Madden removed from air by ESPN
he made a scurrilous remark about U.S. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy on his 1250 ESPN talk show, which ran from 3 to 7 p.m. weekdays
Mark Madden, who made his reputation with bold, outlandish attacks on famous people, has been permanently removed from the air by ESPN.
His dismissal, which came down from ESPN headquarters in Bristol, Conn., came five days after he made a scurrilous remark about U.S. Sen. Edward M. Kennedy on his 1250 ESPN talk show, which ran from 3 to 7 p.m. weekdays.
"We've taken Mark off the air pursuant to our contractual rights," said Josh Krulewitz, the vice president for public relations at ESPN.
The decision comes less than a year after Madden signed a long-term contract. No decision has been made on who will fill Madden's time slot.
At the opening of his show last Wednesday, Madden said this about Sen. Kennedy, who days earlier had been diagnosed with brain cancer:
"I'm very disappointed to hear that Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts is near death because of a brain tumor. I always hoped Senator Kennedy would live long enough to be assassinated."
At the urging of station general manager Mike Thompson, Madden apologized over the air for his remarks about two hours later
Read More
Full Version: Madden removed from air by ESPN
QUOTE (Deke @ May 28 2008, 05:40 AM) 
At the opening of his show last Wednesday, Madden said this about Sen. Kennedy, who days earlier had been diagnosed with brain cancer:
"I'm very disappointed to hear that Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts is near death because of a brain tumor. I always hoped Senator Kennedy would live long enough to be assassinated."
"I'm very disappointed to hear that Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts is near death because of a brain tumor. I always hoped Senator Kennedy would live long enough to be assassinated."
Nice.
According to Wiki, he also added: "And I wonder if he will receive a get well card from the Kopechne family."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Madden
Howard Stern has this basicaly as an ongoing joke. What makes it dif?
QUOTE (rowdyroddypiper @ May 28 2008, 06:25 AM)
Howard Stern has this basicaly as an ongoing joke. What makes it dif?
No diff. They're both scraping bottom.
QUOTE (rowdyroddypiper @ May 28 2008, 06:25 AM)
Howard Stern has this basicaly as an ongoing joke. What makes it dif?
Well lets ask ourselves the following questions.
Was Howard Stern mentioned in this topic until the point you referenced him?
Is the fact that Howard Stern on Satellite radio a good indicator of how things work in radio?
Who really listens to that weirdo anyway?
Is the age of the shock jock over?
In that token, why isn't Rush Limbaugh pulled off the air?
The last one was just to throw another name in the discussion.
QUOTE (Llydis @ May 28 2008, 09:36 AM)
Well lets ask ourselves the following questions.
Was Howard Stern mentioned in this topic until the point you referenced him?
Is the fact that Howard Stern on Satellite radio a good indicator of how things work in radio?
Who really listens to that weirdo anyway?
Is the age of the shock jock over?
In that token, why isn't Rush Limbaugh pulled off the air?
The last one was just to throw another name in the discussion.
Was Howard Stern mentioned in this topic until the point you referenced him?
Is the fact that Howard Stern on Satellite radio a good indicator of how things work in radio?
Who really listens to that weirdo anyway?
Is the age of the shock jock over?
In that token, why isn't Rush Limbaugh pulled off the air?
The last one was just to throw another name in the discussion.
Stern left radio for sat for huge dollars. I know the answer, it all comes down to the dollars. I was just saying.
honest question. I have always wondered how Kennedy got the pass on this one. Please be nice in relply. I really dont know enough about this.
Maybe they received enough complaints from listeners who found it in such resounding bad taste that they had to respond.
I know its off topic, but does anyone have the answer to my question?
QUOTE (rowdyroddypiper @ May 28 2008, 07:58 AM)
I know its off topic, but does anyone have the answer to my question?
You mean about Kennedy getting a pass? Well, which one? The one that didn't see him arrested for DUI, or that didn't see him charged with something related to his passenger's death?
If that's the case, and as with most things, the answers are many, and none of them satisfying.
