BlogaBarbara

Santa Barbara Politics, Media & Culture

Thursday, February 15, 2007

Community Post: What's the Endgame?

This community post is from from Michelle Dunoire....thanks for the topic Michelle, it's a good one.

Sara
*****

There hasn't been much discussion about the endgame of the News-Press situation.

Here's my take on how this plays out.

Once the NLRB rules that the News-Press must re-hire the workers terminated after the pro-union vote, Ms. McCaw will shut down the entire operation.

No court can force her to keep the News-Press open because the XIIIth Amendment bans involuntary servitude....

49 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Does she shut it down and then reopen, eventually switching the new company's name back to Santa Barbara News-Press? Interesting...

2/15/2007 6:52 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

this sounds right on, its keeping with the ampersand/McCaw view of that THEY are the ultimate victims of this unfair media/union cabal. not being a mental health professional, I wonder if all goes against the NP, what would be the ultimate 'I'll show you'? Shut down ? Sell ? maybe her ex would buy it??. there's no way to save face in the current 'bunker-down mentality' NP world, or even to spin it. and once this all goes away, who will the NP lawyers sue, who can they bill? there will be no winners or losers, just damage. sad

2/15/2007 7:16 PM  
Anonymous harping said...

Re: "Once the NLRB rules that the News-Press must re-hire the workers terminated after the pro-union vote"--I'm wondering if it would be possible for Mrs. McCaw to appeal such a ruling. If that is an option (I have no idea if it is), I'd be willing to bet that's what she'd do since I seem to recall that has been her M.O. with every lawsuit she has lost. It's her kindly way of prolonging the agony & postponing the inevitable.

2/15/2007 7:20 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You hardly are the only one to speculate about an End Game with such an outcome.

The real challenge is what will the City permit for the inevitable proposal to change the zoning by converting that landmark building to unaffordable luxury condo lofts.

2/15/2007 7:34 PM  
Anonymous Mr. Moreno said...

Michelle's view, while seemingly unthinkable -- who would kill a 160-year-old institution out of spite? -- is the mostly likely outcome.

Ms. McCaw has evinced not a shred of rational thinking from the beginning of this train wreck. Can anyone give me even one example? It seems that she has intentionally exacerbated the situation at every opportunity.

When faced with losing, she'll close the News-Press and fire everyone. To sow the earth with salt she'll precipitate a showdown with the city when she seeks to level the De la Guerra building for some vague future development.

It will be a long, ugly battle, but it's the real only challenge she has.

2/15/2007 8:10 PM  
Anonymous shaggy said...

I wrote part of this before in a cold thread:

The ideal thing The Wendy could do now is gift the News-Press to a non-profit foundation, one set up in her name to promote education and ethics in the profession of Journalism. While ironic, it would be a win-win. The News-Press would continue to live, and serve as a lesson regarding the importance of a newspaper Record in the County Seat, and the Wendy could take a big tax writeoff and go on to pursue things better suiting her temperament.

2/15/2007 9:53 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

FROM THE OC WEEKLY:

THE WRATH OF WENDY

Chapman University professor fights lawsuit filed by controversial newspaper owner

BY GUSTAVO ARELLANO

Thursday, February 15, 2007 - 3:00 pm

In the long, colorful history of American newspaper owners—a club whose ranks have included drunks, felons and Rupert Murdoch—few can boast fomenting as much community animosity as Santa Barbara News-Press owner Wendy McCaw.

Etc…

http://www.ocweekly.com/news/news/the-wrath-of-wendy/26712/

2/15/2007 10:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

More about crazy, from the Chapman University student newspaper:

“CU PROFESSOR SUED FOR LIBEL

After writing an article critical of the owner of a Santa Barbara newspaper, Susan Paterno defends herself under the First Amendment.

By Alex Gilliland
Managing Editor

http://www.chapman.edu/images/userImages/brown148/Page_8654/PantherFebruary122007.pdf

2/15/2007 10:13 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

People were speculating about the endgame last July. There is no endgame. The paper will be pulled and pulled way down towards the level of the publishers -- which means eternal freefall. It will be a hollow shell of what it was or what it could be. She won't be able to hire good editors and reporters. She really needs to seek help on a personal level.

