WHERE’S WENDY? I know it’s perverse to feel sorry for a guy who gets paid $650 an hour to beat the crap out of people. But after watching attorney A. Barry Cappello try to defend News-Press owner Wendy P. McCaw — now on trial for firing eight reporters because of their pro-union sympathies — I must confess to feeling pangs of sympathy for the guy. Don’t get me wrong: Barry was his customary tough but charming self during opening arguments, at ease and authoritative. And if he felt the least bit rattled as Administrative Law Judge William G. Kocol frequently interrupted, telling him to get to the point, he never let it show.
Angry Poodle Barbecue
Lawyers for the National Labor Relations Board are now prosecuting McCaw for firing eight reporters for exercising their legal right to organize a labor union. They claim that after McCaw’s newsroom workers voted overwhelmingly to affiliate with the Teamsters late last September, she engaged in a campaign of intimidation and coercion, ferreting out union leaders and firing them under whatever flimsy pretext she could find. The first to go was Melinda Burns, a much acclaimed, award-winning environmental reporter with 21 years at the News-Press. The second was science writer Anna Davison. Union sympathies had nothing to do with these terminations, declared Cappello; it was the writers’ long history of biased reporting.
Likewise, it was merely a coincidence that the six reporters fired this February for hanging a “Cancel Your Subscription” banner off the side of the Anapamu Street footbridge were all hardcore union supporters. They were fired, Cappello insisted, for disloyalty and denigrating the News-Press product. What most impressed me about Cappello’s opening statement was how wonderfully operatic it was. According to Cappello, the News-Press had become a festering hotbed of crypto commies, where the workers had seized control of the means of production. In their quest for absolute control, the reporters had effectively blocked owner and publisher McCaw from exerting any influence at all. McCaw’s real agenda, according to Cappello, was “to eliminate the reporters’ sense of entitlement to write what they wanted when they wanted.” And really, what they wanted to write, he charged, was “a stalker’s guide for celebrities in this town.”
This remark refers to the uproar that ensued last summer when McCaw reprimanded three newsroom workers for publishing actor Rob Lowe’s address in an article about a land-use dispute to which Lowe was an active and aggressive participant. During his opening remarks, Cappello repeatedly stated, “The publisher has the right of freedom of press, not the reporters.” This is a new twist on the old adage, “Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one.” But that line, coined by noted reporter and media critic A.J. Liebling, was intended as a criticism, not as a boast. By contrast, Cappello assured us, McCaw was motivated by an overwhelming desire to eliminate bias from the pages of her newspaper. In fact, Cappello argued, McCaw has been fighting to eradicate the bias since she first bought the paper seven years ago. To the extent that it appears McCaw was picking on pro-union reporters, Cappello concluded, that was mere coincidence.
All of Cappello’s deft footwork, however, was summarily trampled the second NLRB prosecutors called Steepleton to the stand. When asked what steps he took, upon assuming command last August, to eradicate the bias that so tormented McCaw, Steepleton was underwhelming in the extreme. He sent out no memos, he offered no special workshops. In fact, the most he could remember was mentioning it in passing during a brief meeting of the newsroom staff he convened. When asked what constituted bias, Steepleton replied it was not getting both sides of the story. But when asked about the conspicuous lack of Teamster response in an article the News-Press published — and Steepleton edited — in which News-Press editorial page editor Travis Armstrong accused Teamster organizer Marty Keegan of stalking him, Steepleton seemed mysteriously unperturbed. If Steepleton felt any regret at not getting Keegan’s side of the story — for what anyone would consider a serious charge — he kept it to himself, explaining only, “A lot of copy comes through every single day.”
On the witness stand, Steepleton proved to be the proverbial sow’s ear from which Cappello must sew a silk purse. He testified he either didn’t know or couldn’t remember more times than Attorney General Alberto Gonzales during all his congressional appearances combined. Steepleton professed not to know, for example, whether his wife — News-Press editor and former features writer Charlotte Boechler — had voted for or against the union. And he claimed he couldn’t exactly remember if — at the time — he thought the reporters hanging the “Cancel Your Subscription” sign were engaged in union activities. Or whether the union’s well-known cancellation drive — initiated last August — was still in effect. Everyone forgets, but if Steepleton’s memory is one-tenth as bad as he pretends, he should not be at the helm of a daily newspaper. Had Steepleton “remembered” what everyone else knew at the time — that the overpass brigade was engaged in pro-union activity — it would have been curtains for the News-Press. By federal law, such activity is protected.
Of course, the really big news was that McCaw herself would take the stand as a witness on her own behalf. At least that’s what Cappello promised. This is akin to Howard Hughes, Greta Garbo, J.D. Salinger — or any number of legendary recluses — breaking their silence.
If McCaw does testify, it will mark the very first time she has ever placed herself in a position where she has to answer somebody else’s questions. Sitting in court during the opening day of what promises to be an excruciatingly tedious trial, I frequently found myself counting the number of attorneys and legal assistants assembled on both sides of the aisle. Combined, I reckon both sides are spending about $4,500 an hour. Had Wendy ever exhibited any willingness to sit down with people and talk since buying the paper in 2000, I’m positive all this egregious waste of time, talent, and money could have been happily avoided.