- Part of the explanation is undoubtedly connected to the fact that he's a Kennedy, and the incident took place in Mass. where, more then than even now, the name was royalty in the state.
- As appalling as Kennedy's post-accident behavior was, it also made it impossible to establish without doubt that he was driving under the influence.
- Even if he HAD been under the influence, attitudes about DUI/DWI were on the brink of dramatic change, but hadn't changed yet. "There but for the grace of God..." was infinitely more common at the time than today.
- Kopechne's family did not create the kind of spectacle at the time that would have been necessary to attract more punitive attention. They would not even give permission for an autopsy. They did not clamor for Kennedy to be harshly punished, and even if they had, they did not have the resources a family in the same situation today would have. Today they'd have had a web site in hours, a PR firm, appearances on Oprah, Nancy Grace screeching on their behalf, and virtually every blogger in the country calling for blood.
- Especially in Mass., there was likely a sense that, simply by involvement in the incident, Teddy had suffered indignities that served as some sort of punishment for him - certainly more public contempt than any Kennedy had suffered to date.
- Why the DA ultimately chose not to press manslaughter charges will be the subject of debate in perpetuity. One camp will always argue that it had to be favoritism, corruption, etc. and another will always argue that it was the uncertainty of winning a case against a Kennedy and their resources in Mass., especially given the inability to prove to a certainty precisely what happened - and convincing every last one of 12 jurors. If you find a way to definitively determine which is correct, let everyone else know.
The truth is, his behavior was indefensible and appalling, and has almost certainly kept him from running for President.
Ultimately, he was only charged with leaving the scene of an accident with an injury involved. He was given a two month sentence in jail that was suspended, and he lost his license for six months or a year.
QUOTE (bushwa @ May 28 2008, 11:32 AM)
You mean about Kennedy getting a pass? Well, which one? The one that didn't see him arrested for DUI, or that didn't see him charged with something related to his passenger's death?
If that's the case, and as with most things, the answers are many, and none of them satisfying.
- Part of the explanation is undoubtedly connected to the fact that he's a Kennedy, and the incident took place in Mass. where, more then than even now, the name was royalty in the state.
- As appalling as Kennedy's post-accident behavior was, it also made it impossible to establish without doubt that he was driving under the influence.
- Even if he HAD been under the influence, attitudes about DUI/DWI were on the brink of dramatic change, but hadn't changed yet. "There but for the grace of God..." was infinitely more common at the time than today.
- Kopechne's family did not create the kind of spectacle at the time that would have been necessary to attract more punitive attention. They would not even give permission for an autopsy. They did not clamor for Kennedy to be harshly punished, and even if they had, they did not have the resources a family in the same situation today would have. Today they'd have had a web site in hours, a PR firm, appearances on Oprah, Nancy Grace screeching on their behalf, and virtually every blogger in the country calling for blood.
- Especially in Mass., there was likely a sense that, simply by involvement in the incident, Teddy had suffered indignities that served as some sort of punishment for him - certainly more public contempt than any Kennedy had suffered to date.
- Why the DA ultimately chose not to press manslaughter charges will be the subject of debate in perpetuity. One camp will always argue that it had to be favoritism, corruption, etc. and another will always argue that it was the uncertainty of winning a case against a Kennedy and their resources in Mass., especially given the inability to prove to a certainty precisely what happened - and convincing every last one of 12 jurors. If you find a way to definitively determine which is correct, let everyone else know.
The truth is, his behavior was indefensible and appalling, and has almost certainly kept him from running for President.
Ultimately, he was only charged with leaving the scene of an accident with an injury involved. He was given a two month sentence in jail that was suspended, and he lost his license for six months or a year.
If that's the case, and as with most things, the answers are many, and none of them satisfying.
- Part of the explanation is undoubtedly connected to the fact that he's a Kennedy, and the incident took place in Mass. where, more then than even now, the name was royalty in the state.
- As appalling as Kennedy's post-accident behavior was, it also made it impossible to establish without doubt that he was driving under the influence.