2/15/2007 10:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The News-Press can recover at least somewhat from the damage Wendy has wrought. It seems she was intent on purging everyone associated with the old regime - typical behavior for a tyrant. Once she installs her loyalists at all levels, the News-Press will become a functional newspaper, although not one that's fun to work at or even one that's particularly good.

As others have observed, she'll have a hard time hiring top-quality reporters and editors because she's a national disgrace. But there will always be some talented young people who are drawn to Santa Barbara as a place to live and work and she'll be able to hire some of them.

And you can bet she'll do everything in her power to prevent fired employees from coming back.

2/16/2007 6:52 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I would expect the SBNP building to house a mix of uses:

1. Rehab clinic
2. Affordable apts for the most needy.
3. Stables for SBPD horse patrol
4. Island pig nursery

Mubawhahahaha....

2/16/2007 7:47 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Endgame Prediction:

The Union vote goes through. More people, not many, get fired by the News-Press for doing dumb things like putting signs on highways.

The News-Press declines steadily in subscriptions, just like other newspapers all over, because of the internet.

McCaw continues to own the NP for awhile, maybe out of spite or otherwise.

The Union becomes anit-climactic. Nobody that quits gets their job back. Most of those people end up leaving town.

2/16/2007 2:11 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hey 2:11, you wrote in your predictions that "Nobody that quits gets their job back."

I'd agree with you on that one. But those who were recently illegally fired will be getting their jobs back. Watch.

2/16/2007 2:59 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

2/16/2007 3:28 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Could it be possible that the desired endgame for Ms. McCaw is to have a personal mouthpiece for extremely right-wing ideas?

Does she wish to replace competent employees with incompetent but "loyal" employees who can do a "heckava job"?

All the talk of slow-growth and anti-development while supporting city council candidates in both SB and Goleta who are most pro-growth smacks of the "Clear Skies" initiative or the "Healthy Forest" initiative.

Now her extremely Bush-loving ex is moving to town. Hope Santa Barbara magic will prevail and this doesn't turn into a right wing rag like the "moonie" newspaper in New York.

2/16/2007 4:02 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The NLRB has been dragging their heels, so I wouln't bet on a favorable ruling for the union. At best, the NLRB will throw the union a bone and rule favorably on some minor point. Most if not all of those fired will not get their jobs back. In the unlikely event that the NLRB does rule favorably for most of the union's filings, The Wendy will appeal and continue to appeal. The NP will continue until a large percentage of the advertisers stop advertising. RAE

2/16/2007 4:05 PM  
Anonymous michelle dunoire said...

IS MS. McCAW READING THE BLOGS?

Numerous blogsters have pointed out that Ms. McCaw appears to care only about four-legged animals, as judged by the concerns expressed in so many editorials in the News-Press compared with her treatment of the two-legged variety in the current contrempts.

Today's editorial suggests she might be trying to rebut that charge. It's about bees.

Think 4+2.

2/16/2007 4:11 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Isn't Moonie in Washington DC?

Interesting comparison.

2/16/2007 5:27 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If the NLRB rules in favor of the illegal firings, they will be put back in their jobs, even if Wendy appeals. Similar to when someone in jail on murder charges is found guilty, they are put in jail until their appeal can be heard. like the analogy???

2/16/2007 5:46 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

She will appeal and fight every NLRB ruling as long as she can, but eventually that tactic will reach an end, the union will be certified, and the paper will have to bargain with them. But a contract will never be reached, no matter how long they bargain. The remaining union represented employees will have to strike, and will be replaced with scabs fresh out of school. Eventually she will try to decertify the union, when nobody represented by it works there anymore.

However, before all that plays out, which will take at least two years and maybe more, the attrition of advertisers and subscribers will put the operation in the red, in spite of big cuts in payroll expense. Then we will find out how much money she is willing to lose on a paper that is irrelevant, that nobody reads, and that brings Wendy nothing but grief. The process can be accelerated if a viable competitor emerges giving advertisers and readers an attractive alternative.

She has already destroyed her newspaper. She has already destroyed her reputation, both locally and nationally. She is doing her best to destroy her former and current employees, but I suspect most of them will ultimately be allright. They will certainly be a whole lot happier with themselves than a mean, vindictive old lady who is shunned or ignored by most reasonable people in the community.

