Tulsa World sues Bates

[joe dolty]

Michael Bates:

quote: TWO MORE THINGS:

I would love nothing better than to defend my column publicly, thoroughly, and immediately. I am ready to do so, but this issue has now moved from the realm of public discourse and debate to the realm of lawsuits and judges and hearings, so I have to look to attorneys for guidance on what can be said and when.

Many, many thanks to all of you who have taken the time to leave a comment or to drop me a note with words of encouragement. (I even heard from another conservative columnist named Michael Bates, who writes for Reporter Newspapers in suburban Chicago.)Special thanks to those who have offered prayers and assistance. For those of you who asked, at this time, I don't know what kind of financial needs we may have in connection with the lawsuit, but I will keep you posted.

[joe dolty]

Bounded Rationality

quote: Bates Sued by Daily Paper!

I will post some thoughts on this developing story later.

I stand in support of Michael Bates. I'm one that thinks Michael is one of Tulsa's great citizens, if for nothing else because that he cares deeply about his city, and it shows. He is often the voice of the "little guy" in this town, and perhaps that is the motivation behind the lawsuit.

The idea that a reporter from the entity suing him would call him for a reaction prior to the time he was actually served, is bothersome to me.

All the Best to Michael and the Urban Tulsa.

Bothers me too

[joe dolty]

quote: Tempting Bate(s)
By Tyson Wynn | January 17, 2009 | Print This Post


By now it's old news that The Tulsa World is suing The Urban Tulsa Weekly, its publisher, and Tulsa blog-father and UTW columnist, Michael Bates. I've met Michael, and Michael's been a repeat guest on the WynnCast. Heck, I even tease my wife about having a Bates crush sometimes because she loves his work so much.

Whatever one may think about Michael's ideology, you have to admit that he is genius-level smart, a great researcher, and thorough in presenting the bases for arriving at the opinions he holds. In the interest of full disclosure, I will state that I personally agree with Michael about 99.99% of the time (as to where we differ, I'm not sure he's a full-on Fair Tax supporter yet, and he seems dedicated to Moveable Type when we all know WordPress is the far superior blog framework). That said, he would have my support even if we didn't agree (yes, I have liberal friends, too). And here's why:

In my experience—and I have been threatened with libel/slander suits in roundabout ways—the threat of libel/slander is typically not about responding to actual harm resulting from a malicious lie someone has publicly spoken and/or published. It is typically an effort at intimidation rooted in the fact that someone is afraid that you have told a truth about them that they would rather not have known. It remains the truth, nonetheless. And, as my competent legal adviser is wont to remind me: the truth is an absolute defense against a charge of libel/slander.

[joe dolty]

quote: The trick to dealing with bullies is to stand up to them. Make them make good on their threats. Make them walk into court and make their claims. Make them subject themselves to discovery. Make them seat a jury of twelve average Tulsans who will listen to them claim that an independent weekly and a blogger hurt their business. Corporate bullies thrive on their ability to out-lawyer you (even though some have to let staff go due to economic hard times) to scare you into being quiet and to quit rocking the boat. Call their bluff...and counter sue.

Being the stand-up guy he is, Michael posted that he would have welcomed some contact from the World so he could have made a correction—if anything was indeed wrong:

If WPC [World Publishing Company] believes I've written something in error, I'm disappointed that the company would file a suit against me without first contacting me with evidence to contradict what I wrote and giving me the opportunity to issue a clarification or correction.

And let's deal with the real nub of the issue. Michael wouldn't have near the influence that he does in T-Town if the daily paper hadn't long ago all but abandoned any semblance of objectivity in its reporting. When you offend the politics of half the people in a conservative town, it's a real trick to blame the resultant drop in circulation (and I am not saying there is one, for you Tulsa World attorneys out there) on the independent weekly paper.

ahahaha

[waterboy]

Joe! Joe! Wake up buddy! Its just a dream. Wake up man for heavens sake...reality awaits.

I thought there was a restriction on multiple unanswered posting? Spam Lite?

[joe dolty]

Can't take alternative ideas I see...only ones you agree with I see...

[Hoss]

Hmm...wonders if this is v3 of FOTD/AOX.

I know it's early...

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by joe dolty

Can't take alternative ideas I see...only ones you agree with I see...

Ha! Hardly anyone agrees with me on anything. Especially here. I'm always open to alternative ideas based on something other than blogger idol worship, lockstep group think and hatred for the local newspaper.

I like Bates and think he writes real well. This was not his best work and reaked of a vendetta by him an KS. You and he think the World should have contacted him and questioned his facts out of some sort of professional courtesy? Thats rich.

I don't much care for my former employer, the World, but they know when they've been attacked and they know the best response for a repeat offender is a serious response.

[tim huntzinger]

quote:Originally posted by joe dolty

Can't take alternative ideas I see...only ones you agree with I see...

No, just anonymous trolls like you posting sychophantic apologies for yellow journalists.  Say, how much money do you make a year? Is that fair game to publish? Even if you do not double check it and have no way of proving/disproving it?  That is a 'great' Tulsan? Ha! Yeller!!

