The Latest News-Press Generated Drama
Thursday, June 7, 2007
The Firing Line: Just when we thought things had cooled at the News-Press meltdown, Mayor Marty Blum, NP owner Wendy McCaw, her editorial writer Travis Armstrong, journalist Lou Cannon, and former NP editor Jerry Roberts all fired off blasts. At the same time, the feds filed a sizzling charge of wholesale unfair labor practices against the News-Press, setting an August 14 hearing here. To coin a cliche, it looks like a long, hot summer.
On Tuesday, Mayor Blum, who has long suffered the slings and arrows of outrageous snipes from Armstrong, decided to reply via letter to the editor. “Your diatribe against me in the June 1 Santa Barbara News-Press is patently false and full of lies and misleading innuendo.”
On the Beat
Blum said that while she understands the role of an editorial writer to be a watchdog on city matters, he was behaving more like a pit bull. An editorial page editor “has no responsibility to lie, attack, and be just plain mean,” the mayor argued.
For one thing, she denied ever refusing to appear on his radio show and stands ready to do so, even though he banned her. As of Tuesday, the NP had not printed her reply.
Far more serious was Jerry Roberts’s reply to McCaw, published online Tuesday by the Los Angeles Times. Roberts’s commentary, titled “Disintegration of a Newspaper’s Ethics,” charged that McCaw’s recent piece in the Times online edition “was filled with more of the same false, defamatory, and misleading statements and innuendos with which she has attacked me for months, in an effort to find someone to blame for the self-inflicted, widely reported troubles at the News-Press.
“As Lou Cannon properly pointed out,” Roberts continued, “‘Child pornography is evil.’ It is, in my opinion, about the most heinous activity one can be charged with-and McCaw’s vicious attempt to falsely tie me to this material is the most unethical and reckless use of a newspaper I have witnessed as a professional journalist.
“The motive in doing so is to damage and smear my personal and professional reputation at a time when McCaw is suing me in a contract dispute for $25 million. That key fact has somehow never found its way into the pages of the News-Press. Neither have any of my denials or comments about the issue-although the paper dispatched a reporter to cover a press conference my wife and I held to denounce its first story on the subject.”
All this and more, Roberts wrote, “provides a case study of why professional journalists have fled the newsroom in droves since last July 6, when nearly every senior editor departed.
“Since last summer, McCaw has repositioned the paper as a kind of vanity press, whose apparent purpose is to punish her personal and political enemies, to brag on her friends and pet causes, and to align the views of her editorial pages with what is reported in her news pages.
“Her innuendo that I am somehow responsible for or connected to images of child pornography found on a computer [owned by the paper] is a contemptible suggestion that is categorically false and that was published with reckless disregard for the truth with the purpose of destroying me and my career,” Roberts charged.
“Her statement that I ‘wiped’ the hard drive of the computer clean is also a blatant falsehood, unsupported by evidence-and a physical impossibility, given the fact that I was brusquely evicted from the newspaper moments after submitting my departure letter (in which, ironically, I offered to stay 30 days, to ‘ease the transition’).”
This sounds like libel talk. Roberts has previously said he would seek “massive” damages regarding the paper’s April 22 page-one story about the pornography and demanded a retraction. So far, no decision has been made whether he will raise the issue in the ongoing arbitration or file a Superior Court libel action, Dennis Merenbach, one of Roberts’s lawyers, told me.
Ride, Girls, Ride! Four Santa Barbara County women plan to leap onto their bikes next week to join a transcontinental race to raise money for Girls Inc. here. Denise Clark of Goleta, Sonia Ross and Jill Gass of Santa Barbara, and Lisa Tonello of Los
Alamos will join the six-day Race Across America marathon next Tuesday in Ocean-side, heading for Atlantic City. Corporate sponsors are needed. To donate, contact Beth Cleary at Girls Inc., 963-4757.
Serious Drama: Ensemble Theatre is staging a play that’s bound to shock some audiences, which after all is part of the role of live theater. In This Is How It Goes, playwright Neil LaBute confronts us with vile racist language you’re probably not used to hearing but exists out there, and the dynamics of a love triangle involving a white man, a white woman, and her black husband. This is powerful, compelling theater, a drama that twists and turns in surprising ways.
Comments
This comparison of similarity between Travis Armstrong and pit-bull-type dogs is a gross and massively libelous insult to this variety of dogs. American Bull Terriers (slang name: "pit bulls") are one of the most friendly dog breeds to people and they were bred traditionally to be that way.
Research Shows that dog aggression on humans is far more likely by full poodles, cocker spaniels, akitas, Deutsch shepherds, etc.
Please, do not insult these or any other of Gaia's Creatures with such comparisons with that editorialist.
David_Pritchett (David Pritchett)
June 7, 2007 at 12:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)
David -
While it's true that comparing Travis to a pit bull is an affront to pit bulls specifically and canines in general, please don't start in on the akitas. Most of them are respectful and well-behaved citizens, with judgment and impulse control well beyond that of Mr. Armstrong.
niceFLguy (anonymous profile)
June 7, 2007 at 1:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)
With all the accusations of lies all around, I'm wondering why there are not lawsuits for libel? In other words, it's just people yelling at each other back and no one taking it to the next level--which by doing so would prove once and for all what is really happening.
billclausen (anonymous profile)
June 8, 2007 at 2:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I love dogs, but I do not believe that pit bulls are friendly and cuddly: The news and facts refute your view. All too many pitbull owners find themselves in hot water after their dog mauls somebody -- I have never read a story about a poodle mauling a baby.
If you don't beleive me, then check with the British government. As you know, unlike the USA, the UK has fewer laws and penalities than the USA; however, when the public good or safety is at risk, they act and act swiftly as they did in 1991 after a series of pitbull attacks. They created the Dangerous Dog act.
In short, it prevents thugs from owning 'thug' breeds of dogs,or puts restirctions on said ownership. Read the following and the stop crowing about the comparison of Travis Armstrong to a pitbull being wrong -- Humans are thugs, and some dogs are too
Dangerous Dog act UK
back to previous page
An Act to prohibit persons from having in their possession or custody dogs belonging to types bred for fighting; to impose restrictions in respect of such dogs pending the coming into force of the prohibition; to enable restrictions to be imposed in relation to other types of dog which present a serious danger to the public; to make further provision for securing that dogs are kept under proper control; and for connected purposes.
[25th July 1991]
Be it enacted by the Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Spiritual and Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, and by the authority of the same, as follows:-(This is only the summary)
Dangerous Dog act: 1991
Dogs bred for fighting.
1.-(1) This section applies to-
(a) any dog of the type known as the pit bull terrier;
(b) any dog of the type known as the Japanese tosa; and
(c) any dog of any type designated for the purposes of this section by an order of the Secretary of State, being a type appearing to him to be bred for fighting or to have the characteristics of a type bred for that purpose.
(2) No person shall-
(a) breed, or breed from, a dog to which this section applies;
(b) sell or exchange such a dog or offer, advertise or expose such a dog for sale or exchange;
(c) make or offer to make a gift of such a dog or advertise or expose such a dog as a gift;
(d) allow such a dog of which he is the owner or of which he is for the time being in charge to be in a public place without being muzzled and kept on a lead; or
(e) abandon such a dog of which he is the owner or, being the owner or for the time being in charge of such a dog, allow it to stray.
mrnntop (anonymous profile)
June 10, 2007 at 10:21 a.m. (Suggest removal)
The lack of a formal filing of any libel lawsuit at this point in time isn't yet relevant to the issue of "what is really happening". California law provides for periods of one to three years before the applicable Statute of Limitations would render the lawsuit untimely. What is needed in our community is more Independent coverage of the claims and counterclaims since we do not receive any unbiased reporting of these by the NewsPress.
mike430 (anonymous profile)
June 16, 2007 at 5:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)
I know a woman who had a poodle lock on her face causing a ton of damage, reconstructive surgery, and hundreds of stitches. She had been playing with the poodle all day because it was very friendly. Then she looked at it wrong......... Oh I'm sorry, it was a pitbull. My mistake.
xxes26 (anonymous profile)
June 19, 2007 at 3:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)