Ironically, while she may have bought the paper to gain respect in her new community, the way she has managed it has made her a pathetic character, reviled by many, and a laughingstock by those focusing on how inept she is.

2/16/2007 6:29 PM  
Anonymous wineguy said...

I have to take issue with the pessimists here. I think most of the fired will be rehired possibly with back pay. What the work environment will be like is another matter...

2/16/2007 6:41 PM  
Blogger John Quimby said...

Anonymous 2:11

I think you have it mostly right, except for the last part I hope.

Doc Searls
( http://doc.weblogs.com/ )

hosted a seminar on newspaper 2.0 to discuss the possibilities and realities of on-line news.

If Sara will permit, please read a review of the seminar (including some of the former NP attendeees) written by my friend and fellow media producer, Taymar Pixley:

http://www.pixleyflix.com/blogger/

Right here in good old SB, Sarah, Craig, Edhat the Independent and by extension KCSB and others are pioneering a new genreation of local news coverage that isn't going to go away regardless of what happens at the NP.

Sara has reported the significant traffic here. Does anyone doubt that this has value to local business that might otherwise advertise in print?

Perhaps those "retired" newsies won't have to leave town. Because local news on-line is not going away. And we need writers and reporters to tell the story.
Stories bring readers. Readers bring advertisers. Advertisers create jobs.

Thanks Ampersand, for launching a communications revolution right here in our little town.

We don't need the News Press anymore.

How's that for an end game?

2/16/2007 7:43 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why do you people care so much about this. It's over. Give it up!

2/16/2007 7:55 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

too many people with too much emotion tied up to think clearly; but i understand why. i would too.

the endgame is she keeps the paper regardless of the legal outcome. but it is smaller less important rag.

the ones here who actually think some kidn of online competition will significantly usurp the NP? you are dreaming. you can't rake in enough money via banner ads or even subscriptions to an online new source to seriously compete. now there are and will be alternatives but forget an online SB paper with a host of full time reporters. NOT going to happen. the market is TOO small and the business model is not there. too mny people fall in love with SB (understandably so) and delude themselves into starting businesses here that the market can't support because it is too small.

i am NOT defending McCaw either. she's a horror show in my opinion. this will not end well for her.

2/16/2007 9:04 PM  
Anonymous Eckermann said...

This string may not be the place for this observation, but most commentors are harking back to July as the beginning of this saga and I believe it started long before that. Does anybody remember Joe Cole? He mysteriously stepped down as publisher of the News-Press and the brains of Ampersand to "spend more time with his family;" then he embarked on a field of endeavor that commonly results in 12 to 15 hour work days. We have not heard from Joe during all this falderal. It would be interesting to hear his perspective. I have a feeling that he knows a great deal about Ms. McCaw's motivations and about the internal machinations of the of the News-Press management. Perhaps Joe's quiet departure was the harbinger of the debacle to come. Perhaps his experience could cast some light on the likely future of the News-Press.

2/16/2007 9:11 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Endgame thought here: the most important and ironic thing about the Mess is the creation of our blogosphere:

http://prodroom.blogspot.com/2007/02/santa-barbara-news-press-stickiest.html

2/16/2007 9:21 PM  
Blogger John Quimby said...

Anonymous 9:04

You're reading and posting here.
Pretty good proof of my point.

Circulation is circulation.

You ARE an active subscriber.
Get it?

2/16/2007 11:01 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

To Eckermann: According to Craig Smith Randy Alcorn received a nastygram from Wendy stating that he was not to reveal any confidential company information, or else. I am sure Joe Cole, Raul Gil and any other management type have all received a similar letter. They are not protected by the union's deep pockets, so would have to fight Wendy on their own, putting their families at risk. She has effectively gagged them.

2/17/2007 3:55 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Joe can't say squat because he's a lawyer and his relationship with Wendy can be considered privileged.
Wouldn't take much for the Bar to step in.

2/17/2007 8:47 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I don’t understand the business owners claim that they must advertise in the NP or else they’d go out of business. Does this mean that when wendy decides to just shut down the paper out of spite that all of the businesses that advertise in the NP will go out of business? I don’t think so – they will find alternative ways to advertise and survive. They can do so now as well and help support their community.

