Tulsa World sues Bates

[tim huntzinger]

So on Chris Medlock's show yesterday, he stated that Bates was 'blindsided' by the lawsuit [podcasts here], again making it seem as though the World did not try to settle the matter before filing.  Chris was also quite dismissive of Keith Scriptjacked, saying the last name must be Polish for 'gutless.' Ha!

[Conan71]

So, will there be a parting of the ways between MB and UTW?  

Has Mudschlock ever owned a small business???  Just a guess, but I'm imagining KFAG maintains an insurance policy for his on-air conduct.  I seriously doubt if ever sued for his on-air comments that Chris would be out a dime, personally.

I don't really think of it as Skrzypczak throwing Bates under the bus.  I can see the reasoning in wanting the suit to go away quickly if it were my business.  Fine, capitulate, print a retraction, perhaps have to spend $$ for a humiliating ad in the World.  Beats spending thousands more on legal fees.  I think KS acted rationally in this instance.

[sgrizzle]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

So, will there be a parting of the ways between MB and UTW?  

Has Mudschlock ever owned a small business???  Just a guess, but I'm imagining KFAG maintains an insurance policy for his on-air conduct.  I seriously doubt if ever sued for his on-air comments that Chris would be out a dime, personally.

I don't really think of it as Skrzypczak throwing Bates under the bus.  I can see the reasoning in wanting the suit to go away quickly if it were my business.  Fine, capitulate, print a retraction, perhaps have to spend $$ for a humiliating ad in the World.  Beats spending thousands more on legal fees.  I think KS acted rationally in this instance.

But by issuing the retraction, and negotiating completely behind MB's back, they hung him out to dry, at least a little.

[Conan71]

MB is welcome to step in and correct me if I'm wrong, and I'd understand if he can't talk about it at the moment.  But I believe he's a contract columnist and not a payroll reporter.  It's debateable as to whether or not UTW or it's editor has a responsibility to cover for a contract columnist.  According to the retraction, UTW's liability seemed to be for not verifying with the Tulsa World whether or not the facts presented in the column were accurate or not.

We don't know that Keith didn't discuss this with Michael prior to being released from the suit, from what's been said in this thread so far.  Based on TW's reaction to Keith's capitulation/retraction, I'd be willing to think that they'd let Michael off the hook for a similar retraction.  

This appears to be a fairly rare lapse in Michael's research and commentary.  Love him or hate him, he's one of the sharper researchers the Tulsa media complex has ever seen.  Anytime I've sought to back up his claims or research, he proves to be spot-on most all the time.

The retraction/clarification is on Page 6.

http://www.urbantulsa.com/currentissue.pdf

[mrburns918]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

MB is welcome to step in and correct me if I'm wrong, and I'd understand if he can't talk about it at the moment.  But I believe he's a contract columnist and not a payroll reporter.  It's debateable as to whether or not UTW or it's editor has a responsibility to cover for a contract columnist.  According to the retraction, UTW's liability seemed to be for not verifying with the Tulsa World whether or not the facts presented in the column were accurate or not.

We don't know that Keith didn't discuss this with Michael prior to being released from the suit, from what's been said in this thread so far.  Based on TW's reaction to Keith's capitulation/retraction, I'd be willing to think that they'd let Michael off the hook for a similar retraction.  

This appears to be a fairly rare lapse in Michael's research and commentary.  Love him or hate him, he's one of the sharper researchers the Tulsa media complex has ever seen.  Anytime I've sought to back up his claims or research, he proves to be spot-on most all the time.

The retraction/clarification is on Page 6.

http://www.urbantulsa.com/currentissue.pdf

I have never checked but does UTW have a disclaimer saying the editorial views do not represent UTW's views? I assumed most papers have this down for instances like this. If so, why the apology? The beef would be solely on Michael Bates.

Mr. Burns

[Gold]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

MB is welcome to step in and correct me if I'm wrong, and I'd understand if he can't talk about it at the moment.  But I believe he's a contract columnist and not a payroll reporter.  It's debateable as to whether or not UTW or it's editor has a responsibility to cover for a contract columnist.  According to the retraction, UTW's liability seemed to be for not verifying with the Tulsa World whether or not the facts presented in the column were accurate or not.