[blindnil]

As I remember it, Joe, the World sued Urban Tulsa once about the Lorton land issues and UT ended up settling the case by running numerous ads in its own publication and the World that they were completely wrong.

[cannon_fodder]

1.  TIM - they are suing for an amount "in excess" of $10,000.  Standard language to get into the correct court.  They may demand $50 Billion for all I know... the $10K means nothing except what it says - an amount in EXCESS of $10K.

2. PMCalk - Your syllogism is a bit troubled in that the criticism is levied by one paper against another.  Both are protected by the 1st Amendment and both have the responsibility of accurate reporting.  By Sudafed  fueled brain cannot at the moment write a decent logical paradigm, but my guess is the logic fails when viewed in that perspective.

And even IF you want to hold them to a higher standard, publishing known false statements is still tortuous.  If the World didn't think they could prove them false, they would not have sued.   My guess is they don't really care what the court determines on the public figure issue, they just want those "facts" declare false in a public court of law.

3. Bledsoe:  Thanks a ton for the research.  Fine job from all I can see and interesting on top of it.  Seems very much like Oklahoma Courts are still fumbling through the law on this one.

4.  I agree with the notion that it was poor taste to have a World reporter call for a comment before service was completed.  One could even argue that it constituted party contact.  I can't sue someone and then quickly call then for a possible detrimental recorded comment until they have an opportunity to be represented - at least not ethically.  

5. Reading the article from the TW perspective, I can see how they felt they HAD to act.  If they did nothing it could be construed as fact by advertisers and certainly they can not afford to have their numbers called into question as it calls their basis for charging ad fees into question.   Perhaps an article of their own in defense would have been more prudent, but nonetheless.

The language in Bates' column is softer than they allege:

- "suggest they were inflated their numbers"  by a "maximum" of 20%.

- the change in audit firms resulted in those numbers being concealed for a time when the World hired it's "own consultants."

TRUTH is an affirmative defense to libel.  If Bates has a line of reasoning that "suggests" the numbers were inflated and he can assert that the maximum was 20% - it seems to be true.  Certainly it is true that the numbers were somewhat concealed by the change in auditors and presumably the accounting firm served other rolls including "consulting" for the paper.  Hence, truth.

Criticizing the World to increase readership is not libel.  The UTW can criticize all they want so long as they don't cross the line.  On the merits of the case, I'm not sure TW has an upper hand.  "Suggests" is automatically followed by "to me" as a writing technique, and who's to say what those numbers suggest to Michael Bates better than Michael Bates.  Proving that the suggestion is unreasonable and made knowing that it was is a tall order.

My guess is the owners have had enough.  Being called out on a 30% circulation drop, on dropping close to $100,000 on a Country Club membership a week before laying off 28 people, and generally having YOUR paper called a POS lip service provider for your opinions was too much.  The suit seems somewhat desperate to me, certainly bad PR.  Certainly inviting anyone who wants to read over everything the TW does and wait for their chance to file a libel suit against them.

6. AND BAD FOR PUBLIC OPINION.

How does this look to everyone?  Will this encourage anyone to subscribe to the paper? It may help protect their ad revenue, but they should have been able to show audit reports to advertisers or publish a contort to buttress their position.  They have made their 30% decline a larger issue in the public eye and damaged their reputation among other journalists and in this community.

At least, IMHO.  I subscribe to the WOrld and have may fair share of criticism for Bates too... I think I have a balanced personal opinion on the matter.

[Wilbur]

I've just read Michael Bates' piece in the UT (it's still on news stands).  While I can't address the figures he and the Tulsa World dispute, I can highly recommend the Tulsa World take his advise if they ever want to see their readership increase.  A couple of examples from the article I agree with:

"Local family ownership has its downside.  The World's news and editorial coverage appears to be slanted to the benefit of the owning family's social and financial connections.

"Those Tulsans who are the most involved in and passionate about local issues and who would be the most likely to seek out and pay for sources of local news are the very subscribers that the World is losing."

"Through its long-standing policy of comforting the comfortable and afflicting the afflicted, the World has deepened the alienation between the city's establishment and ordinary citizens."

"If they want to regain readership, the World's owners and senior management need to confess and repent.  They need to acknowledge that their one-sided editorial section and the bias they've encouraged on the news pages have driven away readers.  And then they need to balance the paper -- add opposing views to the editorial board, hire an ombudsman to take a critical look at the paper's news coverage, convene focus groups of the paper's harshest critics."

Until the World takes these steps, most of us who used to be loyal subscribers in the past, will never spend one penny on their newspaper.  Don't they get it?  There are many of us in the Tulsa area screaming for balanced and fair news!

[joe dolty]

I just called and cancelled my subscription to the Tulsa World.  I told the operator that I refuse to support a company that would file a lawsuit without even talking to the parties involved and trying to settle ahead of time.

[joe dolty]

The World may or may not be right. If it goes to trial we'll find out then. The problem I have with their actions, which also make me suspicious of the whole lawsuit, is they filed it one day after the opinion piece came out without even trying to talk to Bates and the UTW. That's a big indication that it's a slap harrassment publicity suit and they know they have no legal leg to stand on.

[TURobY]

For someone who hates the Tulsa World so much, you sure do post a lot in their comments section.