How Long Must We Sing This Song?
I received this press release from the News-Press/Room Eight:
==============Press Release===============
The judge in the reinstatement hearing for the eight reporters who were illegally fired from the Santa Barbara News-Press wants the parties back in court on Monday, March 31, to hear further arguments.
The hearing, scheduled to begin at 1:30 p.m., will be held at Federal District Court in Los Angeles, 312 N. Spring Street, Courtroom 6.
==============Press Release===============
The judge in the reinstatement hearing for the eight reporters who were illegally fired from the Santa Barbara News-Press wants the parties back in court on Monday, March 31, to hear further arguments.
The hearing, scheduled to begin at 1:30 p.m., will be held at Federal District Court in Los Angeles, 312 N. Spring Street, Courtroom 6.
Labels: News-Press Eight, Santa Barbara News-Press, Wendy McCaw
posted by Sara De la Guerra | 3/28/2008 08:33:00 PM
Our Community Guidelines ask that you use the Blogger/Open ID login or the
more private Name/URL option when making comments. Comments using "Anonymous" will not be published. For more info, see choosing an identity.
16 Comments:
Sing Along -- sorry but I can't run with that second line. Edit it and I'd be happy to allow the comment.
The muse having writ, moves on. You can yabba-dabba the "s" word if you like, but there is no copy and it wasn't all that great in the first place. Just a midnight muse, having writ and moving on. I understand your editing sensibilities.
Thanks -- I've seen comments misconstrued by others before even though I liked what you wrote. Just need to protect myself...
I have been an avid follower of this meltdown since the beginning. For the purpose of full disclosure, I have no connection with the SBNP. I have had two or three op-ed pieces published by them, and that was when they were owned by the NY Times. Other than former book writers Susan Gulbransen and Fred Klein, I do not know any of the people directly involved in the story.
That said, I find I have almost no interest any more in this story. Craig Smith is nearly off my radar, thankfully. I read BlogBarbara, but rarely comment, and am always happy when it's any story but this one. I do not and will not subscribe to the NP because it simply is not a paper; there is nothing in it. While I hope the fired reporters are given justice because I believe they were wronged, I also have little interest in what actually happens. I wish them well in their new ventures and thank them for their past reporting.
The big loser in all this are the newspaper readers. No satisfactory competitor has risen and I doubt one ever will. BlogaBarbara is very good, especially now that the comments are articulate and interesting rather than abusive. But I do wish there was a daily that offered some real local news, that believed it owed its town's residents quality reporting. I have no interest in seeing nasty, vindictive editorials instead of thoughtful commentary and inane "articles" instead of genuine news.
Sadly, it's not to be. I realize it will probably never be that way again in my lifetime -- or at least in Wendy's lifetime. If there was any bias in the paper, then the blame lies with editors, Scott included, and reporters. The balance that an ideal paper strives for is a team effort. Was that ever there? I am not sure. Some would agree, others would not. But wouldn't it be wonderful if there was a real newspaper that welcomed and encouraged all points of view and tried to present the news as best it could. I can always dream.
The old Tom Storke NewsPress was a chamber of commerce rag. As long as I have lived here (decades) people have called it the "NewsSuppress".
Why blame Wendy only for putting her own personal stamp on this masthead, just like every other owner has done and has the right to do.
When owned by the New York Times, its only contribution was to bail out because they saw no future in local dailies. Cut Wendy some slack and get your head out of the sand. You are comparing it to a non-existent past. And that is a very biased agenda.
Snow job, Wendy is to blame for the very reasons she insists upon totalitarian control of the paper: she owns it and demands to control every word, even as she also claims to be ethical in exercising that control. The paper has lost its way ever since she appointed herself and Mr. Fancywater co-publishers, because their own pro-wealthy, anti-City Council, anti-employee, anti-union, anti-immigrant, pro-business biases shine through in the news reporting and the failure to cover what it used to cover, as well as in the editorial pages. And it doesn't help the quality of the paper when they overwork and understaff the newsroom and disrespect and frustrate the employees at every turn. The union is trying to improve the situation, but so far are facing management that prefers lying and lawbreaking to collective bargaining.