2/17/2007 9:42 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Cole won't talk about this, because he more than anybody knows how Wendy loves to torture people with torts and writs, but those close to him will tell you that he was canned by Wendy for "being too friendly" with the workers. And this was months before all the rancor over Jerry Roberts began.

When this news leaked out to the newsroom, it scared everybody poopless, because we realized that Wendy hated us even before Rob Lowe, Travis Armstrong and the rest of the poopstorm. Why? We have no idea, because no one in the newsroom outside of Roberts ever even saw her, let alone talked to her. It saddened me, personally.

2/17/2007 10:45 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Cole, Alcorn, Gil, Sinclair, MacDonald and all other ex-managers have $25 million reasons to stay gagged to protect themselves and their families from vendetta lawsuits -- ask Jerry Roberts.

2/17/2007 11:36 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I am saddened to say this:

There is no endgame for Wendy McCaw. As long as she has the money to fund her endeavors and lawyers to encourage her pursuit of those endeavors she has no reason to ever consider an endgame. A billion dollars can go a long long way.

2/17/2007 12:15 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If Spendy is required to rehire the illegally-fired employees after exhausting her appeals, is she required to give them their old positions back or just pay them the same as before?

Because I can picture her grudgingly 'rehiring' them in the legal sense of paying them, but banning them from the property. Or if she is required to reinstate them to their old positions, to spitefully not publish any of their stories until they quit in disgust.

What a circus.

2/17/2007 12:33 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Eckermann, when Cole left he said he was returning to a position where he wouldn't have to work three jobs so he could watch his kids play their high school sports games befroe they left town for college. From what I've heard on the street and read in what's left of the sports pages, that's what he's doing, as well as lots of charity board things.

One piece of the "endgame" is that history will show the paper peaked journalistically and financially during the past couple of years, with the tipping point coming in mid-2006. Even if McCaw split tomorrow, it would take a generation to rebuild just the quality of the departed people.

Hey, 10:45 AM, hasn't it become clear that McCaw probably hated the newsroom since you wouldn't align your words with what Travis wrote and she saw that as "disloyalty."

2/17/2007 12:36 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Good question 12:33 -- if forced by a court to reinstate Melinda Burns or Anna Davison (both write environmental and Wendy has her own biased views there) or Dawn Hobbs (and we know how much Wendy likes unions), Wendy could use her millions to just send them a paycheck, but instruct her security people to not activate their keycodes or whatever. If forced to let them write--how do you like them obituaries, Dawn? Once back inside the asylum to prove a point, how long would a sane person who has tasted freedom actually want to work in that environment? Life is too short?

2/17/2007 3:43 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Had to check in on the latest before joining friends for a dinner... I want to be up to date on the "Mess".
The shape the is in paper is a topic here in Santa Barbara and other communities. In my opinion Wendy is crazy for doing what she has done and has well earned the scorn of our community.
She has had many chances to turn the Mess around but has dug in so deep at this point there is no hope... the holes gotta be at least 6' deep by now so let us just cover the hole. I'll look for the obituary on Ed's site.
Now off to dinner and to enjoy the weekend.

2/17/2007 7:01 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

More support for the Lawyers Alliance and Jerry Roberts:

http://cookiesinheaven.blogspot.com/2007/02/jerry-roberts.html

2/17/2007 7:07 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The question is -- what is Wendy McCaw's endgame? What's the method to her madness? What does she want?

The answer is simple: A newsroom full of Scott Steepletons. She wants journalists who will respond immediately to her every whim and want and bias and demand, no matter how crazy or dumb.

It's what her opinion editor and co-publisher/lover and HR director and lawyers do now.

When a thought arises from her admittedly wacked personal worldview, she wants "her" people to jump, all of them, now, without questioning her, since she's the one signing paychecks.

Her emerging shorthand for this is "loyalty."

Cross her -- you are "disloyal" -- and fired forthwith.

It's what autocrats without checks and balances always want. History is full of examples. Eventually, they fail.

The union certification prevents her desired endgame. Collective bargaining by workers has always been the enemy of autocracy and she will pay anything, and do anything, to stop it. Just last week: using non-newsroom people as pawns in the Valentine's Day ad is one example; having her lawyer bust into a union meeting with advertisers is another.

