Departing editor rips bosses in disguised column

[Baron Scicluna]

The only thing missing in that column was a shout-out to Colt Cabana.

And although he's burned a lot of bridges in a bad economy, I give him props for giving readers a different side to the story that they're used to getting. Granted, the column wasn't very well-written and probably, the readers won't give a shirt, but hopefully they do and flood corporate's phones with complaints.

And I can fully see not being members of any organizations. I agree that a newspaper should be as unbiased as possible. Becoming a member of an organization, especially in a capacity that emphasizes your newspaper credentials, can call your reporting into that organization into question.

 

[LongTimeListener]

Jesus, where do you begin? Not only did he burn that bridge, he might have burned himself. This Tina person could bring a libel suit against him. And I'm sure Gene Lyons (or his syndicator, or his/their lawyers) are none too pleased about his name being misapporpriated in such a way. Plus if you're going to fall on your sword like this, at least connect it to reasons why the reader should be upset. He alluded to them in an abstract way, but all he had of substance was that they wanted more CofC luncheons and ribbon cuttings covered, which will have an indeterminate effect on coverage. Outside that, his criticism is ... they have offices outside North Dakota?

I don't get it, and if I do, I'll probably send it back and get the fish 'n chips.

Tina could only bring a libel suit if he said anything untruthful.

 

[J-School Blue]

This Tina person could bring a libel suit against him.

One of the defenses against libel is that what you're saying is true. I don't think that'd go anywhere. It was extremely personal, and rather nasty, but it's stuff that's verifiable.

He may never work in journalism again, but from the tone of that, that might be just fine with him. Not working in journalism again is not the end of the world. If he's leaving he may have another gig lined up already.

Good for him. It's about time the public started seeing how pissed off the rank-and-file folks who work in newspapers are about what's happening to the industry, even if it is often ugly and petty and self-righteous. It ain't wrong.

 

[jr/shotglass]

Good for him. It's about time the public started seeing how pissed off the rank-and-file folks who work in newspapers are about what's happening to the industry, even if it is often ugly and petty and self-righteous. It ain't wrong.

It's a diametrically opposed view that I can understand. It also is why we'll see this happen again.

I just think there are some things you don't do when you're a journalist, and one of them is sell out your employer.

 

[Mystery Meat II]

Jesus, where do you begin? Not only did he burn that bridge, he might have burned himself. This Tina person could bring a libel suit against him. And I'm sure Gene Lyons (or his syndicator, or his/their lawyers) are none too pleased about his name being misapporpriated in such a way. Plus if you're going to fall on your sword like this, at least connect it to reasons why the reader should be upset. He alluded to them in an abstract way, but all he had of substance was that they wanted more CofC luncheons and ribbon cuttings covered, which will have an indeterminate effect on coverage. Outside that, his criticism is ... they have offices outside North Dakota?

I don't get it, and if I do, I'll probably send it back and get the fish 'n chips.

Tina could only bring a libel suit if he said anything untruthful.

I'm an absolute layman at this, but could this qualify as defamation per se? One of the standards is that the statement is "adversely reflecting on a person's fitness to conduct their business or trade." He opens the column by saying Tina "never understood the value of news or how it makes a difference," then said she doesn't understand the impact of her actions, implying it was because of her ad/design background. That's borderline, on second glance, but that might get her through the courthouse doors.

The text message business might be considered public disclosure of private facts, which would be an invasion of privacy issue.

 

[jr/shotglass]

My understanding, and I could be wrong, is that if you meet one of the tests, such as truth, it supercedes other transgressions.

 

[LongTimeListener]

Jesus, where do you begin? Not only did he burn that bridge, he might have burned himself. This Tina person could bring a libel suit against him. And I'm sure Gene Lyons (or his syndicator, or his/their lawyers) are none too pleased about his name being misapporpriated in such a way. Plus if you're going to fall on your sword like this, at least connect it to reasons why the reader should be upset. He alluded to them in an abstract way, but all he had of substance was that they wanted more CofC luncheons and ribbon cuttings covered, which will have an indeterminate effect on coverage. Outside that, his criticism is ... they have offices outside North Dakota?

I don't get it, and if I do, I'll probably send it back and get the fish 'n chips.

Tina could only bring a libel suit if he said anything untruthful.

I'm an absolute layman at this, but could this qualify as defamation per se? One of the standards is that the statement is "adversely reflecting on a person's fitness to conduct their business or trade." He opens the column by saying Tina "never understood the value of news or how it makes a difference," then said she doesn't understand the impact of her actions, implying it was because of her ad/design background. That's borderline, on second glance, but that might get her through the courthouse doors.

The text message business might be considered public disclosure of private facts, which would be an invasion of privacy issue.

You're reaching. A text message belongs to the recipient, and obviously Nikki chose to share the text message with the writer. Tina lost ownership of it as soon as she sent it.

There's no case to be made here.

It shouldn't be a habit, but everyone needs to vent one big "fork you" in life. If this is his one, so be it.

 

[Cubbiebum]

Good for him. It's about time the public started seeing how pissed off the rank-and-file folks who work in newspapers are about what's happening to the industry, even if it is often ugly and petty and self-righteous. It ain't wrong.

It's a diametrically opposed view that I can understand. It also is why we'll see this happen again.

I just think there are some things you don't do when you're a journalist, and one of them is sell out your employer.

That is true exempt in one scenario. That scenario is when your employer sells out the readers. Your duty is to the readers first, employer second.

Kind of similar I guess to a government owned entity. If they are doing illegal, unethical stuff a good employee would out it rather than remain loyal to a corrupt employer. Being government owned, you have a duty to the people first. I don't know, best example I could think of in 20 seconds.

 

[sgreenwell]

My understanding, and I could be wrong, is that if you meet one of the tests, such as truth, it supercedes other transgressions.

Yes. If you're suing for libel, in most states I believe, you need to prove all four of the basic aspects (that they lied about what you did, they knew it was a lie or they didn't investigate their claim and ran with it anyway, that you had actual damages, and... I always forget the fourth thing). In the US, libel cases are notoriously hard to win, with some of the most famous ones being Pyrrhic victories at best. (Like when Rodney Dangerfield won $1.)

 

[jr/shotglass]

My understanding, and I could be wrong, is that if you meet one of the tests, such as truth, it supercedes other transgressions.

Yes. If you're suing for libel, in most states I believe, you need to prove all four of the basic aspects (that they lied about what you did, they knew it was a lie or they didn't investigate their claim and ran with it anyway, that you had actual damages, and... I always forget the fourth thing). In the US, libel cases are notoriously hard to win, with some of the most famous ones being Pyrrhic victories at best. (Like when Rodney Dangerfield won $1.)

I know one of the four tests has to do with malice. That might be the second one you mentioned.

 

[PCLoadLetter]

An honest question to those defending the guy:

Have you actually read what he wrote? It's a bunch of "OMG, Tina was mean to Nikki!" whining, followed by a few complaints that readers will absolutely not give a single shirt about. I don't know a thing about the guy who wrote it, but it reads like it's from a 25 year old who knows everything there is to know about journalism and business.

Getting another job in journalism isn't his problem. Getting another job is his problem. I don't care if I'm hiring for a convenience store -- if I google this dude, he has no shot.

 

[jr/shotglass]

Exactly.

I don't consider this a brave act of upholding the dignity of the wronged.

I consider this turning around and taking several sniper shots as you stand in the doorway.