Geesh, Piedmont Peter, you chronic whining is really getting irritating.
Again, your total argument is while you agree Wendy owns this paper lock stock and barrel, she does not get to run it the way she wants and her employees are forced slaves with no right to quit in violation of the 13th Amendment.
I simply do not follow this line of argument. You are wounded, yes. But please make sense rather than the same circular arguments.
Snow puke, ownership of an enterprise does not make one omnipotent and immune from control and regulation by societal laws, whether ethical, legislated, and/or judicial. And just because one is an employee of a non-anointed entrepreneur doesn't mean that one's rights consist only of quitting. I would say you are still in the 20th century, but I'm thinking it's really more like the pre-Civil War 19th, or earlier.
Face it, Wendy McCaw is a hypocrite, a tyrant, a person who denies she is subject to the law of the land, yet claims to be possessed of supreme ethics and martyred victimhood because others use their rights to criticize her and all she can do is yell back at them with her itty bitty newspaper, and sue and threaten them with her ethically-challenged lawyers. As soon as she personally admits, as you have on her behalf, that she is a liar, unethical, and a chronic outlaw, I can rest in peace.
Thanks for playing our game.
Piedmont Pete -- cut out the name calling please! Snow Job may bring out passionate response but the name calling isn't needed....thanks.
Sara, Snow Job's posts are primarily personal and purport to insult through dime-store psychoanalysis. How is that different in character from name-calling?
Perhaps not much and occasionally I need to remind myself and others to take it easy...in making your comment an example, I am also trying to remind others. I apologize for not making that more clear....
Piedmont Pete,
For the umpteenth time:
Wendy is not above the law, but she sure has the right to wait until the final court determines what the law is.
I don't blame her one bit fighting all of this, tooth and nail.
No one should be forced to work with people who have gone vehemently on public record hating her.
Snow job,
Despite all the venom that has spewed forth, primarily from the McCaw and her agents, I am confident that McCaw, the union and the newsroom can reconcile if McCaw does, in fact, actually obey the spirit and substance of the law. McCaw is not merely "waiting" to find out what the law is; she is using the procedures that delay matters and frustrate union organizing and collective bargaining to her advantage, to try to hold out one day longer. This is not the trait of an innocent pursuer of justice, but that of a malefactor with money to burn and vindictiveness abounding.
Piedmont, it is not up to you to determine what the law is or what anyone's intent is.
If the judge wants to find against Wendy for contempt or abuse of process, and that judgement stands then we will all abide by that final judgement.
But you, my young man are just blowing smoke with your arbitrary conclusions. Please do not misrepresent them as legal conclusions in your future posts.
Wendy has reasonable legal grounds to persue her case. More than sufficient grounds. So put a sock in it already. And you can't put the genie back in the bottle.
The anti-NewsPress duct tape gang poisoned their own well. Monderation is something they should have considered a long, long time ago. And before they put it all in that scurillous film.
I am sure glad people like that with such poor judgement are no longer writing for our local paper.
Snow job, your very edict that Wendy has "reasonable", "more than sufficient grounds" to persue (sic) her case is itself in error and a legal conclusion that cannot and will not stand. Having done at least as much research as Doogie Kelley, boy genius and classmate of Monica Goodling, I have confidence that the legal system will ultimately show Wendy to be wrong. She is in any event immoral. Indeed, Wendy can count on facing more labor prosecutions in the future, since her representatives can't seem to comply with their essential obligations.
One's intent usually can be discerned from one's actions. Wendy has admitted she doesn't like unions -- indeed, she revels in that hostility. So it comes as no surprise when her minions do all they can to please her by abusing union supporters and illegally discouraging union support. Her agents aren't very good at disguising their animus, and the NLRB has figured it out, and will continue to prosecute her to the max.
Don't give me instructions, snow job, and don't try to guess my age.
The newsroom reporters didn't make the film, and if it's so scurrilous, how come unmellow Cappello is reduced to calling it fancy rhetorical names rather than opening a can of legal whupass?
Piedmont, look up "demurrer" and get back to me if you don't think the judge thinks Wendy has reasonable grounds to continue her legal processes.
Post a Comment
<< Home