BlogaBarbara

Santa Barbara Politics, Media & Culture

Friday, February 02, 2007

KEYT Covers Reporter Protest

Tonight's 11 o'clock KEYT news shows several past and present News-Press reporters protesting on a highway bridge asking people to cancel their subscriptions -- interestingly enough, it doesn't show on their web site as of my last review. Still, most of the reporters were obscured from view and wearing sunglasses. Can't blame them considering what they might face in the morning....perhaps KEYT thought the same thing. As usual, the News-Press declined to comment.

13 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

nope, Web site updated:

http://www.savethenewspress.com

2/03/2007 12:12 AM  
Blogger Sara De la Guerra said...

Meant KEYT -- but thanks for the link...

2/03/2007 6:18 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Does anyone really care what Travis Armstrong writes any more?
Well I wouldn't know what he writes anymore since I no longer read the newspress.
Thank God the videographers are brave enough to film the newspress management in public, I'd be afraid of a frivolous lawsuit if I were them.

2/03/2007 9:11 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

As for whether anyone cares about the N-P editorials or not, consider that the paper still has a distribution of around 39,000 and probably about a quarter of those at least glance at the editorials. That's an important number of people getting the warped view, especially since the paper so often describes itself as unbiased that, as with frequent ads, most people easily buy into the myth.

2/03/2007 10:43 AM  
Anonymous lower westie said...

To those on the bridge.

I let my subscription run out in support of you all, but this stunt does nothing for me. Hanging a banner on a freeway overpass is dangerous to the people driving below. What if there had been an accident?

Please keep the protest demonstrations legal and safe. This one was neither.

2/03/2007 3:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Lower westie, thank you for your support. This freeway "banner drop" is a standard, time-honored, relatively innocuous and perfectly safe demonstration of heartfelt belief in our cause, and of extending our belief and passion to the community. We have to use all lawful means at our disposal, and this is certainly one that is quite effective. More to come!

2/03/2007 6:04 PM  
Anonymous David Pritchett said...

Not so sure it was KEYT with the TV news story, but KSBY had a short one that evening. Here is the video with a high-tech method:
(copy and paste the full URL)
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7114097807691792790

Also, the big banner seems to be inside the fence atop the bridge, not outside to fall on the freeway.

2/03/2007 6:33 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

ACCIDENT SATURDAY NIGHT - Anybody know about an accident Saturday evening on the 101 near Refugio? I swerved to miss a golden lab in the fast lane, and in my rear view mirror I saw the guy who had been tailgaiting me doing 360's, with other cars stopping behind him. I didn't stop on the side of the freeway because I had my little boy with me. Anybody hear anything about it?

2/04/2007 11:31 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If you're still subscribing to the DAILY NP, switch to Sunday only. That costs $6.50/month and still lets you read the daily paper on the web. If they shut that down, they've lost my subscription, so I don't mind sharing this tip with y'all.

2/04/2007 2:42 PM  
Anonymous danosb@cox.net said...

Lower Westie here, writing from Scottsdale so let me be brief.

I posted a comment on the Indie site under my real name, Dan Seibert, and would advise anon. 6:04 to check it out. Maybe in the past it was innocuous, but then again there was a time when we would dig pits at Leadbetter and shoot bottle rockets at each other. Those days are gone, and so are those when it was okay to demonstrate above a freeway.

Call the CHP if you think I'm wrong.

2/05/2007 1:16 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

If I was asking people to boycott my employer, my ass would get fired damn fast. As it should be.

Those who have quit have a right to support a boycott. But any people who are collecting paychecks while boycotting the hand that pays them should get a reality check.

I'm a reader, and a resident. That's all.

2/05/2007 2:22 PM  
Anonymous Norma Rae said...

Your ass would get fired damn fast if you were not in a labor union.

But those employees ARE in a union and what they were doing were normal activities under labor law.

Unless they are Huff n Puff spin, which may be likely, why do so many comments here continue to be clueless about What A Difference being in a labor union makes? The labor laws still apply.

2/05/2007 4:42 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

2:22 PM, please be aware that federal labor law fully protects employees who advocate a boycott of their employer's product in support of their union-related demands. Labor law in this country remains quite one-sided generally in favor of the employer, but strikes and primary boycotts are two forms of permissible (legally privileged) economic pressure employees are able to bring to bear, without retribution from the employer (though this employer has gone ahead with unlawful retribution in several instances thus far). There is also constitutional protection for these activities.

If the employer wasn't defying the law at every turn, refusing to bargain and raising bogus objections to the advent of the union, firing and threatening and intimidating people, then there would be less reason to boycott. Since the News-Press prefers to deny its employees their rights, the employees have to fight back, and boycotting is one time-honored way of doing so.

2/05/2007 5:22 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home