By now it’s old news that The Tulsa World is suing The Urban Tulsa Weekly, its publisher, and Tulsa blog-father and UTW columnist, Michael Bates. I’ve met Michael, and Michael’s been a repeat guest on the WynnCast. Heck, I even tease my wife about having a Bates crush sometimes because she loves his work so much.
Whatever one may think about Michael’s ideology, you have to admit that he is genius-level smart, a great researcher, and thorough in presenting the bases for arriving at the opinions he holds. In the interest of full disclosure, I will state that I personally agree with Michael about 99.99% of the time (as to where we differ, I’m not sure he’s a full-on Fair Tax supporter yet, and he seems dedicated to Moveable Type when we all know WordPress is the far superior blog framework). That said, he would have my support even if we didn’t agree (yes, I have liberal friends, too). And here’s why:
In my experience—and I have been threatened with libel/slander suits in roundabout ways—the threat of libel/slander is typically not about responding to actual harm resulting from a malicious lie someone has publicly spoken and/or published. It is typically an effort at intimidation rooted in the fact that someone is afraid that you have told a truth about them that they would rather not have known. It remains the truth, nonetheless. And, as my competent legal adviser is wont to remind me: the truth is an absolute defense against a charge of libel/slander.
Now, as to the nature of this case, it is laughable that The Tulsa World—which I assume buys ink by the barrel—feels the need to file a lawsuit against UTW and Bates when it has ample opportunity to print evidence to counter Bates’ claims, call him a liar (and prove it if they can) and lambaste him daily on its pages from here to eternity if the Tulsa World management so desires.
More and more, people (and now publications, it seems) that have thrust themselves into the public realm expect never to be challenged and work diligently (including threatening and cajoling) to stifle any and all dissent.
The trick to dealing with bullies is to stand up to them. Make them make good on their threats. Make them walk into court and make their claims. Make them subject themselves to discovery. Make them seat a jury of twelve average Tulsans who will listen to them claim that an independent weekly and a blogger hurt their business. Corporate bullies thrive on their ability to out-lawyer you (even though some have to let staff go due to economic hard times) to scare you into being quiet and to quit rocking the boat. Call their bluff…and counter sue.
Being the stand-up guy he is, Michael posted that he would have welcomed some contact from the World so he could have made a correction—if anything was indeed wrong:
If WPC [World Publishing Company] believes I’ve written something in error, I’m disappointed that the company would file a suit against me without first contacting me with evidence to contradict what I wrote and giving me the opportunity to issue a clarification or correction.
And let’s deal with the real nub of the issue. Michael wouldn’t have near the influence that he does in T-Town if the daily paper hadn’t long ago all but abandoned any semblance of objectivity in its reporting. When you offend the politics of half the people in a conservative town, it’s a real trick to blame the resultant drop in circulation (and I am not saying there is one, for you Tulsa World attorneys out there) on the independent weekly paper.
It used to be said that a little debate on the editorial page was good at selling papers. I can’t be the only one to think the biggest step the World could have taken toward courting the many it has alienated would be to hire Bates away from the UTW (if he is even paid) and class up their editorial page with a broader spectrum of experience, insight, and opinion. When influence, power, and business trump reporting and make your opinion pages reliably one-sided, you’re not a reliable news paper anymore.
Has anyone ever wondered why blogs are so numerous and popular? It’s because among their many uses is the ability to post news, information, and opinion without the overhead of massive news machines. Sometimes it’s just possible that the news has a better chance flowing through folks who don’t depend on their medium for an income. When I post things on the WynnBlog the advertisers don’t like, I have zero pressure to modify or finesse my content—because I have no advertisers.
All I know is that I doubt there is any fault in Michael Bates, I encourage him to fight, and I will do all I can to help him stand up to the bully. I was bullied in grade school and it made my life miserable. Until one day I hit back. That day in fifth grade, my life changed forevermore. Bullies are cowards at heart, and everyone’s heart shows when the chips are down.
If we have to have an Oklahoma bloggers’ bake sale to provide Michael’s defense, I’ll make the first and last batches of cookies.
5 comments
Comment by Dan Paden on January 17, 2009 at 7:49 PM
My personal opinion is that this suit was filed out of spite, or in an attempt to intimidate not just Michael Bates, but a whole group of people. Just my opinion, of course.
After reading the statements in question, it seems astonishing that anyone could possibly think that a lawsuit over them would be winnable.
If I’m correct, it is certainly very low-class behavior.
Comment by Jeff Shaw on January 18, 2009 at 6:39 PM
Great Post. I’ll make the cookies in between, and design “Free Michael Bates” T-shirts to sale.
Comment by RSU Prof on January 20, 2009 at 8:43 AM
“Slate’s” Jack Shafer has a column up analyzing the Tulsa World’s law suit. His conclusion is fitting:
“My unsolicited advice to Bates and Urban Tulsa: Call a press conference, pass out party hats, and say that you welcome the World’s suit! Tell the Tulsa press corps you’re dying to use the power of discovery to dig deeply into the World’s circulation numbers to determine precisely how accurate its audits have been over the last 20 years. Oh, and make sure to enlist one of the World’s big, regular advertisers as your ally. They’ll be very interested in getting a close-up of the paper’s circulation numbers.
I’ll bet the World would fold like a supermarket insert.”
The link is http://www.slate.com/id/2208981/
Comment by Redneck Diva on January 22, 2009 at 10:38 AM
Count me in to make the snickerdoodles!
I hate bullies.
Comment by Joel Burkhart on January 24, 2009 at 10:59 AM
Every reporters dream is to uncover a hot story of wrongdoing by some big evil corporate entity and in Bate’s case that Evil Empire is the Tulsa World. They’ve already hammered him once for using their copy written material and linking to there website. It’s obvious from his other blogs on the subject that he bares them more than a little malice and he’s out to expose them for the frauds he believes them to be..
However, like a lot of internet bloggers, he’s let his political convictions over come some simple journalism practices that apply in the print world. First, if you have a hot story with damaging information, in this case that the World was cooking the books on it’s circulation numbers to up it’s advertising rates, you always find a second independent source to confirm your facts or suspicions. That’s Journalism 101. Next you call the company or person you are about to expose for the frauds you believe them to be and ask if they care to comment on what you are about to publish about them. That’s Journalism 201
When they don’t return your call, you sit back and watch them sweat, knowing that you, the white knight, are protected by the best defense for libeling or defaming someone, called the truth.
Unfortunately, Bate’s did not follow Journalism 101 or 201 and judging by the retraction printed by his own Urban Tulsa’s editor there’s no truth in his defamatory accusations either.
If you print that Dr. X’s medical clinic’s credentials are ‘Probably 20% inflated” or “Bank Y’s assets are probably overstated by 20%” those are both suggestions of fraud on their part and both are actionable libels. If the World can show malice on his part (probably yes) reckless disregard of the truth (possibly) and loss of income from the libel (probably no) they have every right to drop the hammer on him and since there is no love lost between them, they probably will.