Here's a tip for you up and coming radio wannabes: Don't piss off a client.  Don't believe me?  Ask Scott Van Pelt, who just got one day of ESPN time out for comments made about Baseball Commish Bud Selig.

Now, Van Pelt didn't use profanity or racial epithets or anything that has gotten people run out of a job in the last few years, but he was very flattering to Selig, making fun not only of his overblown salary but of his dumpy appearance and his total lack of style.

In other words, it was perceived as personal even thought it wasn't meant to be.

And it's obvious that someone from MLB heard it, called ESPN and in an effort to save face, the world wide leader put Van Pelt in time out for a day.  I bet they wouldn't think of doing that to Collin Cowherd.

There's a couple ways to deal with a situation like this as a programmer.  Me personally, I defend the personality so long as I heard it and so long as I believe the context the remarks are made in is fair and accurate.  Perception by those in suits is usually second or third hand. Someone calls and complains and the next thing you know, some PD is being told to do something about what is probably a non-issue.

I had a GM demand I fire a guy for basically telling the truth about a situation which occurred with a player being late for mini-camp.  Wanted him gone right then and there.  I refused and had to make several calls to corporate guys to help back me up and save the guy's job.  I have no doubt that I did the right thing, even though it greased the skids for my eventual exit.  At least I left with my integrity.

Once, an owner of a team was furious with us because one of our guys made fun of his son's haircut (it looked like Stevie Wonder was his barber.)  A few phone calls and a talk with the personality solved the problem.  No one was suspended.

That's why, one of  the most basic rules in radio is don't make fun of the sponsors.  ESPN has a partnership with MLB, thus making them like GM, Coke or McDonald's.  Media outlets that have partnerships with teams go a lot easier on the teams than they do if they don't own the rights.

Van Pelt didn't do anything wrong.  He just got a little carried away.  And because he embellished a few things, the people at MLB leveraged their relationship with ESPN to have VanPelt sent to the woodshed.  I think this could have been dealt with effectively by just having a chat with VanPelt, reminding him of the relationship and Selig's notorious sensitivity.  But obviously, as we have seen several times before, the ESPN suits err on the side of caution and on the side of the gravy train and rather than make a fuss, they make a statement.  Their decision makes it look like Van Pelt did something far worse than he did and gives the story longer legs.  Maybe that's what they wanted in the first place.