Angelo Cataldi has a blog? Had no clue.

He wrote a post titled “The Howard Eskin Mess that criticizes WIP management for their handling of the recent situation, you know, the “unwanted advance” on a female Aramark employee that got The King suspended from Citizens Bank Park for the rest of the year.


First of all, Audacy proposed the punishment, but did not suspend Howard. Huh? If the accusation is true – especially in this cancel-culture climate – there is no way Eskin’s show should continue without at least a significant hiatus. The fact that Audacy proposed the ban suggests the company sees some merit in the accusation.

You can’t have it both ways. Either he committed a serious ibreach (sic) of conduct or he didn’t. The ballpark ban says he did. The lack of a suspension says he didn’t. Which is it?

This is a good point.

What’s the justification for suspending him from the ballpark, but not from his radio show? That’s a totally legitimate question. Remember, it was reported that the decision to ban Howard from CBP was Audacy’s idea, so they allegedly acted on that front but stopped short of keeping him off the air. There’s been criticism for that.

Then Angelo goes and makes a really dumb point:

An even bigger mistake in judgment is WIP’s current position not to discuss the matter on the air. It violates the basic principles of talk radio, and – even more important – it is disrespectful to the audience.

I have always believed media organizations do not have the option of saying “no comment” because of the very nature of their work. They depend on everyone to comment, and even more so during crises. If WIP won’t discuss its own scandal, why should the next team or player do so when it’s their turn?

The entire city is talking about the Eskin mess right now, but not the station where he developed his reputation? It’s a place where people talk, non-stop, 24 hours a day. The dumbest thing a talk station can do is not talk.

Well, here’s the thing – asking Bobby from Mayfair to talk about the Eagles’ run game is a little different than asking him to discuss a sensitive HR matter. You’ve got a host currently suspended from the ballpark for what was reported to be an “unwanted advance” and “unwelcome kiss,” but nobody in the public knows the specifics of what actually happened. Was Howard being a creepy perv, or just awkward? Was there a misreading of the situation? Was there LECHEROUS intent or not?

Taking into account that we don’t have all of the details, let’s ask Joe Giglio and Hugh Douglas to broach the subject. I’m sure they’d be comfortable with that. Then we’ll go ahead and invite Birds fans to call up and share their opinion. Great idea! These people couldn’t tell you the difference between the A gap and B gap, so let’s get their thoughts on sexual harassment in the #MeToo era. What could go wrong!

Plus, you’re walking the legal tightrope here to begin with. What happens if a WIP host goes off the path and says something inflammatory about the employee or Aramark? Then you’ve got (presumably more) lawyers involved. Is that really the risk you want to take? Keep in mind, Angelo admitted a couple of years ago that one of the reasons why Wing Bowl was shelved is because movements like #MeToo. Society looked at the “Wingette” differently in 2018 than 2008, right? He knows this is a sensitive area and one that’s best avoided.

Normally I’d agree with Angelo that talking about something is a good thing. He points out the hypocrisy of a talk station not talking. That’s fair. Hell, Spike did mention the incident last week; he just declined to go into detail about it. He essentially distanced himself from it, but at least he didn’t pretend like nothing happened. That’s probably the most acceptable way to proceed. You’re just asking for trouble if you open the door to a bunch of sports fans chiming in on a delicate, non-sports subject.

At the risk of sounding like a hypocrite, a recent example that I think is different is the Eliot Shorr-Parks/DeSean Jackson gang ties story. I was one of the people beating the drum for WIP to talk about it, the main difference being that Eliot did not even work at WIP when the story was written, and that if he stood by his work, he should back it up 10 years later and explain the same things I explained on this website, 1) that he never accused DeSean of being in a gang at all and 2) had on-record quotes from an LAPD detective, among others. There was an opportunity there to support a current employee and discuss the hot Eagles topic of the week, while this Howard thing is a sensitive HR matter and a disaster waiting to happen. That’s how you differentiate these two situations.

Now let’s get it back to the Eagles. Is Nick Sirianni on the hot seat?