During the second half of September, after receiving donated equipment from an interested party, the DFR crew put out a signal at 93.9 FM. The programming consisted of automated playlists that Nimbus describes as "very diverse. We were playing a lot of artists that don't get any exposure on commercial stations: some local artists and a lot of national artists who can't get on Clear Channel stations." In reference to the aforementioned San Antonio-based radio Goliath, he says, "It's sad that five guys in Texas decide what gets heard around the country."
Not that area listeners could check out DFR for long. Nimbus says that after three days, Denver FCC agent Jon Sprague and his associates arrived at the structure where DFR was situated. Sprague told the building's residents that an FM station was on the premises, which was news to them, because they'd been told they were sheltering a ham-radio repeater. "It seems a little underhanded, but it's the subterfuge we have to use to stay safe," Nimbus says.
Sprague issued a cease-and-desist order and left. Afterward, the DFR allies removed their equipment and found another group of people who agreed to provide a space for it; they, too, were told it was ham-radio gear. Two weeks later, DFR kicked off again, this time with a slightly stronger signal; the power went from 40 watts to 150 watts. Five days passed before Sprague showed up once more, delivering a cease-and-desist order to the individuals at the second location. Shortly thereafter, the equipment was shifted to yet another spot, and on October 24, DFR types tested their gadgets for four hours without incident. They next flipped the transmitter's switch on October 27, hoping they'd have a longer run. Unfortunately for them, Sprague arrived after only about an hour, a cease-and-desist order in hand.
The obvious way to make the FCC's job a little tougher would be to broadcast from a van that could be moved from place to place. Other area outfits have used this approach in the past, but Nimbus is reluctant to do so, saying, "It seems very Hollywood, very Pump Up the Volume. I don't want to get into that stereotype. We don't want to set this up and run around the city and be defiant." He stresses that, with the help of an engineer, DFR puts out a clean signal that doesn't interfere with any other commercial stations. As he puts it, "We don't want to stomp all over licensed broadcasters. We just want to provide a community service."
Clearly, the FCC sees things differently and is aggressively going after illicit broadcasters here and across the country. As a result, representatives of Capitol Underground Radio, an operation previously profiled in these pages ("Air Wars," May 6), chose to delay their launch, which was targeted for September, rather than be instantly squelched by the feds. Nimbus, however, isn't ready to exchange his pirate flag for a white one. "This is all about determination," he says. "They bust you fast to discourage you, but we're not going to get discouraged. We're going to keep coming back on the air."
By the book: While the public may think of newspaper articles as ephemeral, they linger online for a long time -- and so does misinformation they may contain if the gaffes aren't fixed. University of Central Florida student Jim Cundiff was reminded of this while recently researching a supposedly factual scenario mentioned in one of his assigned texts: Management Information Systems for the Information Age, fourth edition, credited to University of Denver profs Stephen Haag and Donald J. McCubbrey and Pittsburg State University's Maeve Cummings. As it turns out, the incident in question didn't actually take place, but the authors had no idea because the Denver Post piece on which they relied failed to receive the correction it so richly deserved.
The roots of the story stretch back to April Fools Day two years ago, when Post reporter Trent Seibert, who's no longer with the paper, was engaging in a jaw session with Colorado house minority leader Dan Grossman and several other lawmakers. In interviews for the April 11, 2002, version of this column, Grossman said that Seibert "brought up this incident that happened in Texas where a legislator was caught on photo radar with a girl in his car, and the following year, photo radar was discontinued." That earned a laugh, as did Seibert's suggestion that the passenger seat be blocked out in radar pics in Colorado. "Oh, yeah," Grossman remembers adding. "We could call it the adulterers amendment."
Funny stuff -- but Grossman wasn't chuckling on April 2, when a Seibert article headlined "Photo-Radar Idea Shields Adulterers," which portrayed the "adulterers amendment" quip as a legitimate proposition, wound up on the Post's front page. Grossman, whose account of the conversation was confirmed by at least one other person present, immediately demanded a retraction from the paper. But instead of simply correcting the item, which would have alerted all future readers of the piece to its inaccuracy, the Post allowed Seibert to write a second story, April 3's "Lawmaker Drops Photo-Radar Idea," implying that Grossman was backing away from a serious proposal because of adverse public reaction -- a spin that Grossman insisted was totally false.
This matter didn't cause Grossman any substantial political harm; in fact, he was elected to the state senate later that year. But it lingers in the pages of Systems by way of a case study that reads in part, "By the way, because of the potential of photo radar systems catching people having an affair, the Colorado legislature has introduced a new bill called the adulterers amendment . . ."
Fortunately, a new, fifth edition of Systems lacks that passage -- but DU's Haag, corresponding via e-mail, writes that "we are preparing an 'errata' page on the website for the fourth edition that will inform faculty using the book of the error." Cundiff, meanwhile, finds it "amazing that with a simple Google search I have ascertained that the authors of my textbook didn't do their homework!"
Save some of the blame for the Post. As this circumstance demonstrates, refusing to fess up can have unexpected consequences.
Double talk: The Rocky Mountain News took a lot of heat for identifying Katelyn Faber, the woman accusing hoops star Kobe Bryant of rape, after she refiled a civil suit against him under her own name last month. Nonetheless, other organizations have followed suit, including Fox News and a second prominent local broadsheet, the Boulder Daily Camera. According to Camera editor Sue Deans, her paper's move (which hasn't generated even one letter to the editor) was made because "in the past we've seen merit to naming people who file civil suits in such circumstances, and after having a conversation in the newsroom about it, we decided to go ahead and do it in this case."
Even so, Faber's attorney, L. Lin Wood, singled out the Rocky for criticism in an interview posted at www.poynter.org, the online home of Florida's Poynter Institute. "I've had dealings with the Rocky Mountain News in the past," Wood said, "and I do not have a great deal of respect for that newspaper. I view it as a cut above the supermarket tabloids."
For anyone familiar with the JonBenét Ramsey case, this claim is nothing short of astonishing. As editor/publisher/president John Temple alluded to in a subsequent chat also accessible on the Poynter website, the Rocky was kinder to John and Patsy Ramsey, whom Wood represented, than any other major daily in the country, let alone the tabloids, which convicted the elder Ramseys of murder with each new edition. The Rocky earned ridicule in many quarters, not to mention the nickname "Ramsey Mountain News," for coverage that appeared to benefit Wood and his clients.
Imagine: a lawyer twisting the truth and rewriting history to suit his current purposes. Stop the presses.