Print friendly
E-mail story
Contact an Editor
iPod friendly
Comments
Bookmark This
del.icio.us.
Digg!
furl
google
newsvine
reddit
technorati
Facebook
Yahoo!I was busy doing nothing when I was interrupted Thursday evening by a reporter from UCSB’s Daily Nexus, informing me that The Independent had just been sued in federal court by News-Press owner Wendy P. McCaw.
In her lawsuit, McCaw alleges that The Independent had infringed upon her copyright, ripped off her trade secrets, engaged in “intentional and negligent interference with her prospective economic advantage and contract.” Translated into the English language, McCaw claims that two news articles written by News-Press reporters had somehow been leaked to me and that I was in their possession illegally. Secondly, she was upset that I had posted one of the articles on the Independent’s website (Independent.com) in its entirety without the News-Press’ consent. And somehow because of this, her lawsuit charged, McCaw and her newspaper have suffered economic damages.
I have to admit that I was initially flabbergasted. For one newspaper to sue another because it had received leaked documents left me speechless. It’s a newspaper’s job to release information that those in power wish to suppress. It’s what justifies our existence. Leaked documents play a huge part in that mission. But I shouldn’t have been surprised. McCaw’s hostility to what journalists do and what journalism is all about is intuitively obvious to anyone literate enough to parse the syllables of a Family Circus comic strip.
Not having seen the actual text of the lawsuit, I can’t comment with any specificity on what promises to be a violently contorted and delusional document. But being the man in the middle on this, I can speak to certain facts of the case.
First, I was in possession of just one document, not two. The News-Press has been apprised of this fact for eight weeks now. But their decision to make legal claims contrary to the known facts is nothing new for McCaw and associates. Secondly, to the extent that Ms. McCaw has suffered any damage, either to her reputation or to her pocket book, has nothing to do with anything The Independent posted on its website. Any and all damages Ms. McCaw has endured are strictly at her own hand. If she, her friends, or her legal advisors had any concern about Ms. McCaw’s reputation or the paper’s financial well-being, they would have filed a restraining order against Ms. McCaw, barring her any contact or communication with the newspaper she owns, let alone allowing her to exert any direct control or influence in its day-to-day operation.
Here are the facts: In the middle of the summer, executive editor Jerry Roberts and several other high ranking editors of the News-Press resigned, charging McCaw for several breaches of journalistic ethics. It was a dramatic moment, and an intensely emotional one. It also happened to have huge implications for anyone in the community that relied upon the daily paper for news, views, and information. Those factors combined made the mass resignations the biggest story in town.
Accordingly, News-Press reporter Scott Hadly—who later resigned—took notes on what he saw and heard. He sought to interview the principals afterwards. In some instances he succeeded; in others he did not. Hadly explained later that he recognized that this was a major news event. He also said that for the News-Press to retain a glimmer of journalistic credibility—which was the issue promoting the resignations in the first place—he thought the newspaper should cover what was happening within its four walls. So, as a news reporter, he produced a news article. That story never saw the light of day at the News-Press.
Instead, McCaw had Travis Armstrong—the acting publisher while she and Arthur Von Weisenberger, her fiancée and co-publisher, were whiling away the hours on her yacht in the south of France—write front page “letters to our readers.” In one, Armstrong blithely dismissed the turmoil within the News-Press as an unfortunate family squabble, and pledged the paper’s continued dedication to journalistic excellence. Subsequently, McCaw herself wrote a note to News-Press readers, blaming the uproar on a few disgruntled reporters and editors upset that they would no longer be allowed to use the news pages as a vehicle for their personal political agendas. In the meantime, Hadly’s article never ran. And no other news article exploring the nature of the dispute roiling the News-Press ever ran either.
For those concerned that McCaw was doctoring the news to fit her own personal agenda of comforting herself and her rich and famous pals, the fate of Hadly’s article was troubling in the extreme. In fact, the decision to spike Hadly’s piece constituted Exhibit A in the festering public indictment then accumulating against McCaw.
In an online posting under The Poodle byline, I reflected on the Hadly piece and its significance. I made many of the same points I just have. I also included a link allowing readers to read Haldy’s piece—which had been leaked to me—in its entirety. That way, I figured, the readers could better judge for themselves what was happening.
A few days later, we received a cease-and-desist letter from McCaw’s attorney David Millstein, notifying us that the article we posted was the copyrighted property of the News-Press, that we had come into its possession without News-Press consent, and that we had posted it likewise. (Click here for more on that.)
