BlogaBarbara

Santa Barbara Politics, Media & Culture

Thursday, February 15, 2007

News-Press Actions Escalate

David Ferry wrote a good piece in The Daily Nexus about the News-Press escalation in their mismatched campaign to elimate bias in the newsroom. Full page ads signed by employees, busting into union meetings, trashing cabalistas and even perhaps, maybe, probably sending threatening messages to yours truly (not publishable) is part of the "fighting back" plan. If this is a war, it is one they cannot win because they are hopelessly outnumbered.

14 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

You can't have a PR campaign run this badly, it's just impossible. Just like W with Laura and Barney, it's Wendy, the Baron and TKA clinging to an obviously losing strategy while everyone else looks on in horror.

2/15/2007 9:32 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Speaking of bad national PR for The Wendy and The Baron, from today's “Editor and Publisher:”

“Santa Barbara Union Claims Paper's Attorney Crashed Meeting”

By Joe Strupp

Published: February 15, 2007 11:20 AM ET

NEW YORK The never-ending labor saga at the Santa Barbara News-Press continued this week as the union representing newsroom staffers filed yet another charge with the National Labor Relations Board claiming the newspaper's attorney interfered with a private meeting that union organizers were holding Tuesday night.

The meeting occurred just hours after the paper published a stinging column by Editorial Page Editor Travis Armstrong that slammed the union's protest activities and attacked local public officials for supporting them.

Etc. etc. etc.

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003546337

2/15/2007 11:12 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

anonymous 9:32am said...

...it's Wendy, the Baron and TKA clinging to an obviously losing strategy while everyone else looks on in horror.

while their lawyers watch with glee.

2/15/2007 11:35 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sara,

You leave too much implied by saying you have a threat that is not publishable as part of the SBNP "fighting back" plan. That is, one can only infer that someone authorized by the SBNP apparently made either a physically threatening or just vile epithet full of swear words. I can't imagine a threat of legal action is not publishable.

While I sympathize with your desire for civil discourse, when the actions involved, including the content of communications by central characters in this drama, are not civil, disclosure is the only way to understand it.

As I am interested in who is fighting back from SBNP by threats, I suggest that the communication be at least paraphrased.

BTW, I do understand the concern you have about the Independent having more lawyers than you as it relates to McCaw's leaked memo.

2/15/2007 11:40 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Any day now, I expect to read that management and their hired thugs fully cracked, streaming out of the building and wildly swinging bats and shillelaghs at the assembled protesters.

Hey, it could happen. American union-busting activity has a long and sullied history of cracking a few heads here and there to make their point.

2/15/2007 11:50 AM  
Blogger Sara De la Guerra said...

I cannot be sure who it is so why make allegations I can't back up? I've been called evil and told that I will "fall" sooner than I think (in so many words) -- nice intimidation tactic worthy of a disinformation campaign and a John Le Carré novel. The comments weren't worthy of publication and have to be generally ignored on my part if I am to keep BlogaBarbara alive and well.

2/15/2007 12:23 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Sara, on one hand you say that you cannot verify these supposed threats, and so you choose to ignore them. Yet on the other hand you've mentioned them on this blog.

Put up or shut up. The NP has been blasted by heresay, and your cloaked accusation just adds fuel to the fire.

I don't work there. And I don't support the reporters who quit their jobs. But, I have refrained from advertising with the NP because I don't want to be demonized by the loudmouths that keep spewing hate for the NP.

Angry reporters have worked to damage Wendy McCaw's business, and as an advertiser, there could be a negative impact on my business. You don't seem to be able to substantiate your threats any more than the ex-employees can substantiate any thing unacceptable that McCaw might have done before they started their public whining and harassment of her.

2/15/2007 2:14 PM  
Blogger Sara De la Guerra said...

Fuel to the fire? Rome has been burning for months..

I've made it clear I can't substantiate the said comments -- thus the words perhaps and maybe. I'm sorry you feel like you can't advertise without being demonized but advertising with the NP right now might npot be the best PR move anyway at this point and time.

Listen -- I want the best for the News-Press, even if it has the same management. What they have to do is begin a conversation with the community -- they will be very forgiving.

2/15/2007 2:35 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Realization:
During this entire episode, one of the recurring questions has been about the motivation of Wendy and crew. Where is the business-plan? Do they really think this will be profitable? Doesn't she care about the SBNP or Santa Barbara. Why is she doing this?

Also, there is the statement by "Nipper" that they would sell but they are having "too much fun". What is that about?

It has become clear that this is about fighting. Wendy is not interested in building, producing a good product, about the city, about journalistic integrity. Her deepest motivation is to continue to fight. So, she sues her architect, the Coastal Commission, former boyfriends, anyone she doesn't like, and now she can escalate and fight and fight and fight. Too much fun!

Her past has been buried and the public does not know why she is warring against the world, but war she does. Sadly, as with Bush, all that results from all that effort and money is destruction.

Perhaps that is what binds her and Travis, who always seems on the attack.

Pitiful, but dangerous. How does one cope with that attitude? Hope she moves on and chooses a new target? Unite and protect? I think so.

2/15/2007 2:42 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well, some small local businesses posted signs saying `McCaw, Obey the Law'. Did someone from Ampersand drop by the businesses and suggest the signs were impolite or inaccurate?

Nope. An attorney's letter was sent to those businesses by Ampersand.

That ain't heresy about Wendy McCaw. She doesn't cajole, lobby, reason, discuss. She sends out an atttorney's letter.

2/15/2007 2:57 PM  
Anonymous allegro805 said...

This has all been said before: She is a woman who simply cannot communicate with others ("a cease and desist letter is a form of dialogue"???). Same with Travis's rude rants: lack of communication skills (all editorial writers are opinionated, but the level of rancor and rudeness sets him apart). These are juvenile people sorely lacking in basic skills. And yeah, no one said you need to be mature to own or run a business, but it apparently hinders your ability to run a SUCCESSFUL business.

2/15/2007 4:07 PM  
Blogger Sara De la Guerra said...

5:06 PM -- Thanks!

2/15/2007 5:24 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I thought the Nexus article was very good - it did not indicate a bias in either direction. It just presented the information. The Nexus also recently hired Jerry Roberts as their publications director. Two Pluses in my book.

2/15/2007 6:14 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I guess the Nexus will be the next to be sued!

2/15/2007 7:28 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home