Tulsa World sues Bates

[MDepr2007]

You forgot the millions going to Whittier Square Improvement District.

[Bledsoe]

If the Tulsa World is a "public figure" for the purpose of the Bates "Opinion" piece in Urban Tulsa (note: the suit calls it a "Story"), then the defendant will face all the hurdles I previously mentioned, but in proving the required "actual malice" it will  also have to show what Bates (and the UT publisher Keith Skrzypcak) were subjectively thinking when they wrote and edited/approved the column.

Also from Herbert v. Oklahoma Christian Coalition, Inc., 1999 OK 90, 992 P.2d 322

http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?id=35657&hits=
_________________________________

¶35 In New York Times public official defamation cases, the focus of inquiry is not on the defendant's attitude toward the plaintiff, but rather on the defendant's attitude toward the truth or falsity of the statement alleged to be defamatory. Varanese v. Gall, 518 N.E.2d 1177, 1180 (Ohio 1988). Evidence of hatred, spite, vengefulness, or deliberate intention to harm can never, standing alone, warrant a verdict for the plaintiff in such cases. Id. The Gall court went on to state that a defendant who was motivated to publish by the "blackest spirit of hatred and spite" will not be liable if he subjectively believed in the truth of the statement, citing Smolla, Law of Defamation 3-38, § 3.15 (1986). Reckless disregard may be established by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant proceeded to publication despite a high degree of awareness of probable falsity, or that the defendant in fact entertained serious doubts as to the truth of his publication. Id. See also, Jurkowski v. Crawley, 637 P.2d at 61.

¶36 [Defendant] testified in his deposition that he did not act out of ill will, hatred or malice. While this kind of self-serving statement would not be enough on its own, [defendant] has shown that he undertook an investigation of certain pieces of legislation and relied on information provided by other organizations .... . The evidentiary material supports [his] statements that he acted on the belief that the statements in the Voter Guide were substantially correct. The plaintiff has alleged that the defendant misrepresented his voting record and stand on certain issues. The defendant has shown votes cast by the plaintiff and reports by other organizations from which he concluded that the plaintiff supported those measures or issues. It is defendant's conclusions from reviewing that information that are alleged to be "false".

. . .

¶37 The issue of actual malice is for the trier of fact only after a determination that plaintiff has presented evidentiary material upon which a jury might find that actual malice has been shown with convincing clarity. Plaintiff in the case at bar has failed to surmount that evidentiary obstacle. Thus, plaintiff failed to establish "actual malice" on the part of the defendant.

___________________________

See also:

Jurkowski v. Crawley, 1981 OK 110,637 P.2d 56,    
http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=5058

WASHINGTON v. WORLD PUBLISHING COMPANY, 1972 OK 166, 506 P.2d 913
http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=42434

Luper v. Black Dispatch Pub. Co., 1983 OK CIV APP 54, 675 P.2d 1028
http://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?id=9633&hits=
_______________________________

Seems like a really tough row to hoe unless there is evidence of Bates et al telling someone they knew what they were writing was false.

[tim huntzinger]

The 'article' was filled with inaccuracies, innuendo, hearsay, and seemed to be published for the sole reason to hurt the value of the World.  I hope they go to court because I have a feeling the World could drain Panticzek and his stooge of resources rather quickly.  So I hope the loyyahs keep noodling out these definitions and arguments to keep it going as loooong as possible.  The World can just cut a couple more positions to make up the difference, what is the Weakly going to do, depend on greedy blood-sucking loyyahs to pro-bono for them? Riiiiight.

[blindnil]

Bates' column has now been removed from the UT Web site. What does that have to say about its validity?

[tim huntzinger]

quote:Originally posted by blindnil

Bates' column has now been removed from the UT Web site. What does that have to say about its validity?

Now let us see if he re-publishes his hearsay, inaccuracies, and vomitus on his 'blog.' Hope KRMG is proud of their 'political analyst'!

[TheArtist]

quote:Originally posted by MDepr2007

You forgot the millions going to Whittier Square Improvement District.

Ooook?

Dont have the foggiest idea of what your angle is lol?


But it does bring up an interesting point. It seems its easier to get money spent, than it is to change any codes or zoning. The city could spend money sprucing up the area, then a developer could go in and tear down the old buildings and replace them with a strip mall. Though I am honestly not that familiar with the plans for that area, or if the area has any.  I dont know whether or not the area is protected in any way or has any restrictions on whether new stuff has to be built to the sidewalk, etc. Not even sure if the people in the area are wanting something like that?

[Rico]

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

quote:Originally posted by MDepr2007

You forgot the millions going to Whittier Square Improvement District.

Ooook?

Dont have the foggiest idea of what your angle is lol?


But it does bring up an interesting point. It seems its easier to get money spent, than it is to change any codes or zoning. The city could spend money sprucing up the area, then a developer could go in and tear down the old buildings and replace them with a strip mall. Though I am honestly not that familiar with the plans for that area, or if the area has any.  I dont know whether or not the area is protected in any way or has any restrictions on whether new stuff has to be built to the sidewalk, etc. Not even sure if the people in the area are wanting something like that?

