thirteen of the 65 incidents came to the Scouts' attention since 1992, when it became mandatory to report everything suspicious to police, said the report by investigators at KPMG.
The review was released on Monday. Read More Here

9. The Bank of Montreal is suing hundreds of people in Alberta, including lawyers, mortgage brokers and four of its own employees, in what is one of the largest alleged cases of mortgage fraud in Canadian history. Legal documents obtained exclusively by CBC News allege the bank was the target of a sophisticated fraud operated by 14 inter-connected groups. The documents claim the scheme generated at least $140 million, about $70 million of which was for phoney mortgages.
The bank has estimated it may lose as much as $30 million. Toronto forensic accountant Al Rosen said he has never seen anything like it. Read More Here

10. A Quebec man who got rich at the expense of unsophisticated investors and the federal and provincial tax departments has lost his bid to appeal his case at the Supreme Court. Jacques Gagne, from Longueuil, Que., was sentenced in 2010 by Quebec Court Judge Ellen Pare to 42 months in prison for tax evasion.

Pare said she took into consideration the degree of preparation and premeditation, and the fact that Gagne targeted people who were financially vulnerable. "They were the instruments of his crime," she said. From 1997 to 2000, Gagne used a series of shell companies he created to drain more than $3 million from the RRSPs and locked-in retirement accounts (LIRAs) of 152 people recruited through newspaper ads. Read More Here

What's behind the VOCM Attack?

Here's the problem. VOCM boasts about the size of its listening audience - particularly their talk-shows.

If this is true then Randy Simms and VOCM allowed out and out lies to be broadcast - about a private citizen - to thousands of people.

Is this the role of a commercial radio station? Clearly it is not. So why then did VOCM allow it and to date not address it?

And yes it continues - over the air - on twitter - anywhere Paddy can get a smack in.

The difference is - he has a mic - and he controls a commercial radio program. Each and every time he comments it goes to thousands of people. What is the purpose?

The following is a sample of Paddy Daly's tirades :

At least you're not at home "crooked" like Sue - Paddy Daly states today on the airwaves.

or this today on Twitter

@hydroqueen let's get the rules straight? you are flying solo with your ramblings. call or be quiet. gutless. hypocrite.

I have not been on his or Randy's show for a long time now and did nothing to precipitate the commentary about me by callers like "Bob".

So VOCM will do this: They will allow slander and lies about a private person - and then provide that person the opportunity to call in and talk about it. As you can see by the "rules" Paddy has set above - I am being told I am to be quiet - unless I am calling him.

Again I ask - why is all this going on? It certainly is not in the interest of public discourse on issues of societal concern.

The term gutless is interesting. He has a program on a commercial broadcast station and continues to take pot-shots - harassing me to call his show.

After reading a post on my blog last weekend - Paddy tweeted the following:

@hydroqueen you poor woman.

This is also a very revealing comment. A very interesting choice of words - indeed.

There is something behind all of this and perhaps VOCM, Paddy, and Randy can let us know exactly what that is.

Until then - VOCM, Paddy and Randy do not control my blog or my twitter - so I will carry on.

Again people take note: it's me today - it may be you tomorrow.

My interest is Newfoundland and Labrador and the future generations. If that means speaking up and asking questions - then that's what I will do. If that means I challenge government on very bad resource deals, regressive legislation, or positions of potential conflict - then I will. If that causes unfair attacks and harassment - so be it. I have been doing it for 25 years - still here.

Think Twice about calling VOCM Talk Shows - Slander

 VOCM continues to ignore the slander allowed by them during Open-Line last week.

Then let's get the rules straight. You can without any concern broadcast absolute and defamatory lies about a private citizen on VOCM.

As their talk-show hosts encourage you to call their programs to voice opinion on issues of public importance - please understand that this may subject you to defamatory statements and lies.

You therefore should advise your family that by agreeing to participate in these programs you understand that you may be may harmed both personally and professionally - as VOCM will not prohibit outright lies and slander.

If you think you are immune to this - wait until you express an opinion that goes against the current political authority. Partisan zealots will stop at nothing to attack you - whatever way they can - and truth does not matter. VOCM for its part will not prevent such occurrences.

The statement below was made by caller "Bob" to open-line last week.
 