I know it’s too early to call, but I’m betting heavy that Judge Kocol will rule against McCaw. When that happens, I’m also betting that McCaw and Cappello — the unmovable object and the irresistible force — will wind up in court over Barry’s astronomical legal bills. And when that happens, Barry, I’ll be there for you. I’ll testify how hard you tried to conjure a silk purse out of a sow’s ear. But let’s just hope between now and then, I don’t happen to forget.
Double-clicking on any word or phrase in this story will open a reference window with definitions and links to other reference material.
Print friendly
E-mail story
Contact an Editor
iPod friendly
Comments
Bookmark This
Previous Month


Comments
Discussion Guidelines
Did anyone else notice that Weds headline in the NP said that the "trial of newspaper reporters" was beginning? Talk about bias...that's not just bias, it's factually incorrect. Sheesh
JB
shorelinepub (anonymous profile)
August 16, 2007 at 12:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)
I noticed the same thing. I had to double-take at the headline, thinking it was the reporters who were on the defense instead of the paper.
I wonder what how the article portrayed things.
david_e (anonymous profile)
August 16, 2007 at 12:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Anyone who has lived here for some time knows full well that for years prior to Wendy buying the News-Press there had been continual accusations of bias and unfair treatment of people, organizations and issues in its pages. The animosity between the community and the paper seemed to reach a crescendo of sorts during the New York Times's ownership, a factor which may have played a role in their decision to sell.
In any case, even though Cappello has not cited this checkered history in his defense, claims of “bias in the newsroom” seem like a weak rationale for Ampersand's mistreatment of editors, reporters and staff. If anything, the actions of Wendy and Arthur have created very obvious and real biases, both in the topics the paper chooses to report on (or not) and their editorials. Not to mention the publisher's refusal to include any unfavorable NLRB rulings in their (sporadic) coverage of the paper's internal woes during the past year. No amount of clever legal maneuvering or posturing can hide the blatant unprofessionalism of Travis Armstrong's highly biased opinion pieces or the endless editorials dealing with animal rights. THESE are concrete examples of bias and only a fool would argue otherwise.
I can't imagine how this won't fatally undermine Cappello's defense and McCaw's credibility. It seems the only question is how big will they lose and what will the NLRB mete out to them.
emptynewsroom (anonymous profile)
August 16, 2007 at 12:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)
emptynewsroom said:
<<<"Anyone who has lived here for some time knows full well that for years prior to Wendy buying the News-Press there had been continual accusations of bias and unfair treatment of people, organizations and issues in its pages. The animosity between the community and the paper seemed to reach a crescendo of sorts during the New York Times's ownership, a factor which may have played a role in their decision to sell.">>>
I fit that criteria, and find your comment far from the mark.
Other than the year to year grumblings from the fringes of the political spectrum, I would characterize the NYT reign as more even-handed than the McClean times, neither of which suffered much community animosity.
And the first four years of McCaw's ownership also enjoyed a similar community toleration and equanimity.
And then "Wrong Way" Armstrong showed up...
--virtual Bagdikian
biff_arden (anonymous profile)
August 16, 2007 at 7:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)
biff_arden: Then you'll remember how in years past people frequently and laughingly referred to Santa Barbara's daily as "the News-Supress". Don't get me wrong, I'm not suggesting anything close to the excesses of the McCaw regime have any precedent, I'm just noting that you can't please everyone, no matter what high minded policies are in place in the running of a news outlet.
emptynewsroom (anonymous profile)
August 16, 2007 at 10:31 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Just how high is Rob Lowe's fence that surrounds his mega mansion anyway, 20 feet? I've seen fences that high in the neighborhood that were built long for Lowe came to town.
Why does he need a fence that high anyway? Is everyone really happy that this child pornographer is living in town? I wonder if he's going to the DNC convention next year?
Roy (anonymous profile)
August 17, 2007 at 6:53 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Roy: Democrats are child pornographers? I think you've got them confused with all the Republicans running around performing fellatio on as many same sex (and underage) people as they can get their chubby hands on. Not only do these chickenhawks go to any lenghts to avoid serving their country or go AWOL, but they're self-loathing closet gays actively fighting against rights for gays, lesbians, bisexual and transgender people. No wonder they can't govern, they're too busy prancing around in a manlove frenzy over the Jeff Gannons and Ken Mehlmans their party embraces.
GOP now stands for Gay Old Pedophiles as you well know. Turdblossom indeed!
emptynewsroom (anonymous profile)
August 17, 2007 at 10:41 a.m. (Suggest removal)
Can we get over the mudflinging and back to the point?
Nick, I liked your reference to the old adage, “Freedom of the press is guaranteed only to those who own one.” (A.J. Liebling)
Truth is, nowadays everybody does own one, in a manner of speaking. The nickname "News Suppress" was never more than a joke, even pre-internet, but gone are the days when a paper might have had any hope of suppressing news.
Yvette1 (anonymous profile)
August 21, 2007 at 12:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)
Post a comment