- Even if he HAD been under the influence, attitudes about DUI/DWI were on the brink of dramatic change, but hadn't changed yet. "There but for the grace of God..." was infinitely more common at the time than today.
- Kopechne's family did not create the kind of spectacle at the time that would have been necessary to attract more punitive attention. They would not even give permission for an autopsy. They did not clamor for Kennedy to be harshly punished, and even if they had, they did not have the resources a family in the same situation today would have. Today they'd have had a web site in hours, a PR firm, appearances on Oprah, Nancy Grace screeching on their behalf, and virtually every blogger in the country calling for blood.
- Especially in Mass., there was likely a sense that, simply by involvement in the incident, Teddy had suffered indignities that served as some sort of punishment for him - certainly more public contempt than any Kennedy had suffered to date.
- Why the DA ultimately chose not to press manslaughter charges will be the subject of debate in perpetuity. One camp will always argue that it had to be favoritism, corruption, etc. and another will always argue that it was the uncertainty of winning a case against a Kennedy and their resources in Mass., especially given the inability to prove to a certainty precisely what happened - and convincing every last one of 12 jurors. If you find a way to definitively determine which is correct, let everyone else know.
The truth is, his behavior was indefensible and appalling, and has almost certainly kept him from running for President.
Ultimately, he was only charged with leaving the scene of an accident with an injury involved. He was given a two month sentence in jail that was suspended, and he lost his license for six months or a year.
Thank you
He left the scene because he panicked, mostly about being found intoxicated.
Was it manslaughter? There is no responsibility to save a person's life in any state law. You cannot be charged with murder for failing to do so, esp. in circumstances that might endanger yourself also. Right wingers bleat that Mary Jo was apparently alive in the car in an "oxygen bubble" for hours after Kennedy left ... unfortunately, how could he necessarily have known that?
It could be because he operated his vehicle while under the influence and indirectly caused someone's death by drowning while in it - I'm not sure how often charges are pressed in circumstances like that, even if you don't have a famous last name.
Was it manslaughter? There is no responsibility to save a person's life in any state law. You cannot be charged with murder for failing to do so, esp. in circumstances that might endanger yourself also. Right wingers bleat that Mary Jo was apparently alive in the car in an "oxygen bubble" for hours after Kennedy left ... unfortunately, how could he necessarily have known that?
It could be because he operated his vehicle while under the influence and indirectly caused someone's death by drowning while in it - I'm not sure how often charges are pressed in circumstances like that, even if you don't have a famous last name.
QUOTE (Seeker1 @ May 28 2008, 12:03 PM)
He left the scene because he panicked, mostly about being found intoxicated.
Was it manslaughter? There is no responsibility to save a person's life in any state law. You cannot be charged with murder for failing to do so, esp. in circumstances that might endanger yourself also. Right wingers bleat that Mary Jo was apparently alive in the car in an "oxygen bubble" for hours after Kennedy left ... unfortunately, how could he necessarily have known that?
It could be because he operated his vehicle while under the influence and indirectly caused someone's death by drowning while in it - I'm not sure how often charges are pressed in circumstances like that, even if you don't have a famous last name.
Was it manslaughter? There is no responsibility to save a person's life in any state law. You cannot be charged with murder for failing to do so, esp. in circumstances that might endanger yourself also. Right wingers bleat that Mary Jo was apparently alive in the car in an "oxygen bubble" for hours after Kennedy left ... unfortunately, how could he necessarily have known that?
It could be because he operated his vehicle while under the influence and indirectly caused someone's death by drowning while in it - I'm not sure how often charges are pressed in circumstances like that, even if you don't have a famous last name.
today, drunk, always. Then prob not. I hear people older than I talk about drunken road trips quite often. times were dif.
QUOTE (Seeker1 @ May 28 2008, 10:03 AM)
He left the scene because he panicked, mostly about being found intoxicated.
Was it manslaughter? There is no responsibility to save a person's life in any state law. You cannot be charged with murder for failing to do so, esp. in circumstances that might endanger yourself also.
