Tulsa World sues Bates

[Hometown]

The Tulsa World has presided over Tulsa's decline.  It is the crystalization of a mindset that has damaged Tulsa and left her a sad second to -- not Dallas, not Kansas City, but sorry a** OKC.

The same old crowd that got us into this fix isn't going to have the ideas or the motivation to get us out.  In fact they will fight to keep things as they are because they profit by it.

The World's net effect on Tulsa has been negative.  Their demise would immediately present the opportunity for positive change.

[Gold]

I think you are overstating the cause/effect relationship.  The World didn't cause oil prices to fall through the floor in the early 80's; it didn't cause the dot.com bust in 2002 or so; it didn't cause a bunch of bad urban planning and irresponsible home builders to make Tulsa grow geographically beyond what it could afford; it isn't robbing banks or shooting people, either.

Do the Lortons have ties to people who have made mistakes here?  Certainly.  Most of us do that have families that have been here a couple of generations.

I do think we need some new ideas.  We need people to stick around and invest in this place.  Most of that needs to happen in the business community.  I think people, especially on Web forums, spend way too much time talking about the local paper.

(Why do they do that?  I don't know.  Maybe it's an easy target, maybe it's symbol for some.)

OKC still sucks and you'd have to really think twice about living there if you could also be in Tulsa.

Maybe . . . and this is out of leftfield . . . TulsaNow would benefit if we got someone to profile and discuss new businesses in town, especially those that move here.  We do that right now with restaurants to some degree.  But what if we did that with businesses that have multiple salaried people?  Maybe that gets the word out on more positive PR, maybe it helps Tulsans understand the business climate better, and maybe it focuses us on what the issues really are.

I think our local problems are a somewhat constipated local economy and a weak tax base that can't pay the bills on everything we need to remain a vibrant community.  The editorial decisions of the major local paper are far down the list.

[Hometown]

I think you are making an apology for an entity that doesn't deserve one.  The World's sins predate the 80s oil collapse.  The World has pushed an agenda of economic diversification since the mid 70s when they should have led a fight to retain as much of the oil business as we could.  We are paying dearly for that mistake today.

The World has pushed development at the cost of our historic neighborhoods and buildings.  I believe they are singularly responsible for the lack of historic preservation.  They are singularly responsible for Tulsa dropping the ball on zoning and design integrity for our new neighbors.  Under their watch Tulsa Beautiful has become Tulsa Not So Beautiful.  Tulsa Strip Mall Ugly.

A paper shapes what a town believes itself.  And of course, you are right, they are not alone.  They are joined by other local moneyed families – a group that is without imagination or ideas.  It is a group that led us into our current predicament and a group that cannot lead us out of this mess even if they wanted to.  

Like I've said before, "Can we trade in our rich folks?"

I don't like major decisions about Tulsa being made in back rooms.  I want elected officials to make decisions about Tulsa's future and I want a full debate of the issues covered by the local newspaper.

I want a paper that understands the value of criticism without labeling anyone who disagrees with their agenda a naysayer.

[deinstein]

I think the Urban Tulsa is junk, but I'm a big fan of Bates. He brings to the table a very sophisticated analysis on urban planning and I appreciate what he brings to the table in that regard. Political rants and battles with the Lorton's aside, he's a great asset to the community.

[Gold]

In my experience, some of the issues that I have believed the World was wrong on were pretty complex things, like how county budgets work and property taxes.  By trade, journalists are generalists and they lose some nuance in practice.  

On other things, I'm not sure how much the paper's opinion matters -- I don't think it affects the overall business climate all that much, though it certainly can have an effect.  

I don't think they are really a barrier to new development or growth.  I think their staff wants to see Tulsa flourish as much as the rest of us.  

I think a bigger barrier to local growth is a sense of pessimisim and negativity that permeates the air in this town.  Certain people just like to complain and some of those complaints are unfair or mean-spirited.  I'm all for being critical and analytical, but then again, I think we need fewer commentators (or at least spend less time talking and arguing) and more people doing things and taking risks.

People taking controlled risks and investing in the community made Tulsa a great city and I don't think the paper had much to do with it (though it is a symbol, a record, and so many other things).  The commentators are often just noise that is beside the point.

Thanks for the good discussion, Hometown.

[TURobY]

quote:Originally posted by Gold


I think a bigger barrier to local growth is a sense of pessimisim and negativity that permeates the air in this town.

Ding ding ding! We have a winner. There is a strong sense of NIMBY-ism in this town for every single development. I understand that there are reasons for this, but complaints about everything wear me down.

People complain about developers and city officials not listening to the citizens, but with as much complaining as the citizens do, it's no wonder that everyone has tuned them out. The movers-and-shakers have to ignore everyone to get anything built around here.

[deinstein]

It's not pessimism. It's being an educated citizen on planning issues and realizing most development in this city is total ****.

[Conan71]

Gold, I'll skip the popcorn, got a case of Marshall's instead?

I've got somewhat of an inside perspective of both UTW and the TW.  UTW competes directly with the Spot, or should I say the Spot was created to compete with UTW.  Community World was created to compete with the various smaller community-based alternatives, and was eventually scuttled.

