BlogaBarbara

Santa Barbara Politics, Media & Culture

Wednesday, October 25, 2006

NP Workplace Violence Injunction Finally Dismissed

This from Craig Smith's Blog:

On Wednesday, the News-Press dismissed their petition for a workplace violence injunction against former business editor, Michael Todd. As the News-Press itself acknowledged in one of its by now all too familiar self-serving press releases, "Ms. Fuentes has resigned. Since Ms. Fuentes is not currently employed at the paper, pursuit of a workplace violence injunction prohibiting future wrongful conduct against Ms. Fuentes at the work site would serve no purpose."


For the whole article click on the link above. As Craig points out -- Fuentes hasn't been seen on the premises since September 9th. Makes you wonder about the strength of their suit against Michael Todd -- doesn't it? As always, contrary opinions are welcome! Nelville? Let me know what you have to say about this -- I and others may not always agree with you but as I pointed out earlier this evening, it makes for great discussion.

19 Comments:

Anonymous dd said...

It's about time this little piece of intimidation by the NP went away. Thank goodness the judge had good enough sense to throw it in the trash where it belonged. dd

10/26/2006 7:27 AM  
Anonymous just thinking... said...

One can't help but wonder if Michal Todd might not have an action or actions for defamation and whatever actions might be available for damage to his employability - against Fuentes and the News-Suppress.

Would that he were rich and could afford the lawyers' fees.... (I've never met Michael Todd, maybe he is - or perhaps there is a pro bono lawyer out there (Craig Smith?) who might take it on.)

10/26/2006 8:34 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

About time. The suit was nothing more than Wendy's usual bullying. It was meant to intimidate the rest of the newsroom and anyone else who dared question her.

She owes Michael Todd an apology, but we all know it'll never happen.

How will you spin this, Nelville?

10/26/2006 8:46 AM  
Anonymous Scared said...

The lawsuit Wendy McCaw dropped against former editor Michael Todd and her pending lawsuit against former editor Jerry Roberts serve her purposes.

Craig Smith is wrong. Winning isn’t the goal for McCaw. Silence through intimidation is. And it’s working.

McCaw’s message to all: don’t cross me or speak on the record or you will be sued if the slightest legal pretext exists.

Todd challenged her about reprimanding editors for publishing Rob Lowe’s address. Bam. Lawsuit.

Roberts spoke up on the record. Pow. Lawsuit, leaked to the press by McCaw’s lawyer.

News-Press employees declined any comment yesterday to the UCSB paper. They got the message.

Even when McCaw later abandons a lawsuit, the damage is done—the legal fees have financially broken the defendant reporters or editors.

Neville/Nipper is smug because he can hide behind McCaw’s skirts and do things like libeling Santa Maria Times Editor-In-Chief Tom Bolton by saying “it became clear that (Bolton) could not run the newsroom with ethics and professionalism.”

If Bolton had published that statement about McCaw. Bam. Lawsuit against Bolton.

It’s why McCaw is livid about the Teamsters: they have resources to fight back in court. Given a level playing field, they win.

It’s why McCaw is livid at the 44 local lawyers and ex-judges who promise legal support of free speech. They help level the playing field.

Craig Smith, David Pritchett, watch out: One mistake. Pow.

No wonder Sara keeps her identity secret.

When has this last happened in American newspapers? During Watergate with McCaw as Nixon?

What kind of person IS Wendy McCaw?

10/26/2006 8:49 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sad but true, to find out about the News-Press one has to go to the Daily Nexus:

http://www.ucsbdailynexus.com/news/2006/12295.html

Workers File Suit Against News-Press

By Lauren Crecelius — Staff Writer
Published Wednesday October 25, 2006

"Santa Barbara News-Press upper management received two blows in the past two weeks, one from a class action lawsuit and the other from a recent decision by the Los Angeles branch of the National Labor Relations Board.

Etc."

10/26/2006 9:21 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

People of Boston, watch out. The New York Times and Jack Welch could do to you what the New York Times and Wendy McCaw did to us. Boston Globe Publisher Steve Ainsley can explain.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/26/business/media/26papers.html?_r=1&dlbk&oref=slogin

10/26/2006 9:29 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey, the Nexus is quite good this year, as it is about 2 out of 3 years.

It is housed under Storke Tower, of course... the true spirit of Tom Storke. Stanford's newspaper is also in a Storke complex.

