Latest from our favorite publisher in Santa Barbara

[GuessWho]

If this is DB-ing, my apologies

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002986094

 

[Ace]

So if there is more to the story than has been reported ... uh, you're a publisher, why don't you see it gets reported, ma'am?

 

[dixiehack]

Unavailable for comment.

 

[805atHeart]

Laughable.

Now McCaw wants equal reporting.

But not when she alienates her entire staff. Or uses her front page to spearhead her own political endeavors.

 

[Trust NoOne]

And anyone who screams about confidentiality agreements like that is looking to bury what really happened.

 

[JayFarrar]

Just to be a (Casey) deck, I think I agree with her.
You own the joint, you can run it however you damn well please.
The editor who resigned was hired after the sale. So he knew what he was getting into. I don't feel bad for him one bit.
When she bought the paper, the locals wanted a hands-on owner, instead of the NYTimes and now that they have what they want, they don't.
Plus, it is kinds of shirtty reporting to write a story, and not even contact the other side to see what they have to say. As someone who has been a victim of this, I can tell you nothing in the world will pish you off more is when you see a story in the paper about you and the reporter didn't even bother giving you a call.
It isn't exactly the same but kinda like the deal in Baltimore where the political reporter wanted yes or no answers from senate candidates and the leading guy said the issues were too complicated and sent backs grafs.The reporter put the him down as having no response.

 

[SF_Express]

Jay:

This is always an interesting thing, so my two cents:

1) Yes, a publisher has the right to run a paper any way she pleases.

2) If she does it badly, completely against convention, illl-advisedly, vindictively, stupidly, fill-in-the-blankedly, she deserves every piece of shirt sent her way, every staff revolt, every attempt to unionize, every bad word written about her.

If you've followed this from the beginning, there's absolutely no defending her, except, mildly, on the unequal reporting thing.

You're right, she signs the checks.

But if she does things the way she's been doing them, she's getting what she deserves.

 

[Ben_Hecht]

Choke, bench.

 

[terrier]

She does have the right to run her business any way she sees fit, but when she starts sticking her nose in the awarding of professional honors to people she no longer employs...she's just a common, gutless thug.

 

[GuessWho]

I know we all have our management horror stories, but could you work for this person? I mean, really?

 

[2muchcoffeeman]

The latest, via E&P ...

Published: August 15, 2006 4:10 PM ET

NEW YORK In the ongoing saga that is the Santa Barbara (Calif.) News-Press, the union seeking to represent newsroom employees at the paper has filed an unfair labor practices complaint with the National Labor Relations Board. The four-count complaint claims the newspaper has engaged in "coercive and intimidating treatment of staff members."

The charges, filed Monday, also challenge "the News-Press' suspiciously-timed adoption of a 'conflict of interest' policy that purports to restrict and suppress employees' right to speak in public and publish on the Internet."

The complaints are the latest action in an ongoing internal battle at the newspaper over newsroom allegations of alleged meddling by owner Wendy McCaw and countercharges by the owner of biased reporting and alleged unprofessional behavior by some workers.

The showdown first drew national headlines on July 6 when several editorial employees, including former editor Jerry Roberts and five other editors, quit in protest. In all, a total of 14 editorial employees have resigned.

In a letter to NLRB officials sent Monday, Attorney Ira L. Gottlieb, representing the union, cited a recently adopted conflict of interest policy that allegedly requires employees of the paper to seek permission before posting items on the Internet or accepting speaking engagements as a key employee rights violation.

"These policies are obviously intended to stifle and suppress the very criticism that these reporters have lawfully lodged against management on a blog called savethenewspress.com," the letter stated. "And at least one recent public forum criticizing management at which one senior reporter spoke, as did the union's lead organizer."

Gottlieb is a lawyer for the Graphic Communications Conference of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, which is seeking to become the formal bargaining unit for newsroom employees at the paper. The workers have formally filed to have the union represent them, and have taken steps toward holding a union vote in the near future.

Specifically, the NLRB complaint charges the paper with: "Intimidating a reporter with a baseless disciplinary interview by management because that reporter is known to be a prominent leader and spokesperson in the unionizing effort; arbitrarily changing reporters' beat assignments without following customary procedure for doing so; a major revision of the company "conflict of interest" policy that stifles employees' ability to express public views on their current working conditions; and engaging in illegal surveillance."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ep/20060816/en_bpiep/santabarbaranewspressemployeesclaimunfairlaborpractices

Two things:

1. I can't recall ever seeing a labor issue at a newspaper turn this bitter this quickly.

2. The Teamsters and not the Guild? Wow.

 

[Buck]

Jay, with regard to equal reporting:
McCaw says "To date, no one from SPJ has contacted anyone connected with the paper except for your letter asking for my reaction and rationale. To what?."
That was her chance to respond, if she objected to the awards. SPJ asked her for her reaction to awards, any objections she had and the rationale for the objections. Further, they told her in the inquiry that they needed a response within a certain time for it to be considered.
She ignored the inquiry.
They asked her again.
She waited until the deadline had passed, and then responded.