We don't know that Keith didn't discuss this with Michael prior to being released from the suit, from what's been said in this thread so far.  Based on TW's reaction to Keith's capitulation/retraction, I'd be willing to think that they'd let Michael off the hook for a similar retraction.  

This appears to be a fairly rare lapse in Michael's research and commentary.  Love him or hate him, he's one of the sharper researchers the Tulsa media complex has ever seen.  Anytime I've sought to back up his claims or research, he proves to be spot-on most all the time.

The retraction/clarification is on Page 6.

http://www.urbantulsa.com/currentissue.pdf

Where are all the people who said this suit was baseless?

*crickets*

[inteller]

it is baseless.  I look forward to TW proving how the word "suggests" is the same as "fact".

I guess it depends on what your definition of "is" is.

[guido911]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

I assume you are easy to find.  I see that 3 summons were issued.  Wonder why they didn't just zip one off certified mail.  Perhaps they were contact by the UTW and are wrapping that up before turning their attention to you.

FYI, they have 180 days before they need to perfect service.  So really there is no rush.  But in general, if you file a suit you may as well get the ball rolling.

Nahhh. Make 'em sweat a little. []

[Gold]

quote:Originally posted by inteller

it is baseless.  I look forward to TW proving how the word "suggests" is the same as "fact".

I guess it depends on what your definition of "is" is.

Can someone with a clue give me an answer?  Thx.

Seriously, only YOU would think that the retraction in Urban Tulsa didn't pretty much concede the suit had merit.  And you are basically an angry version of Joe Allen Dolty, so I don't really care about the merits of your thoughts -- it's just background noise like the *crickets* above.  Not trying to flame, just stating the facts.

[Wrinkle]

quote:Originally posted by Gold

quote:Originally posted by inteller

it is baseless.  I look forward to TW proving how the word "suggests" is the same as "fact".

I guess it depends on what your definition of "is" is.

Can someone with a clue give me an answer?  Thx.

Seriously, only YOU would think that the retraction in Urban Tulsa didn't pretty much concede the suit had merit.  And you are basically an angry version of Joe Allen Dolty, so I don't really care about the merits of your thoughts.  Not trying to flame, just stating the facts.

World doesn't have a prayer. This is all about busting Bates, fiscally. Can you imagine the World presenting their 'facts' to a jury? We might expect the World to drag this out for years just bleeding him unless he becomes proactive.

Did UT have a daily in the works? Was the World (or perhaps did already) at risk of losing advertisers due to that? Threat extinguished?

Whatever, they were looking for opportunity.
Less than 24hrs after publication filing suit.
Even attorneys don't work that fast unless pushed real hard, or 90% of the paperwork was in the drawer.

[Gold]

Like I said above, the TW's counsel is excellent in this field and is seen as a great attorney.  UTW retracted the story in a big ad that goes where Bates' story usually starts -- after removing the story from their web site.  I'm not sure how you evaluate the merits of the claim beyond that.

The case makes perfect sense for a jury.  Bates lied about the TW's business.  I've seen worse libel cases make a lot of money.

Maybe Bates can hire Opala to represent him. [}:)]

[tim huntzinger]

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle


Whatever, they were looking for opportunity.
Less than 24hrs after publication filing suit.
Even attorneys don't work that fast unless pushed real hard, or 90% of the paperwork was in the drawer.

'Krehbiel, T.World: 'Lorton said the World's attorney contacted Skrzypczak after the paper appeared on newsstands Jan. 14. Lorton said the World provided Urban Tulsa with the circulation audits in question.
'After receiving no public retraction or indication that efforts were being made to retract the story, World Publishing Co. filed suit against Skrzypczak, Urban Tulsa's publishing company and columnist Michael Bates.'

Is it just me or does it read like on the 14th the World contacted Keith & Co and presented the audits? I suppose 'after' the 14th could have meant at 4:45pm the 15h, but I do not believe it was less than 24 hours after publication.

[Wrinkle]

quote:Originally posted by tim huntzinger

quote:Originally posted by Wrinkle


Whatever, they were looking for opportunity.
Less than 24hrs after publication filing suit.
Even attorneys don't work that fast unless pushed real hard, or 90% of the paperwork was in the drawer.