Could we please insert something remotely related to "The Bates Lawsuit"....

Maybe a picture like this...


I confuse easily... and the talk regarding "The Channels, COHN etc" does not help.

[guido911]

Bledsoe:  You are doing a great job on researching (and thereby educating us)this complicated issue for us here. kudos.

As for the lawsuit as a whole, I believe if the World believes it has been defamed with the intent to damage its economic viability by UTW, then it should sue. Freedom of the press and speech are not so sancrosanct that people can say or print whatever they want and expect some sort of immunity for the action.

[David Arnett]

After three pages of comment here on Tulsa Now you would think someone would have mentioned that this is not the first time the Tulsa World (TW) has sued Urban Tulsa (UT).  Last time, it was over a UT published allegation that the TW owned a parking lot near their office and, therefore, would benefit directly from public money on one of the downtown redevelopment proposals later defeated.  The TW won that one by settlement as I remember it and UT ran a full page (expensive) advertisement in the TW apologizing in very specific terms.

I have no dog in this fight or interest in writing stories/analysis about it because, in my never-so-humble opinion; 1.) All parties share the same faults, 2.) It matters not at all to most Tulsans, and 3.) I am laughing too hard to type ... Pompous, arrogant and, at best, marginally coherent local twerps battling each other for little or no purpose – priceless.

P.S.  I would bet on the Tulsa World winning.

[tim huntzinger]

quote:Originally posted by Rico

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

quote:Originally posted by MDepr2007

You forgot the millions going to Whittier Square Improvement District.

Ooook?

Dont have the foggiest idea of what your angle is lol?


But it does bring up an interesting point. It seems its easier to get money spent, than it is to change any codes or zoning. The city could spend money sprucing up the area, then a developer could go in and tear down the old buildings and replace them with a strip mall. Though I am honestly not that familiar with the plans for that area, or if the area has any.  I dont know whether or not the area is protected in any way or has any restrictions on whether new stuff has to be built to the sidewalk, etc. Not even sure if the people in the area are wanting something like that?

Could we please insert something remotely related to "The Bates Lawsuit"....

Maybe a picture like this...


I confuse easily... and the talk regarding "The Channels, COHN etc" does not help.

RICO!! LURKER! LURKER!



TheArtist is clearly concerned that a champion of his causes and loves is ready to depart the scene, to the detriment of all Tulsans.

[Bledsoe]

quote:Originally posted by blindnil

Bates' column has now been removed from the UT Web site. What does that have to say about its validity?

For those of you who have not read the Urban Tulsa article by Bates, that resulted in the Tulsa World suit, you can still read it, courtesy of the World's on posting of the lawsuit itself, with attached Urban Tulsa article:

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

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by Bledsoe

quote:Originally posted by blindnil

Bates' column has now been removed from the UT Web site. What does that have to say about its validity?

For those of you who have not read the Urban Tulsa article by Bates, that resulted in the Tulsa World suit, you can still read it, courtesy of the World's on posting of the lawsuit itself, with attached Urban Tulsa article:

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

Thanks for the attachment. I hadn't read it but knew of its general nature. I must live in a different world than most of you. Bates' article was screaming, "Please, sue me! Please!" It was filled with innacuracies, both historical and factual. Even his assertions as to when and why the community editions operated was wrong. Well written but simply came up with wrong conclusions. And there were plenty of conclusions drawn but not substantiated.

Last in...first out? That is a defensible management move. Otherwise your long term employees will sue you. It is very hard to quantify who is waiting for retirement vs who is fresh and full of ideas etc. You also have to balance off established contacts with newbie errors. That was just plain pandering bs. Bates knows the UT reader loves that stuff.

like I said earlier, its one thing to challenge a paper for bias and poor management, its quite another to accuse them of fraud and deception. I was very disappointed in the venom UT poured into this article. They deserve a suit, some loss of credibility and financial punishment. It was a total failure of disciplin by UT and Bates.

[patric]

quote:Originally posted by Bledsoe

For those of you who have not read the Urban Tulsa article by Bates, that resulted in the Tulsa World suit, you can still read it, courtesy of the World's on posting of the lawsuit itself, with attached Urban Tulsa article:
http://www.tulsaworld.com//webextra/content/items/suit0116.PDF

Didnt the Whirled send a cease and desist order to Bates a while back about him citing TW articles in his columns?

http://www.tulsanow.net/forum/topic.asp?ARCHIVE=true&TOPIC_ID=1432
'Specifically, the World claims Bates has "reproduced (in whole or in part) articles and/or editorials from the Tulsa World newspaper or has inappropriately linked [his] website to Tulsa World content."'

Can you say "hypocrites" ?

[joe dolty]

This is the third time the TW has sued UTW and second time Michael Bates. They have yet to win. If I were a betting man, I'd bet they'll remain oh-fer.

[guido911]

quote:Originally posted by David Arnett

After three pages of comment here on Tulsa Now you would think someone would have mentioned that this is not the first time the Tulsa World (TW) has sued Urban Tulsa (UT).  

Well thank goodness your here.