Initially, we had no interest in complying. The letter link provided what we thought was documentary evidence underscoring our criticism of the News-Press’ bad faith attitude towards the community, its workers, and the practice of journalism. But after consulting with not one, but two attorneys, we were told our position was not legally defensible. Based on that, we withdrew the link. But we maintained the article and have never backed away from the criticism it underscored.
That, we figured, was the end of it. But the sad tale of the News-Press has played out to the tune of countless legal threats. The clear intent is to silence and intimidate people with information from speaking critically of McCaw and her minions.
For those who can remember, contrast this with the behavior of former publisher B. Dale Davis, whose knee-jerk pro-business and pro-oil sympathies alienated and angered large segments of the News-Press readership back in the late '80s. However wed to his opinions he was, Davis was astute enough to recognize that a newspaper without readers is a losing proposition. David responded by conducting a series of town hall forums, inviting readers to show up and speak their minds. More often than not, it was a painful exchange for Davis. But I was impressed that he did it. Under the current regime, efforts by community activists, readers, and workers have all been rudely rebuffed.
To some extent, the legal threats have worked. They worked well enough to scare sources who I thought might actually possess the second document I’m accused of illegally possessing. This was an unpublished news article written by Vladimir Kogan detailing how McCaw had filed a $500,000 claim against former editor Jerry Roberts. But because the information was not publicly available in courthouse legal documents, there was a question how Kogan got that information. Roberts has claimed that Kogan got the information from McCaw’s attorney David Millstein, thus violating the spirit, if not the letter, of the arbitration agreement binding Roberts and McCaw. I never got a copy of the Kogan article, and have made this known. That hasn’t stopped McCaw from asserting otherwise in her lawsuit.
The legal threats were not enough, however, to stop newsroom workers from successfully voting to be represented by the Teamsters in accordance with the National Labor Relations Act. Throughout that campaign, McCaw filed at least two unfair labor practice complaints against the union, alleging threatening and coercive campaign tactics. In instances, the NLRBoard—hardly sympathetic to the union cause under the Bush administration—investigated the allegations and found there was nothing to substantiate them. Nothing. And that’s exactly what the federal courts will conclude if and when they investigate McCaw’s claim against The Independent.
To the extent that we posted trademarked material on our website without the News-Press consent, they suffered no damages from it. But they have suffered enormously by McCaw’s adamant refusal to address the News-Press’ on-going ethics dispute. Readers by the thousands have not cancelled their subscriptions by anything we wrote. They cancelled their subscriptions because of what the News-Press will not write.
If Wendy were to sue herself, I think she’d find that she has a really good case. And while she may not be a billionaire anymore, I heard a rumor that she still has lots of money.
Double-clicking on any word or phrase in this story will open a reference window with definitions and links to other reference material.
Previous Month
Comments
Discussion Guidelines
Thanks Nick, thanks a million times over. This is just outrageous.
And thanks for the plug of the Daily Nexus... where the spirit of Tom Storke now surely resides, under his tower, by his plaza.
moteofdust
October 27, 2006 at 10:42 a.m.
good-on-ya Nick. This is truely incredible. Just when the fire began to turn to embers, the Spendy throws more gas on it. I am beginning to wonder if she missed all the attention as the story began to burn itself out...What a be-otch!!
LOL
October 27, 2006 at 10:48 a.m.
Go get'em Tiger!!! Wendy, are you really this clueless??
margaret
October 27, 2006 at 11 a.m.
Nick,
Thanks for continuing to write about this. Who knew the story would still have legs three months later, but they keep stepping in it.
I simply cannot understand out what these people are thinking. Either they are stunningly stupid or so smart I can't figure them out.
What is a newspaper doing trying to make a case for suppressing leaked documents?
What would the News-Press do if it were leaked the Pentagon Papers? What would they do if someone leaked them information about the HP suits snooping on their own board of directors?
We know what they'd do and it's depressing.
This is not a copyright issue and I hope that a judge takes a look at the thing savors the irony and then throws it back in their face.
The Independent should trump this legal case. It's only going to boost their reputation and hurt that of the News-Press.
Scott Hadly
October 27, 2006 at 11:46 a.m.
It’s no coincidence that Wendy McCaw pairs the Santa Barbara News-Press federal lawsuit against the Santa Barbara Independent with the editorial today that begins, “Journalists aren't immune to the law.”