Was it manslaughter? There is no responsibility to save a person's life in any state law. You cannot be charged with murder for failing to do so, esp. in circumstances that might endanger yourself also.
Today there are a wide array of manslaughter charges, and I have no clue what's available specifically in Mass. now, to say nothing of 1969.
If it happened today, there's vehicular manslaughter in some jurisdictions, there are charges related to a death that occurs while operating under the influence, and so forth. Just myriad possibilities.
QUOTE (Seeker1 @ May 28 2008, 10:03 AM)
Right wingers bleat that Mary Jo was apparently alive in the car in an "oxygen bubble" for hours after Kennedy left ... unfortunately, how could he necessarily have known that?
Well, I know how they CLAIM that THEY know that. The statement of the diver who recovered her body. Whether he was right or not, I don't have a clue, and believe there's no way of ever knowing today.
But the point is not whether HE knew there was an air bubble. The best argument is NOT that he was obliged to dive in and find and rescue her, but only that, rather than going back to his hotel and going to bed, had he stopped at one of the homes he passed on the way to his hotel and called for help, a rescue effort may have been successful.
Personally, I think what he did do is utterly indefensible, morally. What the law required at the time? I dunno.
QUOTE (Seeker1 @ May 28 2008, 10:03 AM)
It could be because he operated his vehicle while under the influence and indirectly caused someone's death by drowning while in it - I'm not sure how often charges are pressed in circumstances like that, even if you don't have a famous last name.
Well I don't believe current law slips in that important little word "indirectly." Rather, charges today in many jurisdictions reflect that a driver KNOWS operating a motor vehicle while under the influence can result in the death of a passenger or uninvolved third party. If I'm drunk and take Seeker for a drive, then we crash into a tree, hit an oncoming car or careen into a canal, I did so well aware that my actions could lead to the death of another.
And next, precisely the same circumstances today, but involving Rush Limbaugh. You wouldn't expect to see him face charges related to the death? Boy, I sure would, and give me the same circumstances with a driver named John Doe, or Bushwa - Yup, I'd sure as hell expect to see charges filed that were enhanced by the death.
QUOTE (bushwa @ May 28 2008, 01:25 PM)
Well, I know how they CLAIM that THEY know that. The statement of the diver who recovered her body. Whether he was right or not, I don't have a clue, and believe there's no way of ever knowing today.
But the point is not whether HE knew there was an air bubble. The best argument is NOT that he was obliged to dive in and find and rescue her, but only that, rather than going back to his hotel and going to bed, had he stopped at one of the homes he passed on the way to his hotel and called for help, a rescue effort may have been successful.
Personally, I think what he did do is utterly indefensible, morally. What the law required at the time? I dunno.
But the point is not whether HE knew there was an air bubble. The best argument is NOT that he was obliged to dive in and find and rescue her, but only that, rather than going back to his hotel and going to bed, had he stopped at one of the homes he passed on the way to his hotel and called for help, a rescue effort may have been successful.
Personally, I think what he did do is utterly indefensible, morally. What the law required at the time? I dunno.
No dispute on the moral part. However, sticking to the law, I think it could be argued that he might have assumed that after several minutes had passed, she had drowned and died, therefore even if he had stopped at a house five minutes later, it would not have saved her life. He cannot have known she survived for several more hours - if she did.
The moral thing absolutely would have been to tell somebody immediately. I agree. I believe Kennedy has shown remorse and regret for his actions, and it probably cost him the presidency in 1980, if people want penance.
I was a big fan of Mark Madden from his days as a WCW heel announcer. I'm disappointed in him for going over this kind of line. When you make your living coming up with controversial and over the top things to say, you have to have an internal guidance system. Unfortunately for him, Mark failed this time.
QUOTE (GCurry @ May 28 2008, 08:55 AM)
No diff. They're both scraping bottom.
Agreed
QUOTE (bushwa @ May 28 2008, 09:32 AM)
...