"Don't you think that the debate over the Muskrat Falls has been beaten to death? Roger Grimes never had to go through that and the only opposition he had was Sue Dyer and he gave her a job and then he gave her a pharmacy, probably for her loyalty, I think."

This statement is an absolute lie. It also states that I was given something by a politician for loyalty. This is most defamatory and damaging.


These shows say they rely on callers to make the broadcast. I would suggest if callers are going to be subject to this - eventually the calls will stop.


Do you stand up for people when they are being bullied?

Do you believe people have the right to publicly broadcast lies about an individual? Will you support such activity?

Open season on Sue? I wonder if those rules would apply to all people.

Paddy Daley & Randy Simms VOCM Broadcast Licence

Radio talk shows are part of everyday life in Newfoundland and Labrador. In some respects it's a continuity of the Gerald S. Doyle News Bulletin that combined news with personal messages. In this way people from all over could send messages to each other particularly about how somebody might have been doing in hospital or if somebody made it on a trip from one community to another.

We love to talk to each other - we love to discuss our place and the politics that affects it. We have gone through various economic challenges and chronic poor resource deals. Our province should enjoy a few million in population and significant industrial presence; yet we do not. There have been many reasons for this lack of regeneration and growth; transportation, corrupt or inept politicians, ill advised industrial/commercial ventures, and inferior or absent economic planning.

Generationally we witness very outspoken patriots who believe in Newfoundland and Labrador and are willing to stick their neck out - despite the predictable partisan political attacks. For those of you who keep your heads down and go about your business or those who take advantage of partisan connections - this post will be a nuisance. You will prefer to tune out, reject, or worse not even enter into thoughts of bettering our lot and the lot of the children and grandchildren.

There are large numbers of the population who care not only for their own immediate well being but also for community, region, and the generations who will follow. Getting them together is the challenge - not unlike other challenges we face due to geography.

Newfoundland is an island while Labrador is connected to the larger North American mainland. In our history and particularly since the "great" confederation we have not managed to connect our people through affordable and reliable transportation. For politicians - this has served well. Labradorians blame the theft of their resources on Townies or Islanders while Newfoundlanders have been taught to use Labrador as their resource well. Essentially Islanders blame Canada and Labradorians blame Islanders. Perfect for slick MHA's and MP's who are not capable of or interested in doing anything more than securing a pension after years of perks and privileges.

Time to get back to the topic - hard not to digress when talking about the less than stellar performance of our leaders.

VOCM and CBC provide talk shows - where residents can voice their opinions, concerns, and support of one policy or another or one resource development or another. The public broadcaster's  provision of this is minimal while the private sector radio station fills its programming with it.

VOCM's openline, backtalk, and nightline provide some 24 hours a week during various times of the the day for radio talk - and that should be a good thing. There was a time when it was. Today the quality of the hosts has diminished and more reflect American style partisan slight of hand.

Paddy Daly and Randy Simms are more interested in listening to, laughing at, praising and pontificating on their own ideas - with careful avoidance of annoying the powers that be. Pete Soucy more reflects the purer form of talk shows where he thoughtfully raises issues of the day, provides some sincere reflection on his own thoughts and genuinely encourages people to call.

Both Paddy and Randy are brave when they rip through those who may be vulnerable or wrong side partisan and enjoy taking pokes at people after the conversation has ended or in their absence all together. Randy's focus changes from - "here's what I think" and "you know I'm right" to interrogating inappropriately - somebody who calls with a significant social problem. You see there is no need to ask - what does your husband do - or why is he or she not working - or how do you treat your children - or what was your family like.

Both Paddy and Randy would do very well to turn the mic on and talk to each other for hours on end and then let's see if that would be commercially viable. The other desire of these hosts is to hear from politicians - particularly cabinet and leaders of the political parties. This they feel is success and a confirmation that their programs are "important". Both fall short of really challenging the government and the so called "tough questions" are tempered with laughter or softballs tossed in  between.

VOCM talk shows used to be open - call in - and if you got through - get in the line and wait for your turn. If you wished to remain anonymous that was a given unless you identified yourself. Nowadays it's call in - leave your number and advise what issue you want to talk about. Then depending on the whim of the host and after the endless line-up of politicians - you may get a call back. Make no mistake about it - the time you get may be very short or limitless depending on the message the host is after.

Minnie, Tony, and Marjorie have an opinion. Do you know what that opinion is? Do you think you need to hear it again? Will you learn anything by listening to another call from them? Can you guess who they support and who they do not? Do you know who they love, adore, and idolize? I will not be hypocritical here - they should be entitled to call and as often as they like. the problem comes when hosts allow greater access to the program than those who are calling with new information or opinion on issues - things that impact our lives and for generations of lives that follow.

Sometimes I think VOCM could better serve their listening audience and by extension their advertisers if they prescribed the nature of the shows. Perhaps the mornings and evenings could be geared to socio/economic issues affecting our province and leave the afternoon for lost things, birthdays, anniversaries, and those who want to do an unpaid or paid political announcement. The afternoon could also accommodate sitting politicians at the provincial or federal level. Let's see how commercially viable the afternoon show would be - and what advertisers would be interested in that audience base.

Here's the thing VOCM - you have a broadcast licence and you should be careful not to abuse the privileged position you are fortunate enough to have and make a profit on. Permitting and then not correcting slanderous statements about a member of the public does not demonstrate the respect for your licence - you should have.

One of course is entitled to get a lawyer and keep suing until you stop - however that is beyond the reach of the average citizen - yet your shows rely on those same people.

I for one will instead contact the Board of Newfoundland Capital Corporation (headquartered in Nova Scotia), tweet and blog about your activities, and further address the CRTC during licence renewal.

For a station that relies so heavily on talk shows to generate revenue - it seems folly to take the easy route of generating controversy by allowing slander towards those who have participated for years on the shows.

While we can say it's a great service to provide the medium - that good is eliminated when irresponsible hosts and management do not moderate obvious egregious behavior. If that's what the company relies on for revenue - perhaps they should stop patting itself on the back for "public" service and "community" involvement.

Next up the VOCM Cares Foundation.

VOCM - Open-Line - Slander 101

On Monday caller "Bob" to VOCM openline - hosted by Randy Simms - decided it was perfectly acceptable to make false statements about me.

"Bob" had called - as he usually does - to defend the Tories on one issue or another.

"Bob" also discussed - as he usually does - how he is unique and how his whole life he was made to feel abnormal.

That's what makes his continued attack on me so bizarre. It's as if he will punish me by doing to me what he claims was done to him.

In either case - on Monday - "Bob" once again crossed the line and as usual VOCM allowed it to be broadcast. VOCM failed to use the technology they employ to prevent such occurrences (delayed broadcast).

Audio of the Call can be found at the end of this post.

I will let the reader of this blog determine how or why I became relevant to what "Bob" was talking about. For now let's look at what "Bob" said about me.

"Don't you think that the debate over the Muskrat Falls has been beaten to death? Roger Grimes never had to go through that and the only opposition he had was Sue Dyer and he gave her a job and then he gave her a pharmacy, probably for her loyalty, I think."

I was not hired by Roger Grimes to defend any proposed deal regarding the development of the Lower Churchill. When I was hired it was Voisey's Bay that was the contentious issue and is a project that the Tories have benefited from politically ever since. The second part regarding Roger Grimes giving me a pharmacy for my loyalty is not a matter for interpretation. I do not and have never owned any part of a pharmacy.

Further my involvement in pharmacy began in 2008 as the Executive Director of the Council of Independent Community Pharmacy Owners. Roger Grimes has not been Premier since 2003. To suggest that I was given a pharmacy for my loyalty is a slanderous statement. It - one - is not in any way factual and - two - suggests that I was rewarded in some unethical way for loyalty to a politician or a political party.

What did Randy do? Well he laughed and then through an employee of VOCM on twitter suggested I call in.

This equally was despicable.

I am not employed by government and am not an elected official. I am a private citizen who engages in public discourse on matters of public interest.

I deal with policy and political issues and when I state somebody owns one asset or another - they do. When I state they hold a particular Board position or another - they do.

This blatant attempt to disparage me - based on completely false statements - by "Bob" and then allowed to be broadcast by Randy Simms and VOCM - will only serve to make other people afraid to make any public comments. This will make others feel they have no right to criticize the policies created and promoted by elected officials - for fear that partisans may call and make false statements about them.

Is this the point? If not I fail to see why this type of behavior continues to be allowed by a publicly traded company.

Audio Clip PRESS HERE