The divorcee has unlimited funds to retain lawyers to avenge her latest whim or tantrum. The editorial suggests, accordingly, that reporters and editors must buckle under the heel of “the law,” rather than getting away with such nagging practices as “free speech” and protecting news sources promised confidentiality. An astounding position for the owner of an American daily newspaper.
From the beginning, Independent editor Nick Welsh’s reporting on the McCaw meltdown has been “smart,” as one national publication calls it.
But Welsh irritated McCaw for the last time, and, like editor Michael Todd, editor Jerry Roberts, and the union invited in to protect the journalists, the courts have to hold Nick “accountable,” to use the latest phrase from the increasingly dark Baron Neville von Weaselburger.
The lawsuit itself is bull*&it and there are no damages and the only purpose is to chill the public’s right to know through intimidation.
Her reliance since July on litigation, however, although lacking common sense and business maturity, has been a boon to the Indy, Blogabarbara, Craig Smith, Edhat and the improving Santa Barbara Daily Sound. But it also puts them squarely in her sights as huntswoman.
In the federal case at hand, Nick will be asked, under oath, to cough up to McCaw who delivered to the Indy the unpublished news story about the editors walking rather than supporting McCaw’s violations of fundamental newsroom ethics.
If Nick confesses his sources to McCaw, they will be fired, sued or worse. If he doesn’t, he may not see his wife and kids for a long time, except from behind thick plate glass on visiting days, if McCaw has her way.
Either way, Nick and Barney Brantingham and Starshine Roshell and other Indy journalists will naturally take pause in writing about McCaw and her Santa Barbara News-Press as her unrelenting attack on her own employees and the First Amendment continues.
Carnage, Act XI
October 27, 2006 at 12:59 p.m.
From “Editor and Publisher,” a national newspaper industry publication.
http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/arti...
'News-Press' Publisher Sues 'Santa Barbara Independent'
By Jennifer Saba
Published: October 27, 2006 2:05 PM ET
NEW YORK Ampersand Publishing, owner of the Santa Barbara News-Press, is suing the Santa Barbara Independent for copyright infringement and misappropriation of trade secrets among other charges.
Etc.
Industry reaction
October 27, 2006 at 1:21 p.m.
Silly stuff. One thing, though, with Carnage Act XI. You say that the Indy folks will stop writing about Wendy, but they posted this article after the lawsuit was filed. How's that taking "pause"?
not taking pause
October 27, 2006 at 1:43 p.m.
in your best DARTH VADER voice as in "Luke, III am your Father":
Nick, IIIIII leaked the spiked Hadly article.
So many copies of it were floating around the newsroom that they were filling the recycling containers and blowing around on the floor. More copies were used to wrap wads of gum by all the grungy street people hanging out in Storke Placita.
Vladdy the Leakinator
October 27, 2006 at 2:59 p.m.
Won't the News-Press have to admit that it's lost circulation and/or advertisers to prove it's been hurt financially? I wonder about that and more over at I'm Not One to Blog, But....
George
October 27, 2006 at 3:27 p.m.
I wonder if it can be considered a trade secret that one is acting contrary to public policy, or an unfair business practice to reveal allegedly secret information regarding such violative conduct. I'm not sure how whether a failure to honor journalistic ethics (that is what is claimed) is contrary to public policy under the law. But if it is, one has to ask whether trade secret and unfair competition law was intended to support such breaches by penalizing disclosure of same, especially where that disclosure is by the Fourth Estate, whose job it is to inform the public such a matter of public interest.
Also, I hope Independent counsel will inquire of McCaw et. al. about other of her journalistic policies and actions, e.g. to show the Hadely article revealed only examples of an overall bankrupt set of News-Press policy. Yet, McCaw will no doubt object that any such inquiry calls for the disclosure of more confidential trade secrets and/or seek a protective order against disclosure of the answer, thus bringing us back to the same issue.
What twisted logic for a newpaper to take, that it can hide journalistic misconduct behind trade secret and unfair business practice claims. Pathetic.
BTW, didn't the UCSB News-Press publish something about the Hadely article first in the same time frame. Am I wrong. Could McCaw consider suing the Gauchos? If so, that would have to confirm her idiocy. If not, does it demonstrate her predatory character?
Dave
October 27, 2006 at 10:21 p.m.
Make that UCSB Daily Nexus, of which I am a proud reader.
Dave
October 27, 2006 at 10:28 p.m.
