Talk:Santa Barbara News-Press controversy

Proseline
I think the `proseline' criticism is no longer valid. Of course, the Didionesque list will be objectionable to some, and I'd prefer to make a nice table/list out of that, but I don't have the time. So the article could use more editing, but I think it is above the median for Wiki... snug 13:44, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * With not a single heading, this article is an unreadable unencyclopedic mess, far below the WP median. -- Jibal 21:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
 * OK... thanks for the observation snug 02:33, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

I organized the info into headings... that is a significant improvement. I think it could still be made better, but I do think it is above the median now. snug 19:59, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

excessive unencyclopedic detail and related problems.
Taking a look for the first time, this is a violation of NOT NEWS--as containing unencyclopedic blow-by-blow detail out of all proportion to the importance of the events. The dispute is certainly notable, and worth an article. A reasonable one. . Essentially, without it, it strikes me a unbalanced POV; much of the specifics are inadequately documented and as they stand, are OR: e.g. "after the newspaper failