Thanks Phy
Thanks Phy
ThePhy, thanks for pointing all this out. Yes, you are correct. I clearly see that I incorrectly reported Kips demeanor.
In my incorrect recollection of his demeanor, I accidentally confused my interpretation of his reason for calling, with his actual demeanor. From your transcript:
>I just sit down in the studio and start to open the show and the phone rings, and it’s some worker at Pat Schroeder’s office, I think his name is Kip.
So far, I got that right, even his name after what, nine years?
>Kip is on the phone, and Kip is really mad. And he wants to know - he is just beside himself – and he wants to know – “Who, who sent this to us, did you” - and you could tell that he – “I just want to, I just want to confirm that you sent this to us.”
The part about him being “just beside himself” was completely wrong, as I now realize. I haven’t listened to the tape, and I doubt you are trying to say that he was making just a routine thank-you call. It seems clear to me that he returned the call immediately because he was angry at what he had just received.
BEQ-KIP1: Phy, do you disagree with that?
>And he wants to call the police and charge me with making an obscene phone call to a congresswoman’s office over the FAX lines.
That was my assessment as to why he immediately returned the call, and wanted to confirm that we sent the fax. At least when I quoted his actual words, as saying, “I just want to confirm that you sent this to us,” that was almost a verbatim quote. No?
>So he was really angry.
Though he displayed a professional demeanor, I assert that he was really angry, hence the reason for his immediate call. Phy, do you doubt this? Just watch any White House press conference to illustrate this concept.
>And he just got the information he wanted, and just before he hung up, I explained where we got the picture. And you could tell that sort of deflated his anger. Because what he thought was pornographic at one moment, that was a crime, being sent from a radio station to a governing official, that was so despicable and obscene and enraged him - and all of a sudden it was being given to girls and boys in the fourth grade, well that is perfectly acceptable.
I think this is all true. You might disagree with the “deflated his anger” part, but we’ll all find that out for certain soon enough.
>Kip just in case you are listening out there somewhere in the world, you are a blithering idiot, you are a moron, you are a piece of human waste. What an idiot.
Yes. And strong words. For him to not help us expose that sexual abuse of children makes me despise him. I hope he repents.
Phy, the fact that I played the actual recording, as you say, on “the next show,” should tell you that I was not trying to deceive anyone, and that this was a case of repeating a story nine years later, and erroneously projecting my assessment of the caller’s motives into his demeanor. I’ve reported on a study where people were asked if they had seen footage of a major news story, something like a train wreck, and 90% or more say: no – because
there was no footage of the event! Then, a year later, the same group was polled again, on
the same question, and over half say, “Yes, I saw that footage.” Yikes! It’s dangerous being human! So, I’m always suspicious of my memory, and am eager to be corrected.
BEQ-KIP2: So Phy, do you really think if I had reviewed the call, I would have mischaracterized it like that? If you think that, I cannot be the one to disabuse you of that opinion of me. I doubt that the original show was uploaded to our online archives at the time. And if our archives are not online, then those early shows are not easily accessible. I can’t recall the details, but perhaps one of our staffers heard me do that show, and then searched out the original recording, and we were so pleased that it was found, that we aired it on the very next show (that Monday). Of course I wish I would have listened to that call first, that way the focus would be on the despicable behavior of the public school system, and not my incorrect recollection of Kip’s demeanor.
And Phy, you say that this was not “just an off-the-cuff response.” I haven’t heard the show, and I don’t know what led you to that conclusion.
BEQ-KIP3: Are you sure that I didn't just do this story off-the-cuff? My guess, and this is only a guess since I haven’t heard that show since I hosted it (and if this is untrue, then I will gladly retract this paragraph), my guess is that you have had WAY MORE TIME to come to this (fact-based?) assessment than I had to prepare myself for telling that story. Now, what if you have just misrepresented me, for no good reason, as not telling that story just “off-the-cuff?” Then, while I was guilty of incorrectly recollecting a caller’s demeanor from nine years earlier (still, that is important, since I emphasized it) and now admitting the error, you would be guilty of negatively characterizing my presentation as though I intentionally didn’t care about the accuracy of my recollection, and all this from a recording that you were carefully marking by the minutes and seconds.
But ultimately, thanks for correcting me on this. I will ask the
webmaster@KGOVArchives.com to permanently link that show to this thread so that the correction will be available online! As you may know, regardless of whether it may be painful or not, it is my practice to prominently admit errors. Again Phy, thanks.
-Bob Enyart