Yup, the Nexus also had the Hadly article. Can't wait for Wendy to take UCSB to Federal Court... love to see the look on Henry Yang's face... Wendy is a buddy...
http://www.ucsbdailynexus.com/news/2006/...
moteofdust
October 28, 2006 at 2:32 a.m.
The issue the Independent is being sued over is one of copyright, moteofdust. Merely quoting from something is distinct from the online publication of the document. Most likely addressed will be the redress to the alleged copyright violation and certainly the actual damages suffered by the News-Press as a result of the copyright infringement; which, as my lawyer friends say, appear to be de minimus.
--a virtual fan of vexatious litigation
biff arden
October 28, 2006 at 7:39 a.m.
What about the misappropriation of trade secrets, unfair business competition, and intentional and negligent interference with prospective economic advantage and contract, biff? Don't need the preceise text to incur those effects.
moteofdust
October 28, 2006 at 9:11 a.m.
mr./mrs./ms./Dr. moteofdust:
You are correct, of course. I too would relish the timely view of Chancellor Yang's grill upon seeing such court documents appear across his desk (if he ever slows down enough to actually sit there).
--virtual fly on the wall
biff arden
October 28, 2006 at 10:34 a.m.
If this entire melodrama were out of the pen of The Bard, what would he have called it? I, for one, think of Wendy as the lead role in the Taming of the Shrew. There is no better word, or role, to describe her. Those who know....know. Such a huge bummer. Does she have one real friend that will tell her to stop this zaniness?
BobLud
October 30, 2006 at 7:34 a.m.
Hey, BobLud, it could also be King (Queen) Lear - an ego out of control, demanding loyalty to the point of blindness, ends up wrecked in a wilderness. There are some words in there like, "Oh, see, see!"
HiAll
October 30, 2006 at 8:19 a.m.
Well done, Nick. But when you wrote "The News-Press has been appraised of this fact" perhaps you meant "apprised." ;-)
Harriet
October 30, 2006 at 10:09 a.m.
Harriet:
Thanks for apprising us of our gaff: corrected.
--Web Worker
webworker
October 30, 2006 at 11:24 a.m.
Webworker, you're welcome. Since you seem to be on top of things, here's another typo for you: In the sentence "I also included a link allowing readers to read Haldy’s piece" (Hadly)
Harriet
October 30, 2006 at 12:17 p.m.
Nick, you amaze me as a journalist. How do you get all this stuff?
Allie
November 1, 2006 at 11:18 p.m.
Reinstate Melinda Burns Petition Site:
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeactio...
Please go and sign this petition today, Melinda would like her job back, and SB wants better representation over at the NP.
Citizen SB
November 3, 2006 at 12:50 a.m.
Wow, Wow and more Wow.
P.S. Is it just me or does the News-Supress have many fewer sales flyers than before. Are they losing clients?
Santa Barbarian
November 3, 2006 at 9:57 a.m.
Gee, ya think???
No duh!
November 3, 2006 at 12:55 p.m.
Now, now "duh", oh well, I guess you are too smart for me or maybe just some miserable slob.
Santa Barbarian
November 4, 2006 at 10:04 a.m.
Don't sweat the small stuff......I'm with Nick, give Vlad some slack. Editors up have power. Dr. Laura gets a free pass as her moral advice is welcomed here. And her art columns show a whole new side to both Dr. Laura and Wendy. Now that they are doing local writing their influence will grow. Dr. Laura is reading and quoting theoretical physicist, Haim Harari while you discuss "upper&lower" State. Dr. Laura says "Because we are having elections that the Islamo-fascists believe will ultimately determine their hold on power, they are killing scores of their own people daily to influence the vote in the direction they believe is in their interests.(new paragraph) Make T-shirts about that!" if you read the whole piece you might get her take on what to do with art. At least, you can see her influence, Wendy, too! They're busy making tha world safe.. Wendy can ride out a small slump. Dr. Laura knows the ropes with numbers games and public relations. WENDY IS IN GOOD HANDS. Make a T-shirt!
make a T-shirt
November 4, 2006 at 1:01 p.m.
Someone make this person a brain.
truth machine
November 18, 2006 at 9:53 p.m.
Boy, by all indications, I got out of S.B. at just the right time. Wealth by divorce ego runs amok.
I'll anticipate my cease and desist letter in tomorrows mail. One doesn't buy or adjudicate respect, you earn it.
David Maxwell
January 18, 2007 at 4:37 p.m.
Post a comment