Bismarck Tribune - North Dakota News - Broadcast of voicemail leads to fine

Broadcast of voicemail leads to fine

Jul 10, 2008 - 04:06:21 CDT

By DAVE KOLPACK
Associate Press Writer

FARGO - Federal regulators say KFGO radio talk show host Joel Heitkamp should not have broadcast a voicemail message from former North Dakota workers compensation director Sandy Blunt. Heitkamp says Blunt threatened his job and he doesn't regret airing the comments.

The Federal Communications Commission fined the Fargo station's former owner $12,000 for airing the sound clip several times without Blunt's permission. Blunt filed a complaint against Capstar, a subsidiary of Clear Channel Communications, in January 2007.

"I'm pleased with the FCC ruling," Blunt said Wednesday. "It shows that the FCC stands strongly by its belief that you cannot take private information and publish it on the air."

Heitkamp, who is a Democratic state senator, has been a frequent critic of Blunt, who was fired last December as head of Workforce Safety and Insurance. Blunt left the phone message in early 2006, when he was still the agency's director.

Heitkamp said his attorney told him it was OK to use the clip and none of his managers complained about it.

"I think it showed exactly what I've been telling people that Sandy Blunt is all about," Heitkamp said. "Any manager who isn't smart enough to know that you shouldn't leave a voice message like that probably is a poor manager."

The FCC documents did not provide a transcript of what KFGO aired. Neither Blunt nor Heitkamp gave complete details.

Blunt said he left the message after calling to complain because Heitkamp referred to dividend credits as "kickbacks." Heitkamp said the message was "quick and to the point," and Blunt threatened to have him fired.

"He was mad as all get-out at me," Heitkamp said.

Blunt said he was angry when he heard the clip. "Especially when he played it without my permission and parsed it down to make it sound like I threatened him," Blunt said.

Heitkamp said he was disappointed that Clear Channel did not ask him to help defend the complaint. Clear Channel told the FCC it shouldn't be held liable because it no longer holds the license for KFGO, which was sold to Radio Fargo-Moorhead Inc. in late 2006.

News > State

Printer friendly version Broadcast of voicemail leads to fine

Comments

Reality check wrote on Jul 15, 2008 5:08 PM:

" SCates says " Maybe having a radio show is like have legal immunity. The sound you hear now is that of the founding fathers spinning in there graves and the laughing of tyrants who relish preferential exercise of government power. Does any of this bother you Steve... "Hey little stevie ever listen to rush, billo, or hannity???? go figure... "

My Opinion wrote on Jul 15, 2008 8:48 AM:

" To SCates: I don't believe I ever said certain items don't bother me. Some things do and some things don't. Plus, I never held any contention other than pointing out that this article deals with Federal Regulators and Federal Law and has nothing to do with the NDCC at this time. I believe that I was pretty clear about that. I make no "contentions" about anything you are ranting about. Should any of your claims be realistic, justified, and capable of being proven, you should contact the appropriate County State's Attorney and have charges filed. That, would then, put your claims and accusations under NDCC. "

Law wrote on Jul 15, 2008 6:59 AM:

" I don't think it would be Riha's job to prosecute Heitkamp. He was in Fargo when he played the tape. Riha is Burleigh county's SA. "

Civic Duty wrote on Jul 14, 2008 5:01 PM:

" Well Mr. SCates, if you think a crime has been committed you should report it to the proper authorities. Especially if you thing a class A misdemeanor has been committed. By all means contact the State's Attorney right away. It is your civic duty! "

SCates wrote on Jul 14, 2008 12:22 PM:

" My Opinion: Is it therefore your contention that it is of no significance that the ND Senator who has bloviated more (by a factor of over 10,000%) concerning WSI and Sandy Blunt than possibly any other human, said so many things that have proven demonstrably false, played an edited recording over 11 months after it was recorded, without permission to falsely infer that he had been threatened is of no significance? Does it bother you one tiny bit that this was the man demanding removal of a legislator from an official duty for ethical reasons? Does it not matter that he Joel will not even publicly answer any question about this. Please chick out the North Dakota law concerning defamation. Does it seem odd that Richard Riha will spend tens if not hundreds of thousand of taxpayer dollars in the failed prosecution of Sandy Blunt over the accused release of confidential information (charges dropped because C. Feland would not ask the central question of Bjornson for six months, and then use the results as an excuse to drop the prosecution), but Riha will preferentially ignore a very visible public figure (Heitkamp) who has evidently lied about Blunt to infer something in order to damage another mans public perception? Maybe having a radio show is like have legal immunity. The sound you hear now is that of the founding fathers spinning in there graves and the laughing of tyrants who relish preferential exercise of government power. Does any of this bother you My Opinion? "

My Opinion wrote on Jul 14, 2008 8:45 AM:

" To the person responding as To My Opinions Opinion: I was attempting to point out that the Article is about Federal Regulators and Federal Law - it has nothing to do with ND Century Code. In addition, I was attempting to point out that the Truth is an affirmative defense in Defamation, Libel, etc. Therefore SCates quoting the NDCC has NOTHING to do with this situation. "

Follow SCates wrote on Jul 13, 2008 9:46 PM:

" It's not "My Opinion's" fault he can't follow SCates. Unless you have been clued into his twisted logic and legal interpretations it is impossible to know what he is talking about.

The legislative ethics rules are for all practical purposes nonexistent. The Republicans in control like it that way. Go figure. "

My Opinions Opinion is Just That Opinion NOT Fact wrote on Jul 13, 2008 7:25 PM:

" For all our sakes, I hope you are not an attorney at law My Opinion. SCates is in fact quoting from the ND Century Code and not from Federal Regulators and Federal Law as you assert. If you wish to see the correct site, please use the following link to connect directly to the ND Law http://www.legis.nd.gov/cencode/t121c15.pdf. (The little telltale sign that it is ND Law is the .) It appears that as usual and yet again SCates is RIGHT and TRUTHFUL. The facts also appear clear the Heitkamp has not been truthful and has opened himself to a nice little class A misdemeanor charge if Blunt feels so inclined. Also, if Joel is lying about something so easy to refute, what else is he lying about? If I had to choose between SCates and Heitkamp to determine the truth of any matter, there really is not choice as SCates has yet to be substantively proven wrong. Alleging and whining SCates is wrong because you do not care for him is not the same as actually putting the clear research and facts on the table as he has done. Something that My Opinion should have done prior to sending forth their fabrication. "

NDCC wrote on Jul 13, 2008 1:48 PM:

" 14-02-01. General personal rights. Every person, subject to the qualifications and restrictions provided by law, has the right of protection from bodily restraint or harm, from personal insult, from defamation, and from injury to the person's personal relations.

14-02-02. Defamation classified. Defamation is effected by:

1. Libel; or

2. Slander.

14-02-03. Civil libel defined. Libel is a false and unprivileged publication by writing, printing, picture, effigy, or other fixed representation to the eye, which exposes any person to hatred, contempt, ridicule, or obloquy, or which causes the person to be shunned or avoided, or which has a tendency to injure the person in the person's occupation.

14-02-04. Civil slander defined. Slander is a false and unprivileged publication other than libel, which:

1. Charges any person with crime, or with having been indicted, convicted, or punished for crime;

2. Imputes to the person the present existence of an infectious, contagious, or loathsome disease;

3. Tends directly to injure the person in respect to the person's office, profession, trade, or business, either by imputing to the person general disqualifications in those respects which the office or other occupation peculiarly requires, or by imputing something with reference to the person's office, profession, trade, or business that has a natural tendency to lessen its profits;

4. Imputes to the person impotence or want of chastity; or

5. By natural consequence causes actual damage. "

SCates wrote on Jul 13, 2008 12:26 PM:

" My Opinion: I think it correct to point out that knowingly using deception in a public forum to defame someone is against the law in ND. Quoting the ND Century Code had nothing to do with the FCC ruling or any Federal regulations. It is my contention that Joel Heitkamp has likely committed a Class A misdemeanor by altering a voice-mail, playing out of context a year after it was obtained, for the specific purpose of publicly undermining Sandy Blunt in the pursuit of a political agenda. I think that Joels dishonesty has likely lead him to the commission of a crime and a violation that may have ethical ramifications as Mr. Heitkamp is a ND legislator. "

In the Know wrote on Jul 13, 2008 10:22 AM:

" Blunt was mad that his attempt to bully Heitkamp was exposed for all to hear. So what does Blunt do? He gets even by bullying HeitKamp through the FCC. This is a good look in to the way things are done with Blunt AND WSI to this day. "

My Opinion wrote on Jul 13, 2008 8:53 AM:

" To SCates - nice to quote NDCentury Code, but this is from Federal Regulators and Federal Law - not ND law - and publishing something that is truthful is not defamation. Plus - truth is not defamation - truth is an affirmative defense in any charge of defamation. "

Dear Hes back wrote on Jul 13, 2008 7:54 AM:

" How is it an objective person is not able to objectively point out facts. By stating Heitkamp is his party's lead attack dog on WSI issues I am suddenly not objective? I did not say liberal, left-wing, democratic party as Scates would have done. In fact, I did not even mention the party affiliation because it was irrelevant if it was democrat or republican. The fact is he has been the lead attacker in this issue and has been at it for some two years or more. The point was that he has been critical of WSI as a Senator and a radio host and it is not possible to separate the two as the roles cross each other often so the public sees him as both. And whether anyone thinks it is fair or not he is a Senator 24/7 with the public holding him accountable 24/7.

Obviously you do have a dog in the fight and a distinct hate for Blunt and this is clouding your ability to be objective. Just as it is clouding others who are now shifting the debate saying it was a "smooth threat" by Blunt. Again, do not kill the messenger but an objective view shows no threat like many hear claim. And, yes objective people are scratching their heads about why the message appears to have been held for almost a year and then timed for release because it feels like a set up. It feels like it was a set up to make Blunt look vindictive and hateful and it appears to have worked. If the message was shortened to assist in this set up, objective people see some real ethical and moral issues here. I really do not care if you agree (and it appears you will not due to some real issues with Blunt), but those objective readers will weigh all the information and make their own well-reasoned opinion of the facts. That is who I am writing to here. "

VoR wrote on Jul 13, 2008 2:37 AM:

" When Mr. Blunt called Mr. Heitkamp and left a threatening message he knew full well what he was doing, that he was being recorded as well as what Heitkamp did for a living. If Blunt was that reckless he has no reason to expect anything except exactly what happened. This is as simple as it gets. My voicemails are MY property. Yours are Your property and Joel Heitkamps are HIS property. Clear Channel or whomever owns KFGO this month should grow a spine and fight the fine, but they wont because even though they would eventually win in court it would probably cost at least that much to do it and would keep the incident in the news, plus its a lot harder to sell a business with an unsettled lawsuit especially against the government.

Bottom line, Blunt has once again shown us the kind of person he is and deserves whatever consequences to his career result from his petty and foolish acts.

By the way, if someone calls my number, gets my machine and is dumb enough to threaten me that wont be the end of it either. And I dont have a radio talk show. Has anyone checked on Sandy Blunts I. Q.? "

ddd wrote on Jul 12, 2008 7:15 PM:

" if you don't want your dirty laundry out in the open.....don't threaten a highly listened to radio host with a voice mail. Good job Heitkamp for letting the rest of us know who the real Blunt is. "

My Opinion wrote on Jul 12, 2008 6:39 PM:

" I find this really interesting that Federal Regulators issued the fine. Federal Investigators often use voice mail messages as "evidence" but they are not fined. Plus, it seems a bit unusual that Federal Law states that voice mail messages are no different than letters or emails. I can send a copy of a letter I received to a newspaper or read it on the radio without penalty. I believe these folks should appeal this ruling as I don't believe it is lawful. "

SCates wrote on Jul 12, 2008 6:16 PM:

" ND Century Code - 12.1-15-01. Criminal defamation.

1. A person is guilty of a class A misdemeanor if he willfully publishes defamatory matter or knowingly procures such publication or in any way knowingly aids or assists in the same being done.

3. In this section:

a. "Defamatory matter" means any written or oral communication concerning a natural person made public with actual malice or with reckless disregard of the truth by any utterance, printing, writing, sign, picture, representation, or effigy tending to expose such person to public hatred, contempt, or ridicule or to deprive him of the benefits of public confidence and social intercourse or any written or oral communication concerning a natural person made public as aforesaid designed to blacken and vilify the memory of one who is dead and tending to scandalize or provoke his surviving relatives and friends. "

Hes back. wrote on Jul 12, 2008 4:04 PM:

" Sorry "Messenger" I said any objective person. You gave yourself away by saying "Heitkamp is his partys lead attack dog on WSI issues". Y'all got a dog in this fight so you ain't objective.

Blunt's smooth Ohio mafia threat was a threat alright. You don't know the real Blunt. Anyone who worked with him does. He's a bully. He was bullying Heitkamp. "

Dubbles wrote on Jul 12, 2008 3:59 PM:

" I have to side with Mr. Heitkamp on this issue. The voice mail once it was left on his machine,server, etc became his property and he should be free to do with it as he pleases. "

SCates wrote on Jul 12, 2008 10:19 AM:

" On top of that, in an AP Fargo Forum article of July 10, 2008, Joel claims that the topic of the WSI Performance Audit was the reason for Sandy Blunt calling to threaten his job. The voice message was left in January of 2006, the audit would not even begin until February of 2006. Is Joel Heitkamp a liar? Please consider the results of the external studies by Marsh and Connley. There was no purposeful denial of WSI help to injured workers. There was no corruption at WSI. WSI was serving there clients (workers and employers) very well. As a matter of fact nothing that Joel Heitkamp claimed and demagoged about turns out to be true. Joel Heitkamp is, and rarely has been telling the truth about people and situations as WSI.

In January of 2008 Heitkamp asked for a review of the ND Legislatures ethics rules because George Keiser would not resign from leading a workers compensation committee. Heitkamp had previously demanded that Legislative Council Chairman Al Carlson seek Keisers resignation. Heitkamp said, If he doesnt resign, our party is going to take a serious look at steps we have available. Will Joel demand that Joel resign the ND Senate? I mean, when you pile lie upon lie, and distortion upon distortion while taking part in the publics business (advocacy opposed to WSI management), how can he not? "

Living It wrote on Jul 12, 2008 10:07 AM:

" It's cates to the rescue of blunt,in his suit of shiny tin,hand in hand going down the yellow brick road,singing if only I had a brain,blunt was wrong,in my opinion there should be no charges against the radio station,again blunt has opened his big egotistic mouth an someone else is paying the price,and it seems like someone still owes someone a 100,000 thousand dollars for their little speech on a radio station,remind you of anyone cates,if you can to my rescue i would just puke. "

Dont Kill the Messenger But You Asked wrote on Jul 12, 2008 9:52 AM:

" OK, you wanted and independent opinion of the tape, well here it is. I just do not hear the hate, anger, and threats that everyone else does. From what I hear the voice is calm and steady and Blunt only states I have been asked to look into defamation. I have been asked sounds like he was asked by possibly his bosses or someone else to at least look at their options if the wild accusations did not stop. I do not hear where Blunt says he will get Joel fired. I do not hear any personal threats or any of the others things that people are hearing. If Cates is right about Blunt being on Heitkamps show the next day, there could not have been too much hate there. Also, if Cates is right, why was the message held for 11 months and then played as if it was some threat to recent events? I am not saying Blunt is some kind of choirboy, but Heitkamps actions are really, really disturbing. Cant anyone else without an ax to grind against Blunt or Heitkamp see an ethics issue with holding a voice message for almost a year and then misapplying it to more recent events? Am I the only one who gets a queasy feeling from that? And yes his status as a Senator does come into play because Heitkamp is his partys lead attack dog on WSI issues. Sorry, but the two can not be separated and yes anything Heitkamp does 24/7 (fair or unfair) is a reflection of his fitness as a public servant. Just ask the guy from Idaho with the foot problem. "

Arrow wrote on Jul 12, 2008 9:19 AM:

" SCates sure know lots about the context of the call, I wonder if its just another lie that he is being fed by Blunt or Armstrong?

One way to check is to ask Blunt if he also taped the call, there has always been talk around WSI that be careful what you say in some executives offices as they are taping things, did Blunt also tape the call? We keep hearing about the tape being edited but that has only come from Blunt in an AP story. I would like proof from sources other than Blunt or SCates that this call was altered as I find some of their comments and rhetoric hard to believe. "

Hes back. wrote on Jul 12, 2008 8:33 AM:

" So nice to see you back SCates. We are looking forward to your critique of the Supreme Court's decision.

Any objective person listening to that clip will tell you he was threatening Senator Heitkamp. "

Mike R wrote on Jul 12, 2008 6:27 AM:

" So many people here keep going back to the fact that Heitkamp is a state senator. Let me say this. First of all, a state senator is NOT a full time job. His talk show job IS his full time job. So you are saying that if you take a part time job with the state, that trumps anything that you might ever do in any full time job? Secondly, you are saying that as a state senator, he loses the right to defend himself or air any personal opinion? Please show me the law where it states that, because I am unaware of its existance. The fact is that Heitkamp could have been acting as a state senator (doubtful), a radio talk show host, or a private citizen. Not everything he ever does in life is in the capacity of senator, so please get over it already. "

SCates wrote on Jul 12, 2008 1:15 AM:

" On January 25, 2006 Sandy Blunt called Joel Heitkamps cell phone. Joel had begun demagoging to the effect that employers were getting kick-backs from WSI. The facts of the matter had been completely presented to Heitkamp several times and had, in fact been clarified in a Fargo Forum article in November of 2005. Here is a portion (not the full message). http://www.bismarckdems.com/av/sandy.mp3 Where in that message does Sandy Blunt threaten Joel Heitkamps job? Where does he threaten legal action? He simply states that he had been asked about defamation lawsuit, never asserting the he (Sandy) was going to initiate any action, nor that WSI would. By the way were is the end of the call? Where is the good-by or some other ending salutation? What this really is, is Blunt almost begging Heitkamp to tell the truth (and Heitkamp knew the truth). It must have been quite a threat in the mind of Heitkamp because it turns out that the portion of the call that Heitkamp omitted was that Sandy asked to be on Heitkamps show the next day. Sandy Blunt was interviewed on January 26, 2006 for about half an hour. On December 12 or 13 of 2006 (nearly 11 months latter) Heitkamp begins publicly claiming that Sandy Blunt had threatened to get him fired and as proof offered up an edited version of the voice-mail . An altered audio cut, eleven months latter, presented as contemporaneous. One has to question as to weather or not Joel Heitkamp is a liar when these facts are known. "

MrObvious wrote on Jul 11, 2008 5:29 PM:

" Jason asked: 'What else is Senator Heitkamp capable of? ' He's a Democrat so that makes your question a rhetorical one. "

Beesh wrote on Jul 11, 2008 4:49 PM:

" The second someone leaves a voicemail for someone, that voicemail becomes the property of the recipient to do with what he wishes. Joel aired it in its entirety. Sandy Blunt was just plain STUPID leaving that voicemail. He thought he was untouchable and guess what Blunt got his smackdown and should go back to Jersey and leave us alone. "

Living It wrote on Jul 11, 2008 4:36 PM:

" Let's get this right-blunt uses DMV photos in a public place against someone that has'nt even committed a crime,and walks away with it because an attorney said it was ok-I'm with some of the others that are blogging here-once you leave a voice message on someones elses phone it is no longer your property and what that person wants to do with it is their business-this is the mentality of the ex-ceo of wsi-blunts crying now but he was laughing when he was out to destroy someones elses life,what this man has done to the injured workers in two states is a crime all by itself an to his own employees!! "

Jason wrote on Jul 11, 2008 3:22 PM:

" If Heitkamp had played the message without any editing, it probably would have been OK. If he really cut and pasted to make the meaning totally different, that's a problem. It doesn't really matter if Heitkamp thinks he did nothing wrong. The FCC said he did. It worries me that a State Senator would go to those extremes to make someone look bad. What else is Senator Heitkamp capable of? "

Kimberly wrote on Jul 11, 2008 3:15 PM:

" I'm confused. Blunt left a message for Heitkamp, so doesn't it then become Heitkamp's message, to do with as he pleases? Stupidity must have reigned supreme there - Armstrong leaves a journal at the office, Blunt leaves a voice mail. Blunt supporters - I didn't see anything mentioned about editing. Do you have inside information, or is this more vapor facts? "

ND Taxpayer. wrote on Jul 11, 2008 10:49 AM:

" Way to Go Joel. It's about time to expose Blunt for what he is and what makes him think he is so great that nobody can criticize him in public. He left the message, and from that point on it was Joel's to do what he wanted to with it. "

leo wrote on Jul 11, 2008 10:31 AM:

" I think a very important point is being missed in this situation. Our public officials are supposed to be servants of the people of North Dakota. They are serving in their capacity to improve our world, for the betterment of everyone. However, I think our politicians and some other public servants, like Blunt, have been allowed to let whatever power they have go to their heads. Did Blunt address Joel Heitkamp as a state senator or as a radio talk host? If the latter is the case, Blunt had no business using his position to say anything negative against a citizen of the state. No one in public office should have the right to attack anyone in the populace. That goes with the territory of public service. Or it's supposed to. "

KFGO take heed wrote on Jul 11, 2008 10:26 AM:

" Politicians with their own radio shows doesn't work. Never has, never will. "

Rebecca wrote on Jul 11, 2008 9:59 AM:

" What's the problem? Politicians do this all the time; play clips out of context and release personal and private conversations to the media in an attempt to make themselves look better and their opponents look bad. That's the way the free media works kids. If you don't want someone playing a nasty voicemail, then use some discretion. It is the same with email, phone, and letters. If you don't want someone else to hear it, don't make a record of it. "

intheknow wrote on Jul 11, 2008 9:05 AM:

" Just because Mr. Heitkamp is a senator does not mean he is above FFC regulations. Do you know what Mr. Blunt said in the voice mail messages? Get a grip! "

Rockies wrote on Jul 11, 2008 7:43 AM:

" There are many things in life that are completely legal that still aren't very wise choices. Heitkamp could have responded effectively to this in a way that looked more mature and professional; especially given his position as a state senator.

Perhaps Heitkamp's real goal is to stir up the controversy to gain attention for his radio show. "

Rasmus wrote on Jul 10, 2008 10:13 PM:

" Is there anyone here from "the media" who wants to weigh in on this one? Here we have a government official leaving a threatening voice mail and the FCC sides with the Government Goon!! Unbelievable! A $12,000 fine because Joel H. didn't "get permission" from the Government Goon. I am disgusted and ashamed by this decision and fine by the FCC. Intimidation by government officials is OK now I guess: "I know where you live, where your kids go to school." Just leave a message or send an email if a radio program, newspaper editorial, or TV spot offends you. If the intended victim broadcasts it, the FCC or another Goon Squad will make sure the word won't get out. "

Personal discretion wrote on Jul 10, 2008 8:25 PM:

" So...I guess it's okay to call and leave threatening messages on someone's cell phone? The Blunt supporters apparently think that's ok? But heaven forbid anyone else should hear them as they expose the guy for what he really is...a bully with poor judgement. Way to go, Joel...I'd have done the same thing! "

Mike R wrote on Jul 10, 2008 8:00 PM:

" For once I agree with Deb completely. I don't see anything wrong with broadcasting the message. It was left on an answering machine. It was not a priveleged conversation. No laws were broken. Besides that, the FCC allows broadcasting of statements all the time without the consent of the person making them. The phone message was a statement made to an answering machine and not in person. I don't see the difference. "

REX wrote on Jul 10, 2008 7:30 PM:

" Joel or Ed? Interchangeable. "

Deb wrote on Jul 10, 2008 4:49 PM:

" Wait tho - think outside of the two parties involved. I know that if someone left me a threatening voicemail and I had access to a media outlet to get the word out about what a dork this guy was -- you BET that I would do it. And seriously - - the FCC ruling in Blundt's favor - who are they kidding? As another comentator says, where are the FCC rulings about the Alec Baldwin "dirty little pig" voicemail that was broadcast on the radio and TV? Where is the ruling about the Hasselhoff drunk as a skunk video being broadcast all over the TV? It's a joke - "plain and simple" as Joel would say. Heitcamp did nothing wrong. "

Amused wrote on Jul 10, 2008 4:30 PM:

" Mr. Heidtcamp has said some questionable things to prove a point before but this brings a new light on the depths he will dive to to persecute another individual. My personal opinion- yep, a true bottom feeder in the pond of scum! KFGO could Clearly do without him. "

Grumpy Old Republican wrote on Jul 10, 2008 3:57 PM:

" Throw both of them to a pack of wild dogs. We can't name-call here, but my opinion of them both is lower than pond scum. "

ND Voter wrote on Jul 10, 2008 2:41 PM:

" Not that leaving a voice message of questionable content is the brightest move in the world but Heitkamp's decision to broadcast it on the air showed exceptionally poor judgement on his part.

Think. THEN act. "

DontYouKnow wrote on Jul 10, 2008 2:38 PM:

" Joel Heitkamp is a Democrat, therefore the law doesn't apply to him. "

MamaMia wrote on Jul 10, 2008 2:35 PM:

" Man, it was SO worth twelve grand to expose Blunt for what he is! Rock on, Joel! "

Interested wrote on Jul 10, 2008 2:14 PM:

" To the Oline Editor: I realize I am running the age old risk Mark Twain warned about not to get into a contest of words with someone who buys ink by the barrel or something like that, but I respectfully disagree. Your paper made the two allegations of open meeting violations the subject of an editorial, not a news article. Your paper can hardly be credited with the "play" you cite for Senator Heitkamp's misconduct. You just picked up an article from a Fargo AP writer. Not a lot of editorial anxiety expressed in a news article, I am sure you will admit. My point was your paper has so far chosen not to exhibit the same degree of angst over a federal violation (crime) by an incumbent State Senator as it did the allegation of open meeting violations. I wonder why ? "

Online Editor wrote on Jul 10, 2008 1:31 PM:

" To interested: The Tribune did run the story on Page 1 of the print edition and it is one of our top stories in the online edition. I think that's good play. "

Interested wrote on Jul 10, 2008 1:04 PM:

" There was quite a bit of teeth gnashing over 2 recent incidents which led to requests by various media outlets for AG opionions. (dinner meeting and circulation of an agenda). Don't think the AG has rendered his opinions yet. Now we have publication of an FCC violation involving on air conduct by an incumbent member of the North Dakota Legislature. The Bismarck Tribune devoted its editorial page one day to the first two commenting about the alleged violation of ND open meeting law. Now we have a proven, not alleged, federal violation. That is a significantly higher level of bad acting. Wonder how much editorial space the Tribune will devote to it ? I hope I am wrong, but my cynical nature tells me the Tribune will not say a word. After all, a Fargo paper picked up the news item already. That is good enough, right ?? After all, they might have to admit Senator Heitkamp's conduct was illegal. "

Deb wrote on Jul 10, 2008 11:41 AM:

" Wait, wait, wait....

So Joel got advice from his attorney saying that it was okay to air the clip, but later found out that advice was wrong. Isn't that "bad law" defense??

Where have I heard that before???? Oh, right! That was Sandy's defense! "

Jerry Becker wrote on Jul 10, 2008 10:48 AM:

" To Question for the Editor

First of all, my last name is Becker, no "l" there. Secondly, your recollection of the hearing is mistaken. On December 8, 2006, I received an email from Mark Armstrong, Communications Executive at WSI. This was in response to my request as to whether WSI had obtained my photo from DOT and showed it to outside personnel. Mr. Armstrong's response was "Your photo was obtained from DOT imaging program and shown to library personnel". This was testified to by the Highway Patrol during the hearing. And I really appreciated hearing my name over 50 times during this hearing. I agree with your double standard statement. "

Victor wrote on Jul 10, 2008 10:48 AM:

" To Yikes Victor: How do you know it was cut up, only two people know Joel and Sandy Blunt, and frankly I don't believe anything Blunt says.

I did hear the recording sometime earlier this or last year and I thought I heard Sandy state his name. I don't think Joel was acting as a State Senator when he played the call, I think his main role at this time was as a talk show host so why would the ethics committee get involved?

I don't know it was't cut up but you seem to know that it was. I'm basing my comments on the actions of Blunt and his supporters in earlier instances where Sandy claimed ignorance of the law and stated he did nothing wrong and it was the fault of others which is what I am hearing here. There seems to be a pattern with all those instances and usually the patterns are a basis of fact.

I noticed you conveniently did not address the ethical problems about Blunt that I had indicated earlier. Do you think its appropriate for a public official to threaten anyone (media, legislator, regular guy). "

Online Editor wrote on Jul 10, 2008 10:28 AM:

" To Question for the Editor...: I'm not sure which comment was yours, or what name it was posted under, so I am not able to respond. For all readers, I did verify Jerry Becker's identity before posting his comment. "

Question for the Editor... wrote on Jul 10, 2008 10:15 AM:

" Question - The Tribune posts a comment that blatently libels/slanders WSI and specifically Mr. Blunt (i.e. Jerry Beckler), but will not post my comment that states my personal opinion on public comments made by a North Dakota political official (Mr. Heitcamp)? Beckler's accusations are actually untrue based on the evidence presented at Mr. Blunt's probable cause hearing on the NDDOT picture issue. My recollection of that hearing was that the under-oath testimony stated Mr. Beckler's photo was NOT actually used. Nevertheless, it is a double standard. I realize there is no way to respond to the question, but I bring it up simply to point it out. "

YIKES Victor You Scare Me wrote on Jul 10, 2008 10:03 AM:

" Aaaaahhhhhhh Victor buddy, can you enlighten us all exactly how it is you know that the conversation was not cut up and how is it you have any idea what you are talking about? That is right, you can not. How is it that Blunt and his supporters (you can count me as one I guess) arent taking responsibility in this or other issues? Maybe the pathetic element here is a State Senator and a party who are over the edge trying to manufacture facts and scenarios that dont exists in the real world. Maybe you should start a campaign of your own to ask Sen. Heitkamp to release the whole message for us all to make up or own minds about. Listen to the recording he had very carefully. Where is the intro greeting? Where is the closing goodbye? Where are some of the main elements you find in the course of any call that is ever made? They are not there. Now why is that? Maybe, just maybe it was cut up? And how do you explain holding the message for months and then using it when politically expedient? Is that what FCC licenses are issued for? For a State Senator to conduct unrestrained, routine, one-sided smear campaigns for hours and hours with doctored evidence? I dont think so. In fact, I think the FCC has a little more digging to do at KFGO. "

Victor wrote on Jul 10, 2008 9:44 AM:

" Interesting, so you are saying that Heitkamp's playing the video is the equivalent of what Howard Stern says, Opie & Anthony encouraging people to have sex in a church? Come on get real, what if any is Blunt's blame in any of this? Don't you think it was dumb of him to say he would try to get Heitkamp fired, but that appears to be the tactics Blunt takes, blame others becuase I (BLUNT) can't do anything wrong. Your comparison is apples and oranges.

FlyOnTheWall, what ethics are you holding Blunt to for the "alleged" things he did at WSI (as well as the other unethical things that didn't result in criminal charges)? It appears none. "

FlyOnTheWall wrote on Jul 10, 2008 9:34 AM:

" Was Blunt dumb for leaving a heated message on Joel's voicemail. Yes. Was Heitkamp wrong for airing a recorded message without prior approval. Yes. Both parties are to blame to some extent, but it is Heitkamp who clearly violated rules here.

I would hope that the legislature's ethics committee (or whatever they have) would take a look at SENATOR Heitkamp's actions. I believe that an elected official should not behave like this (even if it's in their private sector work). "

Interesting wrote on Jul 10, 2008 8:34 AM:

" So, my interpretation (I say my becuase it's my own thoughts) of Mr. Heitcampt's comments are: I, a state legislator, do not care about breaking laws becuase I do not regret what I did, I don't care about privacy laws, and that the end justifies the means. Totally aside from the connection to the WSI mess, I think his comments show HIS true character. From what I understand, the rules about putting people, or voicemails, on the air aren't complicated. Very simple, you have to have actual, very clear permission. I also thought it funny that Mr. Heitcamp felt he could have assisted a nationwide, huge, company defend an FCC violation. Um, I think they may have enough internal help to have come up with the reason he thinks is valid. Could it be that his violation took place before Clear Channel sold KFGO was sold? DUH! "

Jerry Becker wrote on Jul 10, 2008 7:57 AM:

" Most of the Bismarck Tribune's readers may remember my name from the past. Crystal Reid wrote an article about me questioning whether I sent the infamous email to WSI employees that caused Blunt heartburn. Now he's complaining his rights have been violated because his message was played? It must be a double-standard world he lives in. He had no problem ordering WSI employees obtaining my picture from NDDOT files and illegally showing it to post office and library personnel. And I didn't do anything wrong. I didn't threaten anyone or send the email. My only hope is that Joel Heitkamp's attorney's name is Jodi Bjornson. "

Interesting wrote on Jul 10, 2008 7:49 AM:

" Joel gets a voicemail, waits six months to play it back it back. Edits it to make it sound like something else and then is surprised that the FCC fines him? What was there to defend? Any other radio station would have demanded he apologize for his behavior or taken him off the air, like Howard Stern or Opie and Anthony...but not here in North Dakota, he is allowed to stay on the air and say he did nothing wrong and would DO IT AGAIN! Unbelievable. "

Victor wrote on Jul 10, 2008 7:27 AM:

" Amazing how the Blunt supporters and even Blunt himself are claiming the recording was edited, can't Blunt admit to ANY of his own poor choices rather than blame others, its really getting pathetic thinking a person who won't take responsibility was in charge of an agency or rather in charge of anything. No wonder he wasn't the boards first choice to be the WSI CEO. "

Post Your Own Comment

All online comments are limited to 350 words total.
Comments are reviewed for taste, tone and language before posting.
Some comments may be used in the Tribune's print edition.
We value and respect your privacy, but The Bismarck Tribune might
disclose certain information to governmental entities if served with subpoena.