UTW has been a harsh critic of the World ever since the first issue was published in 1991 and I think TW has read every last issue looking for the opportunity to pull a stunt like this.  I think this makes the World look desperate in difficult times, personally.  They obviously see UTW as a serious threat to their financial well-being or they would have ignored this just like they have the other thousand or so barbs thrown their way over the years.

I am going to say though, that if you are going to pull numbers out in an article or column, they better not have come from your a**.  That's the problem, they finally quantified something that would qualify as fact, not opinion.  Spread the wrong "facts" about someone else and you can get a libel suit.

I'm kind of surprised Bates commented on his blog before seeing the suit or talking to an attorney.  

[MDepr2007]

quote:Originally posted by TURobY

quote:Originally posted by Gold


I think a bigger barrier to local growth is a sense of pessimisim and negativity that permeates the air in this town.

Ding ding ding! We have a winner. There is a strong sense of NIMBY-ism in this town for every single development. I understand that there are reasons for this, but complaints about everything wear me down.

People complain about developers and city officials not listening to the citizens, but with as much complaining as the citizens do, it's no wonder that everyone has tuned them out. The movers-and-shakers have to ignore everyone to get anything built around here.

You missed the city council meeting last night didn't ya..lol

[guido911]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

Per the libel and public figure question:

1) I don't think a business can be considered a public figure.  While a business can be parodied and otherwise treated LIKE a person and said rights are protected... it isn't a politician or other entity for which there is a greater value afforded criticism and thus greater protection should be afforded.

It's just another business.

2) The suit isn't really about ruining the reputation, journalistic integrity, or anything like that.  The allegation is that false statements were made the purpose of which was to lead readers to believe they were true.  These false statements could impact the company financially.

If he comment that they were all liars and their research suck or that they were extremely biases, etc.  That is protected.  But if he says their circulation figures are a fraud, that goes to the bottom line.  If they can prove the figures were correct and that Bates knew or should have known his documents were not correct, they will probably win.

/at least, in my 5 second analysis.

I read a California appellate court opinion today that followed this same line of thinking, most notably that a newspaper is like any other person. That is, it can sued and be sued for libel/defamation claims.

[tim huntzinger]

Ha ha! Go Whirld! About time! Reading the 'article' in UT Weakly leaves no doubt that the writer meant to suggest that the World LIED about their circulation numbers and went to great lengths to conceal those numbers.  I am only surprised that they were asking for $10K.  My impression from the 'article' is that the World LIES and that they are all LIARS absolutely lacking in business and journalistic judgment and if I were looking to advertise that should be the LAST PLACE TO LOOK.  UT Weakly should settle out of court and cut their losses - especially with all the other errors in the 'article.' Serves them right!

[Bledsoe]

National Headlines:  

MAN bites DOG!!!!!

Newspaper sues Newspaper!!!

SLATE:
David vs. Goliath in Tulsa
Why Tulsa's daily paper will regret suing the city's alternative weekly for libel.

http://www.slate.com/id/2208981/

[Bledsoe]

Here is the actual lawsuit:

http://www.tulsaworld.com//webextra/content/items/suit0116.PDF

[Wilbur]

quote:Originally posted by Hometown

The Tulsa World has presided over Tulsa's decline.  It is the crystalization of a mindset that has damaged Tulsa and left her a sad second to -- not Dallas, not Kansas City, but sorry a** OKC.

The same old crowd that got us into this fix isn't going to have the ideas or the motivation to get us out.  In fact they will fight to keep things as they are because they profit by it.

The World's net effect on Tulsa has been negative.  Their demise would immediately present the opportunity for positive change.

AMEN!

[pmcalk]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

Per the libel and public figure question:

1) I don't think a business can be considered a public figure.  While a business can be parodied and otherwise treated LIKE a person and said rights are protected... it isn't a politician or other entity for which there is a greater value afforded criticism and thus greater protection should be afforded.

It's just another business.

2) The suit isn't really about ruining the reputation, journalistic integrity, or anything like that.  The allegation is that false statements were made the purpose of which was to lead readers to believe they were true.  These false statements could impact the company financially.

If he comment that they were all liars and their research suck or that they were extremely biases, etc.  That is protected.  But if he says their circulation figures are a fraud, that goes to the bottom line.  If they can prove the figures were correct and that Bates knew or should have known his documents were not correct, they will probably win.

/at least, in my 5 second analysis.

CF,

I disagree.  I think that a paper is not like any other business precisely because it is in the 1st Amendment business.  Wouldn't you think it odd that a newspaper could defend it's practices by claiming the first amendment provides it with a higher level of protection, but then turn around and claim that it is simply a business, and should not have that same standard applied?  What's good for the goose, IMO.  If the First Amendment guarantee the freedom of the press, it must also guarantee freedom to attack the press.

As for the type of statements made, I'm not an expert, but I don't know that it matters.  If you are an elected official, and a newspaper runs a story that attacks your business, isn't that still protected?  And wasn't Bates in fact implying that circulation was down based upon the papers political positions?

By the way, if you read the petition, the World alleges malice, so they believe they are a public figure.  Who knows, maybe they will be able to prove it.