|
Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: pmcalk on January 16, 2009, 08:14:33 am Tulsa World has filed a libel suit against Bates & UrbanTulsa:
quote: 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 Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: cannon_fodder on January 16, 2009, 08:32:03 am Interesting. Vaaaary interesting.
Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: sgrizzle on January 16, 2009, 08:48:53 am (http://carlnet.no-ip.org/foresight-poke-head.jpg)
Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: dbacks fan on January 16, 2009, 08:59:10 am 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!"
Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: we vs us on January 16, 2009, 09:00:36 am I have no opinion on the lawsuit, but I like Sgrizz's pic. I will be stealing it for future use.
Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: waterboy on January 16, 2009, 09:06:48 am 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. Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: Gold on January 16, 2009, 09:27:31 am 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. Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: cannon_fodder on January 16, 2009, 09:30:10 am 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.
Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: inteller on January 16, 2009, 09:35:44 am quote: 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. Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: pmcalk on January 16, 2009, 09:38:34 am 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....
Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: inteller on January 16, 2009, 10:45:09 am quote: 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. Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: Kiah on January 16, 2009, 10:55:53 am quote: 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 . . . . Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: inteller on January 16, 2009, 10:57:58 am quote: 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. Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: Kiah on January 16, 2009, 10:58:41 am 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. Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: Kiah on January 16, 2009, 11:54:36 am quote: 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. Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: RecycleMichael on January 16, 2009, 11:55:25 am I want to sue somebody...
I think inteller's avatar leads to global warming and causes me to be sunburned. See you in court. Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: Kiah on January 16, 2009, 11:59:34 am quote: I don't think that's the point. When you've fallen on hard times (laying off 28 employees), getting rid of a competitor for advertising, by any means necessary, would probably be a temptation. Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: Hometown on January 16, 2009, 12:01:06 pm Urban Tulsa and Bates' stock is way up in my estimation. It seems that the World is having trouble adjusting to a more sophisticated Tulsa and an informed and feisty citizenry. Maybe the bad economy and widespread industry ills will put the Tulsa World out of business.
Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: Gold on January 16, 2009, 12:08:18 pm quote: What advertising does UTW compete with the World for? They appear to go after different markets. The World advertises retail, auto, and a lot of more traditional large businesses that buy in bulk. UTW goes after bars, small salons, and "massage parlors." (I always snicker when I think about the ideological leanings of that paper in relation to its ad content.) There might be a little overlap in advertisers (Cherokee Casino), but not enough to constitute a motive for the lawsuit. Try again. Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: pmcalk on January 16, 2009, 12:13:20 pm quote: Actually, I would suspect that the TW felt the need to do this to cover their own interests. Businesses pay papers to advertise based upon how much circulation the paper receives. If a business thought that the TW inflated its figures in the past, it might sue the paper. Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: Gold on January 16, 2009, 12:13:57 pm quote: I'm not sure the readers of a paper that supported the Bates/Medlock agenda is really a more sophisticated Tulsa. It's not a bad paper and there is some value in there. But . . . really? Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: guido911 on January 16, 2009, 12:34:30 pm quote: I have had voluminous dealings with this firm and they have very talented and skilled attorneys. You are correct, it should get interesting. Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: inteller on January 16, 2009, 12:38:40 pm quote: actually it is an advertisement for weight loss. you should try it. Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: Hometown on January 16, 2009, 12:44:50 pm quote: Questioning the TulsaWorld in itself suggests a more sophisticated citizenry. I never seen a paper pursue it's own political agenda as openly as the TulsaWorld. Urban Tulsa is comparable to other weekly publications in other cities but in general there is only one news source in OK I've come across that I admire and that is OETA's Nightly Oklahoma report. Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: inteller on January 16, 2009, 12:52:59 pm I see people who I'd never imagine picking up a UTW. Maybe they do because it is free or maybe because they need a date for the night, but UTW tends to empty the stands I pass by.
Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: Gold on January 16, 2009, 01:00:08 pm quote: Everything should be questioned. That's part of an informed democracy. That doesn't mean that everything is always wrong or that we should attack everything that is different from us or that we do not understand at first. But, it sure helps to be engaged. Your initial suggestion, as I took it, was not that questioning the World = informed citizenry, but rather, that Bates and UTW somehow lead to a more informed citizenry (if you did not mean to make that connection, I apologize). Bates is wrong on something a lot of the time and judging by election results, particularly the judicial elections, his column has no effect on the outcome. The World's problems aren't unique to Tulsa. Newspaper readership is down nationwide. Part of that is new media, like the web. I hope part of that is not TV journalism (not all bad, but often not the best way of gathering all the information). I just hope that the journalists with training survive and continue to have a role in our system, as opposed to keyboard commandos who get a column in the local alternative newspaper/massage parlor ad. Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: sgrizzle on January 16, 2009, 01:20:09 pm quote: One newspaper runs an article saying the other newspaper is ripping off it's advertisers (in essence). The competition for advertising might be enough to suggest malice. Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: Hometown on January 16, 2009, 01:24:31 pm Well Gold, I would say that the fact that there is a paper here that would publish a controversial article about a local institution and a local writer was willing to take some risks in writing a controversial article would suggest some heightened sophistication.
Ever since my days as an Editor at the Ft. Star Telegram I've been reading about how expensive it is to run a paper. But I can't help but believe that you and I could start something in a garage that would be pretty compelling. My prayer for Tulsa, "God please give us a decent local daily newspaper." Meanwhile, and in case that doesn't work out, I could go for the Dallas Morning News opening an expanded Tulsa Bureau and publishing a chucky Tulsa Edition and burying the TulsaWorld. We need another voice with more credibility and some fresh blood to tell us who we are. Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: cannon_fodder on January 16, 2009, 01:33:20 pm 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. Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: Gold on January 16, 2009, 01:48:34 pm quote: Just because someone publishes something controversial about a local institution does not mean it's "sophisticated." I'm all for getting to the truth and challenging old notions. But at what point do you become Paul Tay and simply do it for the attention? Again, I think a lot of this may have to do with Bates' lack of formal journalism training. It's tough to write a weekly column and keep it interesting and accurate, especially when it deals with local politics most of the time. I did enjoy the comment on the UTW site about simplifying Bates' columns to his dislike of the World, his dislike of the arena, and his desire to have Medlock's kids. As for you DMN idea, I much prefer having a locally owned paper, for a variety of reasons. It isn't perfect, but it isn't the rag the tinfoil hat crowd makes it out to be, either. Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: Hometown on January 16, 2009, 02:07:34 pm 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. Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: Gold on January 16, 2009, 02:23:45 pm 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. Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: Hometown on January 16, 2009, 03:41:54 pm 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. Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: deinstein on January 16, 2009, 04:58:42 pm 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.
Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: Gold on January 16, 2009, 05:00:59 pm 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. Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: TURobY on January 16, 2009, 05:20:07 pm quote: 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. Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: deinstein on January 16, 2009, 05:33:34 pm It's not pessimism. It's being an educated citizen on planning issues and realizing most development in this city is total ****.
Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: Conan71 on January 16, 2009, 05:54:58 pm 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. Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: MDepr2007 on January 16, 2009, 06:46:12 pm quote: You missed the city council meeting last night didn't ya..lol Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: guido911 on January 16, 2009, 09:24:13 pm quote: 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. Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: tim huntzinger on January 16, 2009, 09:48:31 pm 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!
Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: Bledsoe on January 17, 2009, 07:18:50 am 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/ Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: Bledsoe on January 17, 2009, 07:21:12 am Here is the actual lawsuit:
http://www.tulsaworld.com//webextra/content/items/suit0116.PDF Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: Wilbur on January 17, 2009, 07:50:56 am quote: AMEN! Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: pmcalk on January 17, 2009, 08:58:56 am quote: 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. Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: Bledsoe on January 17, 2009, 09:13:33 am Is the Tulsa World a "public figure?" Looks like to me this will be decided on a case by case basis, but it is legal decision for the courts to decide--not a jury. As far as I can tell no Oklahoma appeals court has addressed the corporation as a public figure question. Here is a case from the Fifth Circuit that tries to establish some guidelines.
