When Scott Steepleton was contacted directly one month ago by me to answer some honest questions about his job and respond to internal complaints about his performance, the News-Press associate editor did not reply. Rather, a couple days later, the News-Press‘ attorneys got back to The Independent via our attorneys with a brief note threatening legal action. This is the twisted state of journalism in Santa Barbara today.
This saga began about four weeks ago when I got a call from someone inside the News-Press newsroom. The caller had some serious complaints about Steepleton and his wife Charlotte Boechler, who was recently promoted to assistant editor of the Life section. The caller explained that “there is an increasing lack of faith and respect” in Steepleton and that Boechler became somewhat tyrannical when given a leadership role.
The anonymous source - who echoed similar charges of nepotism from former and current News-Press employees that I’ve heard since Boechler’s promotion - also indicated that there is suspicion that the newspaper’s ownership may eventually try to use Steepleton as a fall guy for the community’s unrest. (How that would work is unclear - would Santa Barbara let owner Wendy McCaw off the hook that easily? - but the bizarre factor is already so high that anything’s possible.) The source suggested that Steepleton appears to harbor the same beliefs based on his increasingly paranoid and irrational behavior. (When, out of curiosity, I asked what editorial page editor Travis Armstrong was up to these days, the caller said that Armstrong stays out of the newsroom and usually enters and exits through a back door.)
Because my questions dealt directly with Steepleton and his wife - and, furthermore, suggested a possible break between the editor and his supervisors, who are co-publishers Wendy McCaw and Arthur von Wiesenberger - I figured that it would be proper, prudent, and a common courtesy to approach Steepleton himself. Last time I checked, it is still standard journalism practice to ask for a comment from someone who is the subject of an article.
On May 10, about one week after getting the anonymous call, I sent the following email to Steepleton:
From: Matt Kettmann (matt@independent.com)
Date: May 10, 2007 3:48 PM
Subject: Comments for upcoming article about you?
To: ssteepleton@newspress.com
Hi Scott,
I’ve recently received multiple calls from people within your offices who want to remain anonymous for obvious reasons. They are concerned about your management techniques, including the recent naming of your wife Charlotte as assistant Life editor. The direct quote is that “there is an increasing lack of faith and respect” in you and that the behavior of your wife changed drastically for the worse when she was put in a supervisory position.
There are corresponding charges of nepotism, as you might imagine. These people also believe that you are possibly being set up as the fall-guy for the paper’s ownership, someone for the publishers to blame publicly when they think the timing is right. These people also think that you are aware of that possibility, which is why I am coming directly to you.
Do you have any response to any of this? I always go thru Agnes rather than straight to you, but she hasn’t been able to get anything from management since I started emailing her on a weekly, sometimes daily basis since January. And since this article immediately affects you, your wife, and your position at the paper, I thought it would be more appropriate to offer you a venue to respond.
Any comments? How is life over there? Do you see a long future at the paper? How is your relationship with ownership?
Thanks,
matt
May 10 was a Thursday. No word on Friday, not even a simple and customary “no comment,” which would have at least been polite. Then over the weekend, I get an email from our publisher wondering what it is I asked Steepleton. Apparently, the News-Press‘ attorneys took issue with my questions and sent a letter warning against such standard journalistic practices. Apparently, since they are suing us in a federal copyright case, they believe that no one from our paper is allowed to contact anyone from their paper without going through attorneys. I guess what we’ll get from now on is a constant “no comment” from their PR rep Agnes Huff, who’s been cordial in our correspondence but has not been able to elicit one single comment from management despite countless attempts since January.
So I forwarded the above email to my publisher, with a note, “Pretty standard reporter stuff. I guess he doesn’t want to respond?” A couple days later, our attorneys, who represent the Borat movie among other notable clients, sent a letter to the News-Press‘ attorneys that defended our right to ask questions and reiterated that such is common journalistic practice, a case of one newspaperman asking another newspaperman for a comment.
