Tulsa World sues Bates

[pmcalk]

Tulsa World has filed a libel suit against Bates & UrbanTulsa:

quote:The Tulsa World sued Urban Tulsa Weekly and columnist Michael Bates for libel on Thursday, citing what it says was Bates' false claim that the World had misled advertisers about the newspaper's circulation.

"When a firm purportedly in the news business makes a claim that we have misled our advertisers, they call into question our integrity, and we cannot and will not let that stand," World Publisher Robert E. Lorton III said.

Specifically, the World objects to Bates' claim in the Jan. 15 Urban Tulsa Weekly that the World concealed circulation declines from 1997 to 2007. Bates specifically alleges that a 2006 report by the Audit Bureau of Circulation "suggests the World was inflating its circulation by as much as 20 percent."

The World said the ABC audit showed drops of 6 percent in daily circulation and 5 percent in Sunday circulation for the period in question.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20090116_16_A9_TheTul431110

Bates writes about the suit on his blog:

http://www.batesline.com/archives/2009/01/sued-by-the-whirled.html

[cannon_fodder]

Interesting.  Vaaaary interesting.

[sgrizzle]

[dbacks fan]

All this over an article questioning the validity of TW circulation numbers? What's the matter? Slow news day, no 3 martini lunch, need to find someone elses lunch money to steal? It seems to me the more appropriate thing to do would be to ask Bate's about his sources and how he compiled  his info, not run to the principal and say "Mike's picking on me again!"

[we vs us]

I have no opinion on the lawsuit, but I like Sgrizz's pic. I will be stealing it for future use.

[waterboy]

Criticizing the World for bias, poor reporting, errors and flaws in leadership is one thing. But when you go after their lifeblood, their advertising revenues and what they are based on, you poke the giant in his eye and he will retaliate.

My experience in advertising as an account rep for the Tulsa World and various other print publications, is that readership, circulation and print runs are rarely accurate or dependable at any one point in time. They are only descriptive over a period of time using credible auditing firms. It seems they all come very close to outright lies. Urban Tulsa is no exception.

[Gold]

Titus is a very good attorney and really one of the best in this area.

Get out the popcorn.  This should be interesting.

Bates is not a journalist and perhaps his lack of formal training in that area is finally coming back to bite him.  I won't shed a tear for him.

[cannon_fodder]

I'm annoyed that the World didn't post a copy of it's own damn petition.  I'll be at the courthouse later, maybe I'll grab a copy and scan it in.  Would/should be interesting for sure as Gold indicated.

[inteller]

quote:Originally posted by Gold

Titus is a very good attorney and really one of the best in this area.

Get out the popcorn.  This should be interesting.

Bates is not a journalist and perhaps his lack of formal training in that area is finally coming back to bite him.  I won't shed a tear for him.

listen, I'm no fan of bates either, but his research skills are better than 90% of the reporters of any rag in this town.  If  TW conducted research like bates did, they would be in a stronger position than they are and have no need to sue a weekly rag.

[pmcalk]

Here's a question for lawyers out there--Do you think that a paper would be considered a "public figure" for purposes of libel?  In other words, would a paper have to prove actual malice to win a libel case?  Talk about turning the tables....

[inteller]

quote:Originally posted by pmcalk

Here's a question for lawyers out there--Do you think that a paper would be considered a "public figure" for purposes of libel?  In other words, would a paper have to prove actual malice to win a libel case?  Talk about turning the tables....

i don't think this is so much of a libel suit as it is a private version of a SLAP suit.  TW just wants to shut up Bates and UTW for good.  Them going after Bates individually is dubious at best since the article was put in the UTW under contract.  UTW should probably be the only one listed on the suit.

[Kiah]

quote:Originally posted by pmcalk

Here's a question for lawyers out there--Do you think that a paper would be considered a "public figure" for purposes of libel?  In other words, would a paper have to prove actual malice to win a libel case?  Talk about turning the tables....

That's an excellent question.  Another one . . . Will Michael hire the most prominent First Amendment lawyer in town (notable Democrat Doug Dodd)?

There is a real downside to filing a libel suit.  All of your dirty laundry becomes subject to discovery (document production, depositions, etc.).  It could turn into a really interesting case study in the decline of the hard-copy press . . . .

[inteller]

quote:Originally posted by Kiah

quote:Originally posted by pmcalk

Here's a question for lawyers out there--Do you think that a paper would be considered a "public figure" for purposes of libel?  In other words, would a paper have to prove actual malice to win a libel case?  Talk about turning the tables....

That's an excellent question.  Another one . . . Will Michael hire the most prominent First Amendment lawyer in town (notable Democrat Doug Dodd)?

There is a real downside to filing a libel suit.  All of your dirty laundry becomes subject to discovery (document production, depositions, etc.).  It could turn into a really interesting case study in the decline of the hard-copy press . . . .

yes, even if UTW and bates don't win, they will drag TW through the muck.  Not sure TW wants to really start opening the books.

[Kiah]

1974 US Supreme Court decision, Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., the Court defined public figures as those who have "thrust themselves to the forefront of particular public controversies in order to influence the resolution of the issues involved."

Sounds like the Tulsa World to me.

[Kiah]

quote: The World has been hemorrhaging readers for well over a decade. Daily circulation dropped more than 30 percent between 1998 and 2008, from 162,186 to 110,467. Sunday circulation took a similar fall. This is a decline on the same order of magnitude as the New Orleans Times-Picayune.

The circulation decline was concealed for a time because in late 1997 the World withdrew from the semi-annual circulation audits performed by the independent Audit Bureau of Circulations (ABC), only rejoining in time for the March 2006 audit.

During the interim, the daily hired its own consultants to conduct market surveys and circulation estimates. The steep drop between the paid consultant's March 2005 count and the March 2006 ABC numbers suggest that the World was inflating its circulation by as much as 20 percent.

I just re-read the editorial, and I think it's a pretty weak case.  If the steep drop from March 2005 to March 2006 was unusual -- out of line with previous annual declines or declines seen in other papers during that period, one might reasonably infer that a significant portion of the decline dating back to 1997 (even "as much as 20%") was attributable to the shift back from a paid consultant to an independent national survey.  At least, one might reasonably say that the "numbers suggest" as much -- which is all Michael did.