See, Snead v. Redland Aggregates Ltd., 998 F.2d 1325, 1329 (5th Cir.1993): "First, we must decide whether Redland and Standard are public or private figures. 5 As one court observed in a much-quoted passage, trying to decide whether a particular plaintiff is a public or private figure "is much like trying to nail a jellyfish to the wall." Rosanova v. Playboy Enters., 411 F.Supp. 440, 443 (S.D.Ga.1976), aff'd, 580 F.2d 859 (5th Cir.1978). The inquiry becomes even more difficult when the libel plaintiff is a corporation, as our prior cases do not establish a method for determining whether a corporation is a public or private figure. Golden Bear Distrib. Sys. v. Chase Revel, Inc., 708 F.2d 944 (5th Cir.1983) (finding that a corporation was a private figure without developing a test for that inquiry). Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323, 344-45, 94 S.Ct. 2997, 3009, 41 L.Ed.2d 789 (1974), the Court gave two policy justifications for differentiating between public and private figures. First, public figures "enjoy significantly greater access to the channels of effective communication and hence have a more realistic opportunity to counteract false statements than private individuals normally enjoy. Private individuals are therefore more vulnerable to injury, and the state interest in protecting them is correspondingly greater." Id. at 344, 94 S.Ct. at 3009. Second, public figures normally have thrust themselves into the public eye, inviting closer scrutiny than might otherwise be the case. In other words, public figures "invite attention and comment." Id. at 344-45, 94 S.Ct. at 3009. These justifications for the public/private dichotomy do not suggest a general rule to be applied to corporations. 6 As to the first criteria, corporations do not necessarily have greater access to the channels of effective communication than do individuals. Some corporations, such as media corporations or large conglomerates, obviously have such access, but the bulk of corporations do not. Similarly, the second criteria does not suggest a generalization for corporations. Although some corporations voluntarily thrust themselves into the public eye, the majority of corporations do not. Because the two Gertz justifications for the public figure/private figure dichotomy do not suggest a general rule to be applied to corporations, the inquiry must be made on a case-by-case basis, examining all the relevant facts and circumstances. We suggest several factors here but we do not suggest that these are the only factors to consider. First, the notoriety of the corporation to the average individual in the relevant geographical area is relevant. Notoriety will be affected by many factors, such as the size and nationality of the corporation. Here, we safely can assume that the majority of Americans has never heard of Redland or Standard. Although they are not small corporations, they are alien corporations that apparently have no United States subsidiaries. Second, the nature of the corporation's business must be considered. Redland mines stone, and Standard builds railroad cars. Corporations in these businesses do not ordinarily become household names. Prominent consumer goods makers or merchants, as well as consumer service corporations, are much more likely to attain public figure status. Third, courts should consider the frequency and intensity of media scrutiny that a corporation normally receives. For example, even a small corporation that does not deal with consumers might attain notoriety if it engages in frequent corporate takeovers that become widely publicized. In this case, the record contains no evidence that Redland or Standard have received significant past publicity. 7 On the basis of these factors, we conclude that Redland and Standard should be deemed private figures." _________________________________ IMO--based on the above standard I would conclude the the Tulsa World is probably a "public figure" on this issue. This means that they have a really high standard of proof. More on this high standard later. Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: tim huntzinger on January 17, 2009, 09:20:24 am Discovery goes both ways. Who was the source for the article? Specifically the stuff about salaries and memberships. That is personal information. Wonder how Keith Panticzek would feel about publishing his staff's salaries? Bates? Anyway, I wonder if the impetus was the source for this sensitive information, and Lorton is smokin' out his moles.
Bates is a liar. After I busted his chops when he yelled/shouted/freaked out at one of the river tax meetings (video evidence here) (http://"http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6710362855241318851&ei=jPZxSeO6I5TuqAKd3uGrBQ&q=michael+bates+freaks+out") he said he saw me do the same thing at a meeting. Liar! Bates and Panticzek are no better than Lorton and all their posing is a joke. Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: TheArtist on January 17, 2009, 09:39:09 am quote: Its odd that you say what your saying. I was on another forum where the discussion was on Detroit. I mentioned that during the 80s the writing was on the wall for both Detroit and Tulsa that they needed to diversify away from being mainly a one industry town. Tulsa did and we have done better for it. Detroit did not and have been and are paying for it. I also dont think there was much we could have done to stem the tide of oil industries leaving. There are bigger dogs out there with more pull than we have. I dont want to be the Bartlesville to their Houston and forever have our economy at the mercy of big oils every whim. Every high, followed by a devastating crash. As for historic preservation etc. Everyone has some responsibility for that. Mostly I would say its those groups who profess to try to change it,,, and dont. I have been to COHN meetings for instance and listened to them put out extreme agendas with no chance of happening... and years later, nothing has happened. You have push hard but also compromise and take the small steps when you can get them. Not hold to an extreme hard line and never get anywhere. Brookside has created an infill plan. Jamie has made progress in the Pearl. Neither is perfect, nor exactly what everyone wants, BUT they have made progress in the direction they want, because they were willing to see the reality of the situation at hand and compromise when neccessary to make some progress. However, I do agree that the TW has also done something similar. It seems they sometimes back the wrong pony and also do not see the "reality of the situation" and are unwilling to compromise. They, and the "monied elite" whatever that is, have things they want,,, and they have every right to want the things they want as anyone else does. We cant have a city that only has what the poor and working class folk want. For as soon as anyone makes it to where they are making any money or have different lifestyle tastes,,, if they then find the city unattractive to them, they will leave or not move here in the first place. EVERYONE should have a place here in Tulsa. And of course each side is going to fight for what they want. Duh. Where things often go wrong is when we dont see the compromise solutions or when we dont pay attention to the other sides needs and desires as well. I have seen both sides make the same stubborn mistakes and thus stifle progress. As pertaining to infill. Some old neighborhoods and areas can be completely protected and have only "perfectly appropriate" infill. Some can be mixed. Some even completely redone. For that way there will be something for everyone. Thats the way a city should be. Some people like living in a neighborhood that, for instance, has only old world styled buildings that look as if they have been there forever.... And Tulsa should be able to offer that. Some people like an ecclectic mix, old and new... And Tulsa should be able to offer that. Some people really like contemporary/urban loft type things and want to be in a neighborhood with primarily that type of stuff...And Tulsa should be able to offer that as well. But there seem to be opposite sides in Tulsa that will not back down and compromise, that only want ALL the old neighborhoods to be their way or the highway. Thats an unrealistic expectation, so you run into a hard wall that is almost impossible to push down and no real progress gets made. Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: Bledsoe on January 17, 2009, 10:57:23 am If the Tulsa World is a "public figure" then this is what it must allege and prove, 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= __________________________ " ¶14 We would begin by pointing out that the statements in the Voter Guide about plaintiff cannot be proven "true" or "false" because they are defendant's opinions or conclusions based upon its review of plaintiff's votes on certain issues and on materials from other organizations. ¶15 If a statement of 'opinion' on a matter of public concern reasonably implies false and defamatory facts regarding public figures or officials, those individuals must show that such statements were made with knowledge of their false implications or with reckless disregard of their truth. Milkovich v Lorain Journal Co., 497 U.S. 1, 20, 110 S.Ct. at 2695. 2706-7, 111 L.Ed.2d 1, 19 (1990). Defendant's statements in the case at bar cannot 'reasonably be interpreted as stating actual facts' about an individual. See, Milkovich, 497 U.S. at 20, 110 S.Ct. at 2706, 111 L.Ed.2d at 18. The statements are in the nature of a non-actionable "judgmental statement" which is opinionative and not factual in nature. Price v. Walters, 1996 OK 63, 918 P.2d 1370. ¶16 The United States Supreme Court, in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 84 S.Ct. 710, 11 L.Ed.2d 686 (1964), placed a formidable burden on a public figure plaintiff seeking to recover for defamation. New York Times requires that a public figure suing for defamation must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the allegedly false defamatory publication was made with "actual malice." The Court stated: "The constitutional guarantees require, we think, a federal rule that prohibits a public official from recovering damages for a defamatory falsehood relating to his official conduct unless he proves that the statement was made with 'actual malice'--that is, with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or not." New York Times Co., 376 U.S. at 279-80, 84 S.Ct. at 726. This Court reiterated the New York Times standard in Hart v. Blalock, 1997 OK 8 ¶9, 932 P.2d 1124, 1126 (Okla. 1997) and stated that absent proof of actual knowledge of the falsity of a third party's accusations, Blalock's republication of those accusations was not actionable. ¶17It is undisputed that the plaintiff in the case at bar is a public figure. Accordingly, the New York Times v. Sullivan "actual malice" standard applies. Therefore, plaintiff had the burden of presenting sufficient evidentiary material from which a trier of fact could find or infer, by applying the clear and convincing evidence test, that the defendant was aware that its statements were false, or that it published them with reckless disregard of whether they were false. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). ¶18 The question whether the evidence in the record in a defamation case is sufficient to support a finding of actual malice is a question of law for the reviewing court. Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc., 466 U.S. 485, 510-511, 104 S.Ct. 1939, 1965, 80 L.Ed.2d 502 (1984). It has been said that judges, as expositors of the Constitution, have a duty to independently decide whether the evidence in the record is sufficient to cross the constitutional threshold that bars the entry of any judgment that is not supported by clear and convincing proof of actual malice. Id. As to summary judgment, the United States Supreme Court has held that a court ruling on a motion for summary judgment must be guided by the New York Times "clear and convincing" evidentiary standard in determining whether a genuine issue of actual malice exists--that is, whether the evidence presented is such that a reasonable jury might find that actual malice had been shown with convincing clarity. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242, 257, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 2514-15, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). ¶19 The "actual malice" standard to be met by the public figure plaintiff is a formidable one.6 This Court has said that when public figures such as political candidates sue for libel or slander, their rights to recover are severely limited. Hart v. Blalock, 932 P.2d 1124, 1126 (Okla. 1997). "Actual malice" requires, for example, "false statements made with [a] high degree of awareness of their probable falsity." Garrison v. State of Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64, 74, 85 S.Ct. 209, 216, 13 L.Ed.2d 125 (1964). Failure to conduct a thorough investigation is not a sufficient basis to establish actual malice. Jurkowski v. Crawley, 637 P.2d 56, 61 (Okla. 1981). Negligence is not enough to rise to the level of "actual malice," and malice may not be inferred simply from a showing that the publication was untrue. ¶20 It is not enough to show that the publisher acted negligently. Garrison, 379 U.S. at 79, 85 S.Ct. at 218; New York Times Co., 376 U.S. at 288, 84 S.Ct. at 730 That the publisher acted out of ill will, hatred or a desire to injure the official is not enough to establish actual malice. Greenbelt Cooperative Publishing donkey'n. v. Bresler, 398 U.S. 6, 10-11, 90 S.Ct. 1537, 1540, 26 L.Ed.2d 6 (1970); See also, Garrison v State of Louisiana, 379 U.S. at 73-74, 85 S.Ct. at 215. That the publisher acted in reliance on the unverified statement of a third party, without having personal knowledge of the subject matter of the defamatory statement is not enough. See, St. Amant v. Thompson, 390 U.S. 727, 730-1, 88 S.Ct. 1323, 1325-26, 20 L.Ed.2d 262 (1968). ¶21 The fact that the publisher failed to undertake an investigation that would have been made by a reasonably prudent person is not enough. Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc,, 418 U.S. 323, 332, 94 S.Ct. 2997, 3003, 41 L.Ed.2d 789 (1974); St. Amant v. Thompson, 390 U.S. at 731, 88 S.Ct. at 1325; New York Times Co., 376 U.S. at 287-88, 84 S.Ct. at 730. Likewise, malice is not established where there is evidence to show that the publisher acted on a reasonable belief that the defamatory material was substantially correct and there was no evidence to impeach the publisher's good faith. New York Times Co., 376 U.S. at 286, 84 S.Ct. at 729. ¶22 Actual malice cannot be established merely by showing that the publication was erroneous, derogatory or untrue. Capital-Gazette Newspaper, Inc. v. Stack, 445 A.2d 1038, 1044 (Md. 1982), cert.den. 459 U.S. 989 (1982), citing Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. 418 U.S. 323, 340-41, 94 S.Ct. 2997, 3007, 41 L.Ed.2d 789 (1974), St. Amant v. Thompson, 390 U.S. 727, 732, 88 S.Ct. 1323, 1326, 20 L.Ed.2d 262 (1968); New York Times v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. at 281, 84 S.Ct. at 726." ____________________________ Looks like a pretty tall mountian to climb. Thoughts? Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: Red Arrow on January 17, 2009, 11:36:52 am quote: I would rather read a patent. I hate reading patents. Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: guido911 on January 17, 2009, 11:56:41 am quote: Man, don't sugar coat it next time. Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: guido911 on January 17, 2009, 12:11:56 pm quote: Thanks for the link. The lawsuit reads more like a tortious interference with contractual relations (between World and its subscribers) cause of action than defamation. Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: guido911 on January 17, 2009, 12:16:07 pm quote: Well, if SLATE says the World will regret its lawsuit, then that should end the debate about who is right and wrong. Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: Double A on January 17, 2009, 01:52:03 pm quote: That is asinine. Conservation districts were a compromise that would allow infill that is less restrictive than straight HP zoning but would give some protection against the anything goes development we've seen. BTW, I remember Jameson quipping to the local media that he was incensed that he didn't get 60 million worth of pork for his string of pearls in the last 3rd penny extension. If that's not an extreme hard line, I don't know what is. Especially, when you consider all the resources the pearl has been given to date like the TIF district and diverted street funding for their plans, for instance. Where is the flood of private development that we were promised would occur if these resources were allocated? Instead of the promised results there have only been excuses for a lack of these promised results and more requests for more public funding. It reminds me of the TARP bailout. Not to mention the fact that Jameson's promises of providing affordable housing options when being awarded the contract to develop the area by the infill task force within his development have been minimal at best, and that is generous euphemism for what has occurred. BTW, I still want to know how form based codes will provide pedestrian friendly drive through banks, fast food joints(think Sonic), car washes, etc. Use should still play a role in zoning and the major flaw with form based codes is they provide almost any use, anywhere. One more disgusting trend about New Urbanist/Form Based development is pattern of going into predominately lower class, working class, and middle class areas, economically cleansing the areas of the commercial and residential properties to replace them with real estate that effectively prices those classes out of the market. I don't think these classes should have their tax dollars funding the economic apartheid being waged against them, especially when the tax funding primarily comes from regressive sales taxes that are a deeper burden to bear for these classes than the upper classes who are ultimately the beneficiaries of these taxpayer subsidized luxury lifestyles. Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: Renaissance on January 17, 2009, 01:55:03 pm A newspaper is not a public figure. Certainly, not for the purposes of this suit. If you want to call the World a public figure, every single media source in the country is the same. Delivering public dialogue is not the same as being its subject.
I'll say this--any newspaper bringing a libel suit against another newspaper is either very dumb or very desperate. I'm going with both on this one. Hope they're ready to show their exact circulation figures in open court. Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: waterboy on January 17, 2009, 02:01:17 pm Tim, it isn't hard to get info on World inside operations from current or former employees. When I worked there, I once gained access and printed the salary structure of the entire advertising department back in the 80's. We found it quite by accident and were stunned at what we saw. It would have been the basis for a pretty good discrimination lawsuit as women were routinely paid a fraction of men with the same background and experience. Of course there were no African American employees and only a few Native Americans.
Same goes with circulation and readership info. After they jettisoned the Tribune, circulation suffered. It was widely suspected that when they dropped membership in the Audit Bureau of Circulation that it was because of unflattering figures surfacing or inability to meet requirements of reporting. The ABC was owned by member newspapers much like Arbitron is for electronic, so that was a red flag for competitors. They have the right to choose who or what is reported and in what manner, it just raised questions. There are many employees who bristled under their Viking management style and their brutal treatment of competitors. I doubt the editorial staff was any different. Even though the work was lucrative and fairly easy, many qualified employees decided to salvage their personal dignity and move on. Having said that, they probably are no different in management style than any other family owned media business. If anyone thinks UT is any different with the truthfulness of their distribution, readership and business practices you are mislead. They cannot stand up to the scrutiny of a lawsuit that will expose them. KS is part of the extended family having worked for NPC management and sent packing. There are grudges, ambition, politics and advertising money at play here. He should settle and move on. Artist, you continue to perplex me. There is no balance of wealth, middle class and working class in Tulsa. The development issues are overwhelmingly skewed to wealth and power. Not even close. But your view that intransigence by the parties in their positions is causing no movement is not clearly thought out. Small steps occur because of strongly held views. Jameson is not soft in his promotion of form based zoning. Infill developers are succeeding because of their strongly held views that the owner of a property has the right to do with it whatever they please. It is precisely the strong, sometimes overdone, advocacy of rights that effects any change at all. Otherwise, who needs attorneys? Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: tim huntzinger on January 17, 2009, 02:20:24 pm quote: BOO-YAH!! SNAP! RIGHT ON! Grab yer crayons, arteest! U've been BOMBED! Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: tim huntzinger on January 17, 2009, 02:23:58 pm quote: True dat, but specifically who leaked? This whole thing makes Jr. look more and more like Richard Roberts. Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: waterboy on January 17, 2009, 02:54:32 pm Is it possible that a newspaper columnist may be forced to reveal his sources...by another newspaper?
Most likely someone very low level and with suspect credentials. When you want to know whats happening in a company, talk to the low level folks who are pretty much ignored like wallpaper. But it could be a former pressman. They are the ones who know the real press runs. Former executives screwed the union pretty severely years ago. I know of at least one former composing employee who won a suit against them. Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: TheArtist on January 17, 2009, 07:47:38 pm quote: I have noooooo idea what your trying to say lol? Do you think what I said was right? or wrong? lol I see Jamie as an example of the "little guy" getting people in his area together, pushing for what he wants and slowly getting it. He is no different than you or me. But through tenacity, not getting everything he wants, but dreaming big and making progress step, by step, by little step, often to the consternation of those in power. And able to take partial progress over not getting everything all at once. Lets look at the Channels... The "big boys" wanted to garner support for it, but werent going to compromise or listen. It was all or nothing. And they got nothing. Lets look at some neighborhood preservation groups like COHN. It appears to me that there is a middle way where they could garner enough support to make some progress. But they will not budge on their hard line, thus they do not get either enough people in their neighborhoods, or among the development community to join with them... ergo no progress whatsoever. Look at the Brookside infill plan. You can tell just by looking at the renderings and maps they created that there was a lot of compromise going on. The Bomasada thing brought those differences to the fore. Some people do not want hardly any change at all. Some people would love to see a lot more than what the plan allows for. The plan shows the middle ground. Bomasada development pushed the limit, and exceeded that middle ground,,, but it could only exceed by so much for there was a plan there limiting the exceptions. The developer would have wanted 5 or 6 ideally. Some people may have been perfectly fine with that or even 10 or 15 stories... But what they got was an exception for 4 stories. Nobody completely happy, but the middle, or close to it, held. Without the Brookside plan in place, no telling what could happen. At least they have a plan which puts limits on the exceptions and compromises. Things can only fluctuate so far from that middle ground. If in Mapleridge they agreed that, no we dont want the older historic homes torn down, the ones that originally set the over all character of this neighborhood, but we dont mind if some little infill house built in the 70s or 80s were torn down and replaced... I think there might could be some progress on making an agreement to that effect. But the side against tear downs and infill in that neighborhood tend to be against ANY and ALL tear downs at all. I dont think they are ever going to be able to rally enough support from the neighbors or the developers, the media, etc. to get something that strict in place. Thus all homes 1920s or 1970s are still in danger. Then there is the other issue of what goes back in to replace the torn down homes. A compromise position, even just making some tiny progress at first, say "wall plane scale" not design, could be seen as a positive to many people. Cherry Street... Seems there are people still fighting against the contemporary infill on the South Side. The developer has contained that type of development to that side and not done any,(that I know of) on the North side of Cherry Street. Rather than the more likely scenario of joining with the developer, and neighbors to get something passed solely on the north side. The crowd pushing for some sort of moratorium want it stopped on both sides. Thus alienating the developers and many of the people in the area,,, not ever quite getting enough support to get anything done. Its all or nothing, no compromise. One could argue, that at least in this case the developers are doing the compromise on their own. That wont hold if some new developer comes in and eyes the north side of Cherry Street and doesn't have the same sense of compromise. Sorry to be inserting a second line of conversation into the thread lol. Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: MDepr2007 on January 17, 2009, 10:37:47 pm You forgot the millions going to Whittier Square Improvement District.
Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: Bledsoe on January 18, 2009, 08:50:20 am 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. Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: tim huntzinger on January 18, 2009, 09:32:44 am 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.
Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: blindnil on January 18, 2009, 09:58:32 am Bates' column has now been removed from the UT Web site. What does that have to say about its validity?
Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: tim huntzinger on January 18, 2009, 10:21:58 am quote: Now let us see if he re-publishes his hearsay, inaccuracies, and vomitus on his 'blog.' Hope KRMG is proud of their 'political analyst'! Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: TheArtist on January 18, 2009, 10:33:20 am quote: 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? Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: Rico on January 18, 2009, 11:12:48 am quote: Could we please insert something remotely related to "The Bates Lawsuit".... Maybe a picture like this... (http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y179/rico2/images.jpg) I confuse easily... and the talk regarding "The Channels, COHN etc" does not help. Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: guido911 on January 18, 2009, 11:41:25 am 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. Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: David Arnett on January 18, 2009, 12:41:09 pm 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. Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: tim huntzinger on January 18, 2009, 01:03:51 pm quote: RICO!! LURKER! LURKER! (http://www.ufodigest.com/news/0108/images/debunkers.jpg) TheArtist is clearly concerned that a champion of his causes and loves is ready to depart the scene, to the detriment of all Tulsans. Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: Bledsoe on January 18, 2009, 01:51:59 pm quote: 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 Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: waterboy on January 18, 2009, 02:45:27 pm quote: 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. Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: patric on January 18, 2009, 03:29:02 pm quote: 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" ? Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: joe dolty on January 18, 2009, 06:00:29 pm 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.
Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: guido911 on January 18, 2009, 06:11:21 pm quote: Well thank goodness your here. Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: joe dolty on January 18, 2009, 06:19:08 pm Michael Bates:
quote: Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: joe dolty on January 18, 2009, 06:35:14 pm Bounded Rationality
quote: Bothers me too Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: joe dolty on January 18, 2009, 06:44:29 pm quote: Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: joe dolty on January 18, 2009, 06:50:53 pm quote:ahahaha Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: waterboy on January 18, 2009, 08:36:53 pm 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? Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: joe dolty on January 18, 2009, 09:28:36 pm Can't take alternative ideas I see...only ones you agree with I see...
Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: Hoss on January 18, 2009, 09:31:36 pm Hmm...wonders if this is v3 of FOTD/AOX.
I know it's early... Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: waterboy on January 18, 2009, 09:51:03 pm quote: 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. Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: tim huntzinger on January 19, 2009, 07:42:39 am quote: 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!! Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: blindnil on January 19, 2009, 08:14:05 am 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.
Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: cannon_fodder on January 19, 2009, 09:04:17 am 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. Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: Wilbur on January 19, 2009, 09:58:36 am 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! Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: joe dolty on January 19, 2009, 12:43:17 pm 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.
Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: joe dolty on January 19, 2009, 12:43:56 pm 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.
Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: TURobY on January 19, 2009, 01:09:37 pm For someone who hates the Tulsa World so much, you sure do post a lot in their comments section.
Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: blindnil on January 19, 2009, 01:25:09 pm Joe .... doesn't it make a difference that UT and Bates didn't contact the World about his (false) information before he ran his column? Once that's printed, the newspaper had nothing left to do but sue.
Besides, the fact that it has been taken down off the UT Web site shows that they are no longer standing behind it. Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: deinstein on January 19, 2009, 01:46:55 pm quote: I'll never give them another penny either. Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: Gold on January 19, 2009, 02:05:24 pm quote: +1 [}:)] Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: sgrizzle on January 19, 2009, 02:51:32 pm quote: They took down both the online article as well as the PDF version of the entire issue. That doesn't bode well. Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: inteller on January 19, 2009, 02:55:31 pm quote: not anymore he doesn't...or at least nothing you can see [}:)]...and if you can see it...well then [:o)] you too :) Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: Gold on January 19, 2009, 03:05:50 pm quote: Yeah, that is interesting. I'm not sure that qill qualify as an admission, but I know the TW's attorneys will try to make it look that way. UTW certainly isn't standing by their work. Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: cannon_fodder on January 19, 2009, 03:08:00 pm quote: I agree with your notion that once it is printed, the damage is already done. However, taken down the disputed item was certainly at the bequest of their attorney. One can never tell what a court will decide and remedial measures can never be held against you. If it were held to be libel the fact that it remains available could be held as evidence of malice (even after we told them it was wrong, they kept it up!). Just sound business. Perhaps one could argue they should stand on principle, but business usually comes first. But taking it down says nothing about the merits of the article (which I am not in a position to comment on either). Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: joe dolty on January 19, 2009, 03:36:29 pm I don't have to pay them to post so I'm going to keep doing that. And I'm sure taking down their online version was at the request of their attorneys.
Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: Gold on January 19, 2009, 03:42:34 pm quote: Can someone pay you not to post? Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: Hoss on January 19, 2009, 03:54:44 pm quote: ^^ [}:)] Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: RecycleMichael on January 19, 2009, 04:00:20 pm quote: Joe is one of my heroes on the Tulsa World comments section. He has an opinion on everything. Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: Double A on January 19, 2009, 04:14:38 pm I think I'll start calling businesses that advertise in the Whirled and inform them that they will never get my business as long as they advertise in the Whirled.
Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: deinstein on January 19, 2009, 04:18:49 pm quote: Why not? Hit them where it hurts. Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: DowntownNow on January 19, 2009, 06:01:01 pm Michael Bate's column made the statement that...
"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." The filed petition by the Tulsa World does not attach as exhibit the paid consultant's (Grant Thornton LLP) independantly signed audit for March 2005. It does attach what appears to be an internal audit submitted without independent verification by the TW ownership, Lorton and Bair. Further, Grant Thornton LLP may not have had to adhere to the same industry standard auditing practices established and utilized by ABC. They do attach ABC's independent March 2006 audit numbers. For all the conversation in here regarding what is perceived to be fact or fiction by Bates and the UTW, I believe Bates is knowledgeable enough to not state anything that is not backed up by some numbers. Journalists often have sources, perhaps a disgruntled former employee of the World provided him copy of that 2005 paid consultant's audit on which he "suggested" the inflation, perhaps not. Bottom line is, we may not know his source until discovery, if even then. The World's petition also states that Bate's article made a "second false statement...that a steep drop in circulation was concealed by the Tulsa World from its advertisers." Now, I've read that article four times and I can't find any statements that can be attributed to Bates where he states in writing that the TW knowingly concealed a drop in circulation from it's advertisers. The petition further goes on to state that it can be "implied" that the Tulsa World inflated its paid circulation numbers to intentionally mislead advertisers and cause advertisers to overpay the Tulsa World for advertising. There may be an "implication" in the minds of the TW but there was never a statement of fact from Bates that this occurred. The petition also states that TW stopped utilizing the independent auditing services of ABC in 2000. Bates suggests it was in 1997 but at the very least this is a factual error that the TW could have asked be corrected in the next issues of circulation, much like the TW itself has done on many an occassion when a material fact was not quite correct (i.e a name, date, position, etc). As for the TW stating that this column was impugning its integrity...perhaps they should rethink that allegation and re-read some of their own editorial opinions and stories that seek to do the same of others on a weekly basis before over-reacting and making it the spectacle it has become. Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: waterboy on January 19, 2009, 09:23:45 pm quote: I try to limit my anger at businesses who abuse their public good will by getting involved in politics or the petty arguments of media. For instance, I will not go to a certain coffee house that overtly involved herself in the river development controversy without noting that her motive involved the premise that money spent on the river would be money not spent downtown. I can't drop green there anymore than I would at a PETA conference. However, a business person buys advertising in a rather non partisan, profit making manner. Take all sides, or take no sides at all. When I see an advertiser using different media it makes sense to me. I don't begrudge the advertisers in UT or on Idiot Radio from trying to reach paying customers. But if that's all they use, and flaunt it as part of their persona, well,.... never shall I enter their world. Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: Conan71 on January 20, 2009, 02:42:54 pm Did it impress anyone else how quickly Titus filed this suit??? UTW hits the street on Weds. and they filed on Thurs. I guess that's what is meant by:
"I'll sue your donkey so quick, it'll make your head spin." I'd figured it was some boiler-plate initial filing already on someone's hard drive, they were waiting for the final straw, added a few facts, and printed it out. Seeing the detail of the actual suit and it's allegations, I'm quite curious if someone on the UTW staff didn't leak this to someone at the World earlier in the week. I'd be looking pretty closely at any potentially disgruntled employees if I were KS at this point. Skrzypczak's wife is an attorney, though not with a "regular" practice per-se, that I'm aware of, but that could help some with legal costs. There might be a few attorneys in town who dislike the daily paper enough or it's owners to work at a reduced rate or for trade-out. At any rate, I think UTW could function just fine without it's consistent barbs toward the World. The World unwittingly gave UTW a lot of attention in filing the suit. If anything, I think they have played this hand wrong. If I were a TW advertiser and had read Bates' article, I probably wouldn't have given TW circulation two thoughts after I'd read the article. But, after the extra attention the World generated with it's filing (and coverage of it) and reading TW's explaination about changing around it's audit companies in the suit, I'm suspicious. Did anyone else note that the World quit using ABC because their auditing practices were suspect, but those problems were suddenly mitigated in 2004? There's some slimey muck underneath all this. My ex-wife and I both used to work in the media and there's more I know about the operations of both companies I'd rather not be quoted as saying in public. I will agree Waterboy was quite accurate in his assessment of the management policies at NPC/TW/Trib when he was there. Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: patric on January 20, 2009, 02:55:37 pm quote: In the future, we will recall how the TW drove a nail into their own coffin with this suit. Of course, it will be everyone else's fault when they file bankruptcy. We wont be without a daily for long, though, but what rises from the ashes might be very different from what we've been used to. Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: Conan71 on January 20, 2009, 03:12:18 pm quote: Could also be a calculated (though poorly) gamble. I'm not sure what the ad revenue is like at UTW these days, but if Lorton thought there was $75 to 100K per month to gain if UTW were out of the print business, they might consider a libel suit the only way to grab that extra revenue. I know, kind of grassy knoll/911 conspiracy stuff. It's a rough time to be in the daily print business. About all the dailies are good for right now is shorting their stock. [}:)] Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: inteller on January 21, 2009, 07:25:34 am just suing Bates now.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20090121_16_A13_TheTul409648 you can't squeeze blood from a turnip. Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: waterboy on January 21, 2009, 07:59:55 am I don't think its about the money from this suit, Inteller. Even if the TW folds, the Lortons are ok. Do you think Gannett would respond any differently?
Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: sgrizzle on January 21, 2009, 08:06:13 am UTW pulls the story, now is publishing a retraction. Sounds like confidence is low.
Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: cannon_fodder on January 21, 2009, 08:25:13 am Comments turned off due to "request of readers" in 3...2...1...
I'm guessing prosecuting the suit against an editors and/or another paper would be very bad PR in the industry. If they back off of the comments and publish a retraction the TW gets what they want. I'm guessing either Bates refused to deny the story or they have just had enough of him. No entry of appearance by any of the defendants. No filing of service either. I assume he was served on the 16th, so we could have another week before anything happens. http://www.oscn.net/applications/ocisweb/GetCaseInformation.asp?submitted=true&viewtype=caseGeneral&casemasterID=2180026&db=Tulsa Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: MichaelBates on January 21, 2009, 08:31:44 am quote: No one from the World has contacted me, other than reporter Randy Krehbiel, who sought comments from me 45 minutes after the suit was filed. I have yet to be served with a lawsuit. Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: inteller on January 21, 2009, 08:32:19 am i have a feeling that this is TWs way of backing off before the discovery process is underway. they want to single out Bates in the suit just to put the heat on him, hoping that he will settle. If he thinks he has a strong case he should take this one all the way and go through the muck.
Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: tim huntzinger on January 21, 2009, 08:43:42 am Ha ha ha ha ha!! Scriptjacked knew for two days that the suit was going down and said NADA to Bates!! Way to keep it classy! So does Bates retract the column or mortgage his family's future?
Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: Conan71 on January 21, 2009, 08:44:39 am quote: I'm going to play attorney here, Michael. Publish a retraction on your blog, send Bobby Lorton a dozen roses and a Hallmark card. All problems solved. Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: cannon_fodder on January 21, 2009, 09:16:00 am 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. Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: tim huntzinger on January 21, 2009, 09:27:18 am quote: Panticzek is sooooo classy: his star columnist makes a mistake, suit follows, and he does not have the decency to let the columnist know what is up? Is that what happened? Served on the 14th, TW contacts Lord Bates on the 16th and Bates says it was out of the blue! Blame your publisher, not the 'Whirled'! Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: sgrizzle on January 21, 2009, 09:31:50 am quote: Forget the dozen roses, send him a male stripper. Oh now, I'm starting rumors... [:D] Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: MichaelBates on January 21, 2009, 09:48:18 am quote: You need to work on your reading comprehension, Tim. Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: tim huntzinger on January 21, 2009, 10:00:55 am quote: Oh, I see. TW contacts Keith on the 14th. He says NOTHING to you for two days? Then when Randy calls you on the 16th you are surprised? Is that it? Keith lets you twist in the wind for two days or not? See, you said elsewhere that you were contacted two hours after the suit was filed on the 16th. The World said that they contacted Keith on the 14th. http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20090121_16_A13_TheTul409648 (http://"http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20090121_16_A13_TheTul409648") Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: MichaelBates on January 21, 2009, 10:56:37 am When Krehbiel called at 3:46 on the 15th, I had already been made aware that a suit had been threatened. I was not aware that a suit had been filed. According to OSCN, it had been filed at 3:01 on the 15th.
Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: inteller on January 21, 2009, 12:53:17 pm quote: only problem, that blog has nothing to do with the article in UTW. Publish a retraction in UTW would be the only appropriate venue. Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: DowntownNow on January 21, 2009, 01:30:50 pm I for one didn't see anything libelous or dafaming in the article Michael wrote. His article contained no more suggestions or suppositions than the World's own editorials or stories. The TW's own writers have told me in the past that half of what they write is lucky to make it into the paper once the editorial board is done.
The TW prolly felt they had to take a stand because the TW felt his article "implied" (their words, not mine) that there was a deliberate act to conceal circulation numbers from advertisers. Someone point out to me where in Michael's column it specifically states that "the TW went to great lengths to intentionally conceal dwindling circulation numbers from its advertisers in the hope of demanding more money from them." Unless the statement is specific and made as a matter of fact without any credible information to back it up, it is not libel. This article was after all an Opinion/Editorial...look back through the Op/Ed section of the TW...did you see any legal action on the part of White City neighbors when the TW basically called them any and everything in the book? This is just petty on the TW's part. Perhaps the TW is more afraid that in the last few months, in addition to Michael's columns, UTW's own writers have been taking on harder issues and really researching them and asking the questions but not taking sides. Case in point the recent article by Brandon Hoenig (sp?) on the Tulsa Club building and other properties downtown. If the UTW keeps up and gathers steam, writing truly indepth non-biased articles like that one, then yes...they could find themselves in trouble. Is that part of what this is all about? Michael, I wish you the best in this endeavour. It must be hard to look at the wealth on one side backing the TW lawyers but somewhere, sometime, journalistic integrity and common sense must prevail...I hope you fight but if not, I don't think anyone can assume anything different than its David vs. Goliath and thats a hard challenge to take on and survive. Best of luck. Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: Hometown on January 21, 2009, 01:50:12 pm Michael, This might propel you to the status of folk hero.
Bet the World doesn't really want to get into discovery. Don't they have to prove that your claims are not true? Since this is high profile you might be able to get a top drawer attorney to represent you at a reduced rate. Has your publisher offered to pay for your defense costs? If he hasn't, he should. Anyone want to organize a benefit to help pay Michael's defense costs? If Urban Tulsa didn't skew to the right I'd say crank up the presses and publish a lively tabloid format daily. Morning edition. Three years ago I saw a small local legal news paper for sale. Wish I had bought it. Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: Conan71 on January 21, 2009, 02:08:30 pm I had $200 I was going to contribute to Michael's defense, but I blew it all on Marshall's Beer.
Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: Hoss on January 21, 2009, 03:06:15 pm quote: Better investment. Reminds me I still have a McNellie's Pub Ale in the fridge I need to finish off. Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: cannon_fodder on January 21, 2009, 04:26:55 pm UTW and the editor were served on the 17th by process servers:
http://www.oscn.net/applications/ocisweb/GetCaseInformation.asp?submitted=true&viewtype=caseGeneral&casemasterID=2180026&db=Tulsa You must be a hard man to find Mr. Bates. Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: MichaelBates on January 21, 2009, 04:31:37 pm quote: I was home most of the weekend. Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: bugo on January 21, 2009, 06:21:32 pm quote: I (seriously) have an irrational fear of snakes. When I see snakes, or sometimes even pictures of snakes that I don't expect to see, I have panic attacks. Sgrizzle, I hope you have a good attorney.[:I] Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: joiei on January 21, 2009, 09:35:34 pm quote:Thanks for this, now I will have nightmares about snakes, my irrational fear is skewed way off the chart. As for the lawsuit, I will just wait to see what happens. Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: buzz words on January 22, 2009, 02:30:57 am Is Bates doing any media interviews? This would be a great time to create a youtube channel. your own reality youtube show.
Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: nathanm on January 22, 2009, 03:21:42 am quote: Shades of Nosak Raw. Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: patric on January 22, 2009, 11:46:28 am I remember during the Iran Hostage Crisis (tm) the militants agreed to release all the black and female hostages because they there "oppressed people" in America -- a strategy that was designed to divide our country's attitude of the situation along racial and sexist lines.
I see similarities in the TW's strategy of letting the paper and editor "off the hook" while still holding the UTW's most substantiative contributor in chains. Didnt Napoleon have a name for that tactic? Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: guido911 on January 22, 2009, 12:36:32 pm quote: You, sir, make me proud to be an American. Bless you. Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: tim huntzinger on January 22, 2009, 01:13:49 pm So on Chris Medlock's show yesterday, he stated that Bates was 'blindsided' by the lawsuit [podcasts here] (http://"http://podcast.1170kfaq.com/ChrisMedlock/tabid/1839/Default.aspx"), 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!
Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: Conan71 on January 22, 2009, 01:29:59 pm 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. Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: sgrizzle on January 22, 2009, 02:10:21 pm quote: But by issuing the retraction, and negotiating completely behind MB's back, they hung him out to dry, at least a little. Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: Conan71 on January 22, 2009, 03:11:33 pm 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 Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: mrburns918 on January 22, 2009, 03:37:15 pm quote: 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 Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: Gold on January 22, 2009, 06:22:38 pm quote: Where are all the people who said this suit was baseless? *crickets* Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: inteller on January 22, 2009, 06:28:56 pm 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. Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: guido911 on January 22, 2009, 07:09:05 pm quote: Nahhh. Make 'em sweat a little. [:)] Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: Gold on January 22, 2009, 07:37:47 pm quote: 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. Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: Wrinkle on January 22, 2009, 07:51:45 pm quote: 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. Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: Gold on January 22, 2009, 10:17:25 pm 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. [}:)] Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: tim huntzinger on January 22, 2009, 11:10:44 pm quote: 'Krehbiel, T.World: (http://"http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20090121_16_A13_TheTul409648&archive=yes") '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. Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: Wrinkle on January 23, 2009, 12:24:15 am quote: 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. Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: cannon_fodder on January 23, 2009, 12:35:53 am 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. Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: Wrinkle on January 23, 2009, 12:37:01 am quote: quote: ...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? Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: Gold on January 23, 2009, 08:28:40 am quote: UTW accepted the figures. End of story. That's not jumping the shark. That's called admitting you're wrong. You should try it. Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: Gold on January 23, 2009, 08:44:16 am quote: Titus has represented the World for a very long time, I believe going back to his days at Boone Smith. His firm was also involved on the deal a couple of years ago, celebrated by the wingnuts, where they sent the cease and desist letter to Batesline about quoting and linking the World. I have no doubt that the World has the financial advantage here. But that's not a reason not to file a lawsuit. They have their reasons and the suit probably has merit -- these folks know what they are doing. In addition to your estimates of the goals, I can imagine a couple of more reasons to file this: first, to determine Bates' "source." (I largely disagree with the sentiment that his articles are usually well researched -- some have interesting facts, but some also involve things that he clearly doesn't understand. Opala, cough, cough.) Perhaps they want to make an example to their business partners and advertisers that they are serious about their business reputation. Plus, they may just want to stick it to the guy. I think he's an overrated jerk that should stick to commentary about urban design. If I owned a business that was the subject of frequent baseless attacks and accusations, I'd probably have a lot worse things to think. No doubt they were lying in wait on this one. I can't say I blame them. In fairness, I wasn't happy when their editorial page called Bates out -- I thought it was akin to stooping to the level of the hyperactive bully in the back of the class. But, this is different. Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: tim huntzinger on January 23, 2009, 08:59:20 am quote: I tend to agree but the World has a bunch of geezer windbags on salary to gas out opinions when any dolt with a keyboard and a blog can do that - if Bates is a hyperactive bully the World is a fat, stupid, over-sized brat held back a few years trying to re-assert him/herself to the other kids. Bully Bates' assertion was not whether the fat geezer stupid World misrepresented their figures but by how much - akin to 'when did you stop beating your wife.' Oh and if Bates is a geek bully blogger - if that is the worse that can be said about him he is still a far better person than I. Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: Gold on January 23, 2009, 09:09:29 am He might be a great guy. He should do better research before spouts off about things he clearly doesn't understand. All I know about him is that he writes some neat stuff about urban design and some whacked out, tinfoil hat crap about local politics. In my mind, the latter overwhelms the former.
Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: cannon_fodder on January 23, 2009, 09:31:05 am Gold:
Again, it seems that you are impressed more with WHO filed the suit than what the suit says. The petition is online, the source material was online until it was taken down. You can evaluate the merits for yourself. It can certainly be argued that it has merit. But because the Lorton's/World's long time lawyer filed a suit for them doesn't mean it has any more merit than any other suit that can survive to trial. Particularly because they are a long time client he would be more willing to go out on a limb for them. If I was in the World's position I may have filed suit also. Certainly if they came to me to file suit on their behalf I would have done so as I can make an argument for them in good conscious. I could also make an argument that an opinion was expressed based on data that the World itself has published (I spoke with Bates, the World itself was his primary source) and given with parameters such that it was not a false statement (data suggests, as much as 20%, could be... qualifying language). quote: Admitting you are wrong by printing a retracting is merely admitting that doing so is the best course of action. You've never advised a client to settle who was vehement about being right? Never advised a plaintiff who got screwed to take the settlement because going forward wasn't worth it? Never a Defendant to take a deal because the cost/benefit didn't add up to push the issue? As I said before, a small business being sued by a large business will usually take the chance to STAY in business if offered. Retract your statement or get put out of business by legal fees? "Yes sir, I was wrong!" Doesn't PROVE anything. It may suggest that they are admitting they are wrong, but certainly doesn't prove that they think they were wrong OR that the information printed was in fact false. [Bates and I have gotten into it in the past more than once. He is well aware of that and so are most people on this board. It doesn't change my assessment of this case.] Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: inteller on January 23, 2009, 09:33:17 am quote: ok then, I'll just put your ****ing donkey on ignore, and you can do the same. You can carry on the conversation with your other attorney buddies since apparently those are the only opinions you'll listen to. Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: inteller on January 23, 2009, 09:46:54 am quote: considering the fact he's a lawyer and should already know what you are telling him, I believe you are correct....you are just wasting your breath.....or keystrokes as it were. Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: Gold on January 23, 2009, 01:02:01 pm quote: A couple of points: The petition is usually no more than a bare set of allegations and that is all that is required. It can change during the course of litigation. That said, Titus thought enough to think there was something there and this happens to be an area that he is an expert in. And more importantly, neither of us has access to all the facts their counsel has so we don't have much basis to evaluate. Yeah, I am impressed with who filed it -- and so should the rest of you. I know a lot of parties who hated settling, but paid as a result of cost/benefit analysis or what have you. That said, that's the fastest settlement by a party who allegedly didn't believe in the merits of the claim I've ever heard of. (I would note their retraction seems to say they believed the merits and in this instance, I take them at their word.) If UTW really is a competitor for TW's advertising (I laughed this off earlier in the thread, but a couple of people appear to believe this), then they would at least appear to have the need to take the suit seriously, evaluate it, file a timely answer or entry of appearance, and generally do what most profitable and self-respecting business entitities do when they are sued. Of course, I don't think they compete at all and would tend to agree with your suggestion that there is certainly a financial motive to get the hell out of that suit as soon as possible. I'm not sure if the TW story was ever linked in this discussion, though I'll admit I've been really busy the past week and might have overlooked it. It gives some pretty good insight into what happened -- granted, it was written by a party to the suit. http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20090121_16_A13_TheTul409648&archive=yes That said, c'mon, man. That's a fast settlement. Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: Gold on January 23, 2009, 01:04:33 pm quote: [:X] Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: Gold on January 23, 2009, 01:08:21 pm quote: I thought you were ignoring my "****ing donkey." Who said I was a lawyer? By the way, thank you for your contribution of facts and analysis to this board. You are an invaluable resourse and certainly raise the discourse. I mean, what it be like sitting outside in the summer without *crickets*? Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: Kiah on January 26, 2009, 07:34:58 am quote: The Tulsa World seems to believe it. How else do you explain the fact that the 'Spot' is now a tabloid format released on Thursday morning (instead of Friday) and distributed free to bars and restaurants? When you're facing a complete disintegration of the market, every ad dollar counts. Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: Gold on January 26, 2009, 09:27:06 am quote: The Spot, at most, constitutes 1/8 of the World's business. It does not have the same advertising content (no massage parlor, salon, or bar ads) other than a couple of things that would advertise in both, like the casino. This isn't even worth talking about. Moreover, it's irrelevant, UTW retracted the article. Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: deinstein on January 26, 2009, 02:02:14 pm UTW are wimps for retracting what they printed.
Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: Conan71 on January 26, 2009, 02:20:35 pm quote: If it wasn't correct information, why would they be wimps to publish a retraction? I can hear it now: "I may be wrong, but I think I'll blow $25K on legal fees so people won't think I'm a wimp!" Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: Gold on January 26, 2009, 03:05:45 pm quote: Dozens of area lawyers are going to call you to see if they can take that deal. [;)] You are totally right, though. We expect the World to withdraw incorrect statements -- why treat UTW any differently? Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: Renaissance on January 26, 2009, 05:38:54 pm quote: I believe the offending sentence by Mr. Bates was: quote: Is this a demonstrably false sentence? No. Given that falsity is a required element of the tort of defamation, it seems to me that Bates and UTW have a prima facie defense against this bullying lawsuit. Does anybody know if UTW carries libel insurance (as most media outlets do) and if so, whether it covers Bates? Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: sgrizzle on January 26, 2009, 05:56:38 pm quote: The dates on when they were/were not using ABC were false. He also should've conveyed and quoted facts and let the reader draw the conclusions. He stated that the facts allude to fraud on the part of TW, that is libel. Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: Renaissance on January 26, 2009, 06:07:23 pm quote: If the dates were wrong it may be an issue. quote: No, it's not. A required element of a claim for defamation (in print, libel) is falsity. Get on teh internets and check it out: http://www.expertlaw.com/library/personal_injury/defamation.html Truth is a defense, and so is opinion. Stating a possibility is different than stating something as fact. He noted that the number jump suggested inflated circulation. That isn't libelous. It's not a provably false statement. It's simply one person's opinion about what the numbers mean. Bates made this clear by phrasing his sentence the way he did. This is a scummy lawsuit by the World. No reason to jump to their defense. Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: Gold on January 26, 2009, 06:20:28 pm It's a pretty scummy article by Bates. Why write that if you don't know all the facts? He's had this coming for awhile.
Bates suggests some incorrect facts about the heart of the World's business. They have every reason to defend themselves. Was a lawsuit the best vehicle for that? It certainly got a quick retraction from Urban Tulsa. And perhaps there is something in Bates' writing that the World wants to learn about through the discovery process. Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: cannon_fodder on January 27, 2009, 08:43:37 am Gold:
Do you think this article is more about getting a retraction and "made whole" or about getting critics of the Tulsa World to shut up? Personally, I agree with you that anything published in the UTW probably has a negligible impact on the Tulsa Worlds ad revenue. They also know their fees from such a suit would bury Bates and the UTW, they aren't going to get any money. And in general, a retraction is pretty meaningless. They wanted to make sure people knew they were in charge. By making this a "big deal" more people are now aware that the World has a massive circulation drop AND they have lost a lot of journalistic credibility by filing a libel suit against another paper. Personally, I think they had a right to file the suit but doing so was the wrong decision. And I think we all agree that we won't ever see the merits of this case. Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: Gold on January 27, 2009, 08:59:55 am I don't think this will have much of an effect on the World's credibility. Most people in the area have no clue who Bates is, including the subscribers who had the article on their front page. A couple of geeks on the interwebs blogged about it and we're quickly contradicted by UTW's retraction.
I think they had to do something or they'd have an article out there questioning their business. In the past, Bates has pasted their cease and desist letters to his blog and acted like a folk hero -- that wasn't going to cut it. And I'm guessing here -- unlike Bates, I portray my guesswork as just that -- but I do know that the discovery process gets you some access that you may not otherwise have. Maybe there is something they want to follow up on with Bates. Something else I'd guess to be a factor is deterrence. They probably want UTW and Bates to leave them alone. This suit at least ensures that UTW's editors will think twice about their commentary on the World. I agree, this case likely won't reach a final judgment. Most cases don't. That alone isn't a reason not to take action to defend your business. Does the World have more resources than UTW and Bates? Of course. They also have a lot more to lose. If the World had done nothing, they'd have a problem in that a "journalist" had questioned the viability of their business. If the World had sent a cease and desist letter or simply asked for a retraction, they may well run the risk of having to debate Bates and his ilk on the merits of the article. We've all seen how Bates can get when he's cornered and doesn't want to admit he's wrong. I can't fault the World for doing something different here. It worked. UTW retracted the article. Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: tim huntzinger on January 27, 2009, 09:57:37 am What did Mark Twain say, 'A lie can go all the way around the world by the time the truth is still putting on its shoes?' The national attention is proof to the need for action, especially after the plagiarism of its former cartoonist.
Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: Conan71 on January 27, 2009, 10:05:01 am quote: So are you saying it's more-or-less a legal b!tch-slap? Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: Renaissance on January 27, 2009, 04:35:14 pm quote: Have you ever been involved in a settlement of any kind? A "retraction" by UTW has NOTHING to do with the allegedly defamatory nature of Bates' article. It just means they didn't want to spend money fighting it. quote: I believe the correct term is bench-slap. [/lawgeekery] Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: Gold on January 27, 2009, 05:00:50 pm quote: Yes, I've been involved in a settlement. UTW's retraction was a lot more than "we're sorry." Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: Conan71 on January 27, 2009, 10:43:31 pm Floyd, I wish I were at liberty to say more publicly. A) It might shine a light on my own identity and B) If the owners/publishers ever want anyone to be privvy to the inner-workings of UTW, it's up to them, not me to tip the hat on that. Knowing what I do of the publication and the publisher (I've known him for close to 25 years) Skrzypczak would not have capitulated/retracted so easily if he even remotely thought he was right, it's not in his ego.
Take the retraction at his word. TW had him beat and could prove Bates used bum info. Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: Renaissance on January 27, 2009, 11:55:01 pm Fair enough. If Bates' supposition was dead wrong, it was dead wrong. But on its face it still looks like a supposition and not a statement of fact.
I guess if he were negligent in considering the facts he's basing his supposition on, I could see it. Like, if the premises underlying his suppositions were misstated negligently or deliberately. But if that's not what happened, and the conclusion he suggests is objectively reasonable though not actually true, I still think he would have a strong defense. Conan, do you know if they have libel insurance? I thought most publishers did for this exact contingency. Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: Neptune on January 28, 2009, 05:32:21 am Bah, as soon as UTW picked up Bates, they guaranteed themselves irrelevancy. They were just interested in picking up Bates' captive radio audience. That the Tulsa World, or any other paper in the US is struggling is not news. Except, for Bates maybe. "They're in decline and not telling you...tee hee, tee hee." Bates reminds me of a wanna-be Snidley Whiplash.
(http://www.isntlifeterrible.com/uploaded_images/Snidely-774178.JPG) I mean, come on Snidley, you're chasing a semi-retarded Canadian Mountie, what's the deal? You don't have anything better to do? Honorable mention for Dick Dastardly. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EnGy38MFtY8 Though, then you'd have to ask what that Pigeon ever did to Bates? Well, unless it was what pigeons do best. Did the pigeon poop on ya? Did it? Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: Gold on January 28, 2009, 08:30:24 am quote: Isn't UTW out of the case? (Hasn't come up that way on OSCN, but the World ran an article saying just that.) Looks like the World is going after Bates individually, at least long enough to make it hurt. The big question I have is whether Bates is an independent contractor and/or has some sort of funky agreement with UTW to assume individual liability. If I were Bates, I would likely scream bloody murder over such an arrangement and think about leaving UTW. Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: Rico on January 28, 2009, 08:33:48 am "Ask Mayor LaFortune about his rumours."
What's that you say about the "Big Bopper" (http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y179/rico2/Scotty.jpg) Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: RecycleMichael on January 28, 2009, 09:09:31 am I don't think what Michael Bates writes is "schtick".
He comments on urban issues and expresses his political views both on his blog and in the weekly alternative paper. I usually disagree with his political comments, but feel he offer sound reasoning for his views. Urban Tulsa Weekly would be a lesser paper without him. Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: PonderInc on January 28, 2009, 12:12:35 pm Is this thing still going on? If the TW had just ignored it from the beginning, everyone would have forgotten about the Bates column by now. (I only heard about the issue b/c of the lawsuit...not from reading the column in the first place.) The TW should have blown it off, and simply answered any questions from potential advertisers with credible data supporting their circulation numbers.
Instead, we're still talking about this...and everyone who reads this forum is now wondering about who's telling the truth. Makes the TW look sort of silly (they stoop to conquer)...and causes a lot more people to wonder about their circulation numbers. Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: aquantics on January 28, 2009, 05:19:37 pm Michael Bates' whine: "It is always my intention to present readers with an accurate picture grounded in fact. I put a lot of time into researching details....If WPC believes I've written something in error, I'm disappointed that the company would file a suit against me without first contacting me...."
I hope the irony isn't lost on anyone that Bates could have avoided this whole mess by making a 10 minute (not a "lot of time" in my book) phone call to the World. His basic assertions of facts were both wrong (as quickly admitted by UTW)and no doubt intended to hurt the World's reputation, which he has previously attacked at every available opportunity. I for one am glad they've taken him on. Even when he is not technically committing libel, his MO is to correct a bunch of random dots and then to hint at conspiracies, profiteering and bad animus on the part of anyone who didn't have the wisdom to defer to his MIT-honed intelligence, and to brand anyone he disagrees with as an "elitist," whatever that means. I wish I were half as smart as he is. But I am mainly glad I am only one-fourth as sure of myself as he is of himself. Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: Wrinkle on January 28, 2009, 08:28:34 pm quote: Robert, is that you? Nice of you to sign up to post this comment. Welcome to the forum. It's pretty clear those who lack respect for Mike and what he does are those afflicted by his work. We need a dozen more of 'em. Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: Rico on January 28, 2009, 09:11:27 pm "Even when he is not technically committing libel, his MO is to correct a bunch of random dots and then to hint at conspiracies, profiteering and bad animus on the part of anyone who didn't have the wisdom to defer to his MIT-honed intelligence, and to brand anyone he disagrees with as an "elitist," whatever that means.
I wish I were half as smart as he is. But I am mainly glad I am only one-fourth as sure of myself as he is of himself." There was a fellow on this Forum that said Michael was one of the best "card counters" that MIT ever produced. In either Las Vegas or Atlantic City. Had that fellow went on and on to drive that point home... he would have been doing more than just producing an insulting left handed remark.(bordering on slander or more I think.) However, if he had some sort of proof of the statement, he would have just been making a statement of fact. If Michael Bates can provide "proof" of his statements, regarding the Tulsa World, that is one thing.... If he is unable to provide proof of his statements.... That will be quite another. No doubt whatsoever, he is intelligent, no doubt he has amassed a following through his "Blog", he may have even achieved the status of "Folk Hero" in the eyes of many. But he doesn't have immunity from the decision the court will render regarding this matter. Some say "there is no such thing as bad publicity"....and publicity from this event will go a long way in promoting Bates' notoriety. I hope Bates has a "very good hand".....or the notoriety may not be the kind one seeks. Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: deinstein on January 28, 2009, 11:02:00 pm quote: I agree. Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: Gold on February 04, 2009, 10:56:22 am Bates will be represented by John Eagleton, it appears. Get the beer in the fridge and the popcorn started . . .
http://www.oscn.net/applications/ocisweb/GetCaseInformation.asp?submitted=true&viewtype=caseGeneral&casemasterID=2180026&db=Tulsa Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: cannon_fodder on February 04, 2009, 11:00:54 am Now the question is: did Bates fight back our of principle or did the World corner him such that he had to? Next question - now that there is at least token resistance will the World negotiate? I understand there is pending litigation and he can't talk about it on here, but it will be interesting to find out (if we ever will).
/popcorn on the kettle. Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: Conan71 on February 04, 2009, 12:08:03 pm If Eagleton is representing him, it'll be Scotch not beer. [;)]
Eagleton is a good lawyer, not sure how he stacks up against Titus, but I'd love to hear him quoting Churchill in court sometime. Godspeed Michael, I hope this turns out well for you. Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: Renaissance on February 04, 2009, 02:51:11 pm Just want to point out that procuring counsel doesn't necessarily mean he's fighting it.
Maybe he just wants an attorney to review a potential settlement agreement, or whatever. Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: cannon_fodder on February 04, 2009, 03:20:15 pm That wouldn't require an entry of appearance. He is either fighting it or leveraging for a better settlement (hence the appearance and reservation of an additional 20 days).
Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: Renaissance on February 04, 2009, 04:45:27 pm I'm not familiar with the local rules in the county court. But if he wants a stipulated dismissal he might want an attorney to appear on his behalf.
All this says is that he's got a lawyer and hasn't settled yet. Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: Gold on February 05, 2009, 09:48:28 am You don't need an attorney for a stipulation of dismissal in Tulsa, but you're right, it doesn't tell us anything other than he is represented by a city councilor, has waived his right to file a motion to dismiss, and has reserved some time to answer.
Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: sgrizzle on February 05, 2009, 10:11:06 am quote: That podium is what, 2 feet tall? Anyone else disturbed by this picture? Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: RecycleMichael on February 12, 2009, 07:04:25 am http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20090212_16_A11_Localw828482
Local writer issues retraction, apology to Tulsa World Local writer Michael Bates has issued an apology and retraction letter to the Tulsa World for an Urban Tulsa Weekly column he wrote concerning the Tulsa World's circulation. After Bates issued his retraction letter to the Tulsa World, the World agreed to dismiss its defamation lawsuit against Bates. His column had suggested that the World concealed circulation declines and inflated its circulation audits. "My research was flawed and information in my story was false and inaccurate, and I retract those incorrect statements," Bates' letter says. "I apologize to the Tulsa World and the Urban Tulsa Weekly," the letter continues. Tulsa World Publisher Robert E. Lorton III said: "He has apologized for the inaccuracies in his story. The case has been settled, and, as with all settlements, the terms are confidential." In the column, Bates wrote that an Audit Bureau of Circulation report "suggests the World was inflating its circulation by as much as 20 percent." The issue is a sensitive one to newspapers and the newspaper industry. In recent years, several large daily newspapers have admitted to falsifying circulation figures and paid large settlements to advertisers as a result. The World initially sued both Urban Tulsa and Bates but dropped Urban Tulsa as a defendant after it printed a retraction. In his letter, Bates confirms that he did not contact the World to verify his assertions about its circulation and admits several errors. "(T)he suggestion that Tulsa World circulation was 'inflated' is incorrect," Bates wrote in his letter. "I have no knowledge or information regarding any attempt by the Tulsa World to 'inflate' any aspect of (its) circulation or readership." In his retraction letter, Bates wrote that he now understands why the World took the "extreme action" of suing him "for defamation and disparagement and do not disagree with the Tulsa World's need to set the record straight." Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: sgrizzle on February 12, 2009, 07:24:36 am I wonder if one of the terms of the settlement is that he never uses the term "Tulsa Whirled" again.
Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: blindnil on February 12, 2009, 07:56:12 am Looks like Bates had to post it on his blog as well. It's in the upper left-hand corner. That's a strongly worded letter.
Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: Conan71 on February 12, 2009, 09:00:28 am The tinfoil hat crowd has been busy already this morning on the World web site:
"If the Tulsa World wants to put a muzzle on Michael Bates, it must mean the Kaiser River Tax II ploy or equivalent is headed our way." Glad that's settled Michael. Minor bit of humiliation and move on with most of your bank account intact. Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: Gold on February 12, 2009, 09:21:47 am quote: This letter wasn't minor humiliation, unless you are as shameless as Paul Tay . . . and I'm not saying that Bates is not so shameless. So much for the frivolity of these claims. When does that wingnut from Slate retract his comments? Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: cannon_fodder on February 12, 2009, 09:33:48 am Again Gold, a retraction and apology or settlement of any kind is not a ruling on the merits of the claim.
Bates is an independent local journalist. His car has over 200,000 miles on it. How much do you think the retainer would be to properly defend this action? $10,000 at a bare minimum. I'll let you do the math on that one. As much as it sucks, most people would apologize instead of breaking open their IRA to defend a suit. To protect my wife and child from total financial ruin I'd probably suck it up and retract any statement I made too - even if I thought what I said was accurate. As you well know, even if Bates' version was correct he could still very well lose at trial. I'm NOT saying that Bates version was correct as I have not spoken to him about this since he has had any real contact with the World (nor have I spoken with anyone of knowledge with the World). It could very well be that they showed him data, told him was his data was wrong, or that he realized he was careless with his words. I'm merely pointing out that a settlement of any kind is not an adjudication on the merits. Devils advocate I suppose. Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: Gold on February 12, 2009, 10:27:40 am quote: Those are fair points, though I disagree to some extent; that's likely the only text we'll ever have on this matter and it's a doozie. I'm also enjoying the irony of the idealogue throwing in the towel. And I kind of think he had it coming. Like our criticism of Mr. Tay on here, I think there is a time and a place for being a gadfly for local politics. Bates is a talented man, but I think he lets his personal peculiararities get in the way of encouraging useful, valuable change. Bates has gone after some good, hard-working people over the years -- who do have the best intentions for our community -- without fully researching or contemplating the result of the change he proposed. He often doesn't know what he's talking about. Then again, that's what happens when you are handed a weekly column without much (or any) journalism training. If you really want to create change on a local level, you've got to choose your battles wisely. Bates was handed a small pulpit in small weekly paper. Too often his writing seems mean-spirited and actually an attempt to cut down good people who only had the misfortune of being in a position of authority and made a decision that Bates didn't take the time to understand. Tulsa has too many significant problems for us to get caught up in discussions of whether pro-choice politicians should serve in local level political office or for us to hear the regurgitated attack on Judge Wiseman that mostly arose because Bates appears to not understand how local court procedure works. There is a time and place to take an adversarial position. You can't take an adversarial position on everything, all the while ignoring the significant local issues (JOBS!!!), and hope to accomplish anything, much less garner respect from people with a clue. I think he had it coming and if it wasn't this deal, someone else was going to catch him. Hopefully Bates turns over a new leaf and uses his talents more wisely; or perhaps he just rides off into the night on his blog. And, face it, this is about as much enjoyment as we'll get out of the popcorn and beer mentioned earlier in the thread. Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: AVERAGE JOE on February 13, 2009, 10:06:21 am There is a difference between a blogger and a journalist. Posting innuendo on one's blog is one thing. Publishing an article as a paid journalist under the masthead of a weekly, advertiser-supported publication is quite another. If Bates made an error, it was forgetting this distinction.
Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: Conan71 on February 13, 2009, 12:39:19 pm quote: For a second AJ, I thought it said "under the meathead..." [;)] Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: Conan71 on February 18, 2009, 01:59:09 pm quote: Careful Tim, you might be the next victim of their bullying. Title: Tulsa World sues Bates Post by: sgrizzle on February 18, 2009, 03:02:23 pm Timmy's not scared, he can take them.
(http://www.globalnerdy.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/south_park_krazy_kripples.jpg) (not actual photo) |