'Krehbiel, T.World: 'Lorton said the World's attorney contacted Skrzypczak after the paper appeared on newsstands Jan. 14. Lorton said the World provided Urban Tulsa with the circulation audits in question.
'After receiving no public retraction or indication that efforts were being made to retract the story, World Publishing Co. filed suit against Skrzypczak, Urban Tulsa's publishing company and columnist Michael Bates.'

Is it just me or does it read like on the 14th the World contacted Keith & Co and presented the audits? I suppose 'after' the 14th could have meant at 4:45pm the 15h, but I do not believe it was less than 24 hours after publication.

It's you...

None of the above info was reported until a full week after the fact, and those events you attribute to the 14th very likely occurred during the interim, not on the 14th.

Bates relates he was contacted at 3:45pm the 15th, 45-mins after the suit was filed.

Publication was on the 14th. I suppose if you count from midnight 14th (12:01am), I'd have to expand to less than 48hrs.

Think 'overnight' might be the best way to present it.

[cannon_fodder]

GOLD:

You know damn well that a party caving says nothing about the merits of the case.  You said yourself the Lortons, one of THE richest families in town, went out and hired THE best attorney in this area in town.  They owned the paper, so any attorney going up against them had better have no plans of running for a judgeship. They had also better be willing to work for nearly nothing for the UTW while surely getting buried in paperwork.

Likewise, a good attorney will take a bad case from a great client any day of the week. Pay your bill and I can make a case.  If Bates could afford a $40,000,000 home he could hire a very well regarded attorney too.  Would that mean you would suddenly think his case had more merit?  Merit is not based on how pricey or well regarded your attorney is.

You own a small business.  You have a choice of either pulling a story and publishing an apology OR dropping down at least $10,000 on a retainer.  If this went to trial the tab could easily double that by the end of this year.   Very easily.  If you want to keep making money you tuck your tail and publish a retraction - and maybe have a few more issues circulated that week to boot.  

A critical reading of the Bates article shows that it could be construed as libel.  It gave some figures, states some facts, and then gave an opinionated assessment of that data.  Per the complaint Bates said the data "suggests the World was inflating its circulation by as much as 20 percent."   Can the data be construed to "suggest" such a thing?  Probably.

If the UTW or Bates were my client I'd ask if a retraction would hurt their business model (it wouldn't) and if pride would prevent them from doing so.  If they thought it was worth $10,000+ to fight it, I'd be happy to go forward.  But certainly advising them to SFTU and stay in business would be an option I'd present.

While I am not calling the claim unfounded (if I thought it was I'd volunteer to defend and go for fees), I think there is enough wiggle room between "suggestions" and the data to raise a significant defense and they damn well know it (hence letting UTW off with a wrist slap).

And FINALLY, Michael Bates is a political talking head, activist, and independent writer in Tulsa.  No offense to Michael, but that description usually does not imply that said person would have anything that a family worth hundreds of millions would want.  This is about proving that the Tulsa World is THE PAPER and shutting Bates up.  They may have been forced to act to save face, but I doubt they shed many tears over the matter (they sued the day after the issue came out).

One of two things will happen.  They'll either spend thousands and drive Bates into the ground to get nothing merely out of spite or settle for a BS apology and an agreed entry that says he won't do it again.  The Lorton's and their attorney are not stupid, there is no blood from the turnip and they know it.  So I doubt they spend the tens of thousands needed to fully pursue the matter.

[Wrinkle]

quote:Originally posted by Gold

Like I said above, the TW's counsel is excellent in this field and is seen as a great attorney.  UTW retracted the story in a big ad that goes where Bates' story usually starts -- after removing the story from their web site.  I'm not sure how you evaluate the merits of the claim beyond that.

The case makes perfect sense for a jury.  Bates lied about the TW's business.  I've seen worse libel cases make a lot of money.

Maybe Bates can hire Opala to represent him. [}:)]

quote: Bates lied about the TW's business

...think you're jumping the shark here.

Wouldn't surprise me a bit to find the World is the actual source Bates used for some of the info, but, iac, the numbers he presented came from somewhere. He's not one to make stuff up.

And, by critical analysis, "as much as" represents a dichotomy between that published info.

Given that, it'd be REAL hard to prove he lied, must less had intent to do so.

IMO, he may be wrong, but he didn't lie.

UT accepted figures presented to them by the World. Aren't those the same figures in question?