The truth is, his behavior was indefensible and appalling, and has almost certainly kept him from running for President.
...
The truth is, his behavior was indefensible and appalling, and has almost certainly kept him from running for President.
...
Kennedy deflected supporters who urged him to run for President in 1972 and 1976 by citing family concerns, in light of his brothers' assassinations. He finally threw his hat into the ring for the Democratic nomination in the 1980 presidential election by launching an unusual, insurgent campaign against the sitting president, Jimmy Carter, a member of his own party. Despite much early support, his bid was ultimately unsuccessful.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Kennedy#Presidential_bid
Kennedy was morally responsible for the death of Kopechne, if he was driving drunk. Also, his failure to get help to save her was also a moral lapse.
With regard to the law, he probably deliberately delayed alerting police until he was sober again. It's kind of what Cheney did when he shot his friend in the face, but refused to meet with police until the next day. Secret Service agents reportedly said that Cheney was drunk when the accident occurred. Also, two of his agents quit or transferred immediately following the incident. Both Cheney and Kennedy know how the "legal" game is played. There were guilty morally but could not be found "legally" guilty so easily unless they came forward immediately and gave evidence against themselves. They elected to save themselves.
It's a known fact of life that people with connections often escape legal accountability. But they never get away with their mistakes and crimes morally. A member of my family was guilty of accidentally killing a pedestrian in a car accident which occurred when he was under the influence. The grand jury voted out a no bill and so he was not prosecuted. But those close to him know how profoundly the accident effected his life. Also, we know that Laura Bush killed a friend by accident when she ran a stop sign. Maybe she wasn't charged legally, but I'm sure she has suffered over that incident all her life.
What is most revolting is the way that hateful people mercilessly continue to deride Ted Kennedy for his accident, even as they give Cheney and Laura Bush a pass. It's not what Ted Kennedy did, or even who or what he is, it's what his hateful, cruel accusers are, and what they continue to do, that shames us all. They reduce a long and productive life, dedicated to public service, to one dark moment on a summer night in 1969.
With regard to the law, he probably deliberately delayed alerting police until he was sober again. It's kind of what Cheney did when he shot his friend in the face, but refused to meet with police until the next day. Secret Service agents reportedly said that Cheney was drunk when the accident occurred. Also, two of his agents quit or transferred immediately following the incident. Both Cheney and Kennedy know how the "legal" game is played. There were guilty morally but could not be found "legally" guilty so easily unless they came forward immediately and gave evidence against themselves. They elected to save themselves.
It's a known fact of life that people with connections often escape legal accountability. But they never get away with their mistakes and crimes morally. A member of my family was guilty of accidentally killing a pedestrian in a car accident which occurred when he was under the influence. The grand jury voted out a no bill and so he was not prosecuted. But those close to him know how profoundly the accident effected his life. Also, we know that Laura Bush killed a friend by accident when she ran a stop sign. Maybe she wasn't charged legally, but I'm sure she has suffered over that incident all her life.
What is most revolting is the way that hateful people mercilessly continue to deride Ted Kennedy for his accident, even as they give Cheney and Laura Bush a pass. It's not what Ted Kennedy did, or even who or what he is, it's what his hateful, cruel accusers are, and what they continue to do, that shames us all. They reduce a long and productive life, dedicated to public service, to one dark moment on a summer night in 1969.
QUOTE (rowdyroddypiper @ May 28 2008, 06:25 AM)
Howard Stern has this basicaly as an ongoing joke. What makes it dif?
Stern's an asshole. No surprise that he'd say something stupid like that.
QUOTE (morefaves @ May 28 2008, 03:09 PM)
I was a big fan of Mark Madden from his days as a WCW heel announcer. I'm disappointed in him for going over this kind of line. When you make your living coming up with controversial and over the top things to say, you have to have an internal guidance system. Unfortunately for him, Mark failed this time.
Damn. I thought I was the only one who remembered him from WCW. And I think you're kind of wrong. He was kind of say anything guy then, too.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.