10/26/2006 12:15 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

People of Boston, watch out. The New York Times and Jack Welch could do to you what the New York Times and Wendy McCaw did to us. Boston Globe Publisher Steve Ainsley can explain.

Oh, the pain and anguish. Poor us. How can we go on....?

10/26/2006 1:36 PM  
Anonymous Just the facts said...

In response to dd said.... Correction for the record - The judge did not throw anything out. The n-p withdrew it. The judge just accepted the n-ps withdrawal.

10/26/2006 5:14 PM  
Anonymous Indio Muerto said...

Check this out: http://home.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/index.jsp?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20061026006251&newsLang=en

Now the Blonde is going after the Independent. Really petty and sad.

10/26/2006 6:55 PM  
Anonymous Nelville Flynn said...

It's fair to say the Todd matter had become a distraction, particularly with the departure of the target of his threats.

Michael Todd will have to live with the consequences of his gross misconduct, regardless of the decision not to pursue legal action against him. The matter is not closed and not appropriate for further public discussion.

The News-Press now is concentrating its energies on improving the newspaper, as well as enforcing its rights vis-a-vis a local freebie. That so-called newspaper is guilty of publishing copyrighted material and using illegal tactics in an attempt to undermine the News-Press, as well as violating journalistic standards on a regular basis. Like Todd, the freebie must be held accountable for its actions.

10/26/2006 8:35 PM  
Anonymous First District Streetfighter said...

So how again is Todd being "held accountable"?

Is it the guilt and shame of a fake-name blog comment writing this: "Michael Todd will have to live with the consequences of his gross misconduct"?

The Horror, the Horror....

10/26/2006 10:40 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey Nelville, do they pay you by the post or by the word?
No-one could be such a toady to power as you without getting something out of it.

10/27/2006 12:15 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Just remember, "Neville" (Travis), Robespierre's head was also lopped-off as the Reign of Terror was ending.

Your lack of integrity, talent, and general intelligence is almost comical. Maybe you should start practicing the line, "Would you like fries with that?"

Hmmmm?

10/27/2006 6:23 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The only "misconduct" Todd was guilty of was standing up to the Wendynator. She's used to people of a more compliant nature, eh Nelville?

Typically slimy post from you. All innuendo without the slightest substance.

10/27/2006 7:44 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Neville,

The level of your insults has risen, if I may use George Bush's terrorism threat scale, to Severe.

For all we know, you could be a 14-year-old flaming rabble rouser passing as a phoney Baron, which is plausible to acheive, given Nipper Von Porksandwich's intellectual capacity. Either way, towing McCaw's line is despicable.

Here we have a woman with such great wealth, the world is her oyster. She can pretty much do anything she wants. So what does she do with her power? She does a bunch of stupid and self indulgent things. But mostly, she sues people for sport. Not exactly role model material.

Neville, do you believe McCaw acts as a person concerned for humanity and the betterment of the society that made her tremendous wealth possible?

Now, if you are a 14-year-old, and you're seriously taking the side of McCaw and Baconpatty Von Weiselberger (who is scaling the wall of said society strapped to the back of McCaw like Sir Edmund Hillary's backpack on a Shirpa!) I suggest you rethink your stance because it is one of a fool.

10/27/2006 9:33 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Now, if you are a 14-year-old, and you're seriously taking the side of McCaw and Baconpatty Von Weiselberger (who is scaling the wall of said society strapped to the back of McCaw like Sir Edmund Hillary's backpack on a Shirpa!) I suggest you rethink your stance because it is one of a fool.

Bravo! A riveting performance. Fantastic metaphors.

How's the anti-climax treatin' ya?

10/27/2006 10:09 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Nelville,

I, among many, appreciate your integrity, talent and obvious great inteligence. Keep posting. You're the voice of reason and truth. Some of these bloggers could learn a thing or two from you.

10/27/2006 12:18 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Kind of a clue how quickly Nelville knew about the suit against the Indy.

The Indy's publishing of the Hadly article is almost certainly legal under the fair use doctrine... the Poodle is satirical after all, and reproduction of copyrighted material for satire is pretty well protected. As it should be. If we could not make fun of those in power due to copyright restrictions, might as well throw in the towel.

Were Poodle's motives honorable? Yes. Does the Independent reach a smaller audience than the N-P? Yes. Was there a whole lot of copying of the N-P? no, one article of great importance. Did the Indy take money away from the N-P? Not hard to prove, might have increased interest in the News-Press. Those are the 4 fair use criteria.

Slam dunk for the Indy.

10/27/2006 12:56 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home