The week before: executing, I mean firing, six workers for hanging a sign.

For decades she's been a billionaire and, like a spoiled child, she's used to getting her way, and will do anything and destroy any career to get it again this time.

That's her endgame.

2/17/2007 9:08 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If the NLRB goes to federal court to gain the reinstatement of the fired eight (or nine, counting Bob Guiliano), as I for one believe will happen, that would happen too quickly for Wendy to shut the NP down before she would have to obey the order or face contempt. If she does shut down, as opposed to selling the business, she would still be on the hook for backpay. And if she shut down, how could she realistically stand in the way of a true competitor emerging? Hopefully that competitor would welcome many of the current and former denizens of the newsroom, and work out the issues that are now dividing labor and management.

Is there really no one out there who can liaison between La Wendy and the union? That's the key. The stakeholders would have to agree on a neutral and a process, and I'm sure the union would be willing, so it's up to Wendy, who will continue to bleed in terms of p.r., newspaper quality, ability to hire and retain competent staff, and ability to bring in revenue from the usual sources.

I still constantly ask: Since Nipper did back in November recognize that what was going on was not truly "fun", why spend so much time and energy and money when it doesn't have to be this unpleasant?

2/17/2007 10:16 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

john quimby,

pithy statement, doesn't make sense.

how do you pay for a newspaper's overhead? with either subscriptions or ads or both. with online, ads do NOT support a newspaper model. if you think so, you are not well informed. newspapers LOST 157,000 jobs last year. pay per impression ads lost favor YEARS ago (2001). pay per click is the only option. works for Google, not for newspapers. PPC does NOT pay enough to sustain a paper, even the WSJ and NYT. too few people click on the ads because they are NOT relevant.

as far as subs goes for an online paper, i hope i don't have to explain why that won't work. suffice to say that paying for online access to a paper does NOT work, especially a little rag like the NP.

finally, i think it is clear that a traditional model (paper) can't possibly compete here in santa barbara, ie the beacon, etc. not enough people to sustain it.

2/19/2007 9:37 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Hate to break it to you but a lot more people are starting to agree with NP editorials, because they are exposing a lot of nonsense going on in this city regarding housing and other socially misdiected programs.

People that would suprise you - many in the "liberal" establishment.

Santa Barbara is showing very healthy signs of a huge political backlash against the Santa Monica Seven, who now serve on the SB City Council.

There will be incumbents losing their jobs next election. You can count on that. People are fed up. Liberals even.

The Santa Monica Seven (your current SB City Council) opened the door to the "homeless" mess and this disaster was far too long supported by the former NP staff.

There was bias in their articles prior to Wendy's house cleaning. Why haven't you seen this? It was obvious and created the mess we now have to clean up.

Just look at what is finally getting press coverage thanks to Wendy's NewsPress - the massive corruption of the misguided socialized housing programs that helped no one but insider friends, at our expenses.

Why don't you recognize this? I am lately finding the new NewsPress a breath of fresh air. It is nice to have someone at the helm who is not burdened with white guilt and doing stupid things to aussage it, as long as it doesn't affect their own backyard. That is bias and corruption of the first order. That was your former NewsPress.

Wendy is at least showing the courage to call this "homeless" advocacy industry for what it is - a total disaster and a corrupt one as well and well-financed to boot.

Over $20 million spent annually in this town on the "homeless" only insures addled social workers jobs anyway and does nothing to clean up the mess they need to perpetuate in order to save their own jobs. All it did was buy more homeless to come to ruin our city.

I repeat to be sure you get this: The "homeless" industry in this town is only interested in their own job protection. Thank goodness the NewPress showed the guts to expose this.

And it is happening not a moment too soon before this entire town is given over to the "homeless" (who are basically narcissistic entitlement bullies with the Santa Monica Seven at their beck and call - why is this?

2/20/2007 9:42 AM  
Blogger John Quimby said...

Dear anonymous 9:37 PM,

I appreciate your points. Let's take a closer look.

You said: "...newspapers LOST 157,000 jobs last year. pay per impression ads lost favor YEARS ago (2001)."

Yes, and US newspaper readership has declined 30% as people spend more time online (Arbitron).