How about an instant replay? I am contacted by an anonymous source at the beginning of May with information about Scott Steepleton. I contact Steepleton for a comment, as is standard practice in journalism. Steepleton forwards my request to management. Management forwards the request to their attorneys. News-Press attorneys write letter to our attorneys. Our attorneys contact my publisher. My publisher contacts me. I forward correspondence with Steepleton to my publisher. Publisher consults our attorneys. Our attorneys send a letter to their attorneys. Meanwhile, an article related to the anonymous tip is carefully prepared, knowing that lawyers are watching closely. And then, one month later, you’re finally reading the article.
Is this the sort of journalism we want in Santa Barbara, the brand where news gets delayed an entire month because attorneys get called in when one journalist asks another for a comment? I doubt it, but thanks to the News-Press, this is what we’ve got.
Comments
Obviosly, it is all the fault of Steepleton about why the circulation numbers and the true numbers of paid subscribers, are falling.
Nothing else could explain it.
FirstDistrictStreetfighter (anonymous profile)
June 7, 2007 at 9:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Aside from quitting his job, what choice does Scott have in this matter? If he's not responding, I have a feeling it's because he's being told not to do so. I wouldn't want to be in his position.
billclausen (anonymous profile)
June 7, 2007 at 10:08 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Bill's point is a valid one. Scott Steepleton is between a rock and a hard place. If he answers the questions honestly and openly, he faces the possibility of termination (a very real possibility, as we all know). If he tells Matt, "I'm not in a position to comment," he looks as though he's been muzzled and intimidated. And even then, Windy's ever-increasing paranoia and distrust might lead her to believe that Scott gave Matt something off the record -- especially if the Indy were to print a story with some kind of inside information in the subsequent weeks.
Steepleton can't be pleased with a lot of the attention being focused on him, the manner in which his talents and credibility as a journalist have been called into question, etc. And more than one person has suggested that he's finished as a newsman, if he loses his gig at the News-Mess. So handing off this sticky ball of problematic outcomes to the well-tailored thugs was really his only move.
niceFLguy (anonymous profile)
June 8, 2007 at 4:44 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Give me a break, people. The point is not necessarily about whether it was prudent for Steepleton to keep the publishers in the loop about Kettman's request; the point is whether the "publishers" (I use that term loosely) needed to send a so-called "lawsuit threat" in response to Kettman's questions.
I'd love to see what their threatening letter said, but I can only assume that won't be forthcoming.
I'm telling you, those people are cah-ray-zee, every last one of them. Can't wait to go scrounge around to find Armstrong's editorial this morning for further proof of that.
allegro805 (anonymous profile)
June 8, 2007 at 8:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Finished as a newsman is more than a suggestion, it was a fact months ago.
This game of lawyer filters already makes him muzzled and intimidated.
Steeps is the Himmler to The Wendy as the Hitler.
One really wonders why Steepleton would not just treat the public the same way that Travisty does to email messages: No response, no reply, and then getting offended that contributors to the editorial pages send the material elsewhere and even state that in the first attempted contribution.
FirstDistrictStreetfighter (anonymous profile)
June 8, 2007 at 8:40 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Armstrong's editorial today is ridiculous (why do I torture myself so by reading?). He really sees himself as a "watchdog journalist."
allegro805 (anonymous profile)
June 8, 2007 at 9:14 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Steepleton is not some innocent "professional" caught in the middle of a no-win situation. He chose to side with the Wendy-Travis-Nipper axis of evil, and he's played his part. Trust me, I know. If he becomes the scapegoat, I say good riddance.
Trekking_Left (anonymous profile)
June 8, 2007 at 10:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)
SBNP seems like a punch drunk fighter nowadays. Visualize starz floating above the head and a litle bird chirping "Cuckoo, Cuckoo" I'm waiting for someone to yell "Timbeeerrrrrr"
sa1 (anonymous profile)
June 8, 2007 at 1:07 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Newspress dysfunction?
Zero transparency?
Threats of lawsuit?
zzzzzzzzzzzzzz. why do we even discuss this rag anymore? The point was made and validated ions ago.
mark (anonymous profile)
June 28, 2007 at 12:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)
This was a fun trip down memory lane, thanks Loon.
Ken_Volok (anonymous profile)
February 24, 2015 at 7:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)