Tulsa World sues Bates

[RecycleMichael]

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.

[PonderInc]

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.

[aquantics]

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.

[Wrinkle]

quote:Originally posted by aquantics

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.

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.

[Rico]

"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.

[deinstein]

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

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.

I agree.

[Gold]

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

[cannon_fodder]

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.

[Conan71]

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.

[Renaissance]

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.

[cannon_fodder]

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).

[Renaissance]

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.

[Gold]

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.

[sgrizzle]

quote:Originally posted by Rico

"Ask Mayor LaFortune about his rumours."


What's that you say about the "Big Bopper"

That podium is what, 2 feet tall?

Anyone else disturbed by this picture?

[RecycleMichael]

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."