You said: "...pay per click is the only option. works for Google, not for newspapers."

Perhaps you've not seen the streaming online video ads for Apple that are placed in online versions of print media, such as Wired Magazine. The web isn't just a print, graphics and clickthrough medium anymore. Online can now have the same impact as TV.

You said: "PPC does NOT pay enough to sustain a paper, even the WSJ and NYT. too few people click on the ads because they are NOT relevant."

If web advertising doesn't work, why are more sponsors buying it? Currently 7% of all advertising and marketing dollars are being spent on internet marketing. By 2010, there will be a billion people online. (Pew Internet Research)
Spending on internet marketing (US) increased 37% to $7.9 billion dollars in the first half of 2006
(IAB & Pricewaterhouse Coopers)

I haven't done the cost per point calculations and I'm not a media buyer. But the numbers I've seen posted for unique views of Santa Barbara blogs is high enough that edhat and The Independent are already selling ads to local clients.

You said: "...as far as subs goes for an online paper, i hope i don't have to explain why that won't work. suffice to say that paying for online access to a paper does NOT work, especially a little rag like the NP."

I agree. Online paid subscription is not proving to be popular with anybody and yet newspapers insist on doing it anyway.

The Independent and the Daily Sound plus sveral others are showing that a free sponsored content model can and does work here because of the value of circulation. Circulation is based on the value of the content created by talent. Compared to newspaper circulation numbers (which can be fudged) online circulation is extremely precise.

You said: "...finally, i think it is clear that a traditional model (paper) can't possibly compete here in santa barbara, ie the beacon, etc. not enough people to sustain it."

You may be right. I suggest that this has much more to do with the fact that the public is leaving newspapers in favor of online content than anything else.

I am not anti print or newspaper. I'm simply observing that a powerful source of local news has arrived and you and I are already subscribing to it.

Anonymous seems to say that it can't work because it isn't already working. Perhaps. Or it might just take more than 6 months to become fully formed.

For more factual information about online media trends, please see:
http://arbitron.com/downloads/im2006study.pdf

I wish everyone at our local papers well. I thank Sara for the use of the soap box and I thank Anonymous for calling on me to elaborate.

Respectfully,

John Quimby

2/20/2007 12:31 PM  
Blogger John Quimby said...

CORRECTION

In my previous post I wrote that newspaper readership had declined 30%. This is not correct.

The Arbitron report I quoted says, "30% of on-line consumers say they are spending less time reading printed newspapers."

I apologize for the error.

2/20/2007 3:37 PM  
Anonymous First District Streetfighter said...

For the Anonymous commenter above who wrote this:

"There was bias in their articles prior to Wendy's house cleaning. Why haven't you seen this? It was obvious and created the mess we now have to clean up."

Actually, no, it is not obvious. Merely writing about a subject is not bias.
Wanna try again?

And as for all your rants about homeless people and their problems, that issue never even has been the subjects of editorials, only your rants and wishful thinking as a way to justify your views by pretending the declining daily newspaper already opined about them.

The EndGame is that the Newspresss will fade away as other media rise up.

2/20/2007 4:20 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sorry, but the bias in reporting and choosing quotes was loud and clear for a pro-homeless agenda among reporters.

Which I am sure rankled Wendy - so there was a bias. Don't pretend there was not.

And she, as well as a lot of others who follow this issue closely, did not appreciate this bias. It stunk.

The bias now is for far more municipal accountability and not let pro-homeless advocates rule the media choices as happened in the old NP.

And that has been a breath of fresh air. Imagine that - a newspaper that asks elected officials to be accountable. Go Wendy - keep it up.

So Wendy, you and Travis can stop being petty and stupid because you are garnering a growing constituency who want responsible city government in toto.

Keep the city's feet to the fire, but stop being mean and petty about individuals.

2/20/2007 5:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The end game is the NP is growing a new constituency and will play a far stronger role in the next city election. Put your money on it.

2/20/2007 5:25 PM  
Anonymous First District Streetfighter said...

And this "new constituency" would come from where?

2/20/2007 8:58 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

The new constituency is coming from all the liberals in this town who got mugged by the Santa Monica Seven's irresponsible policies.

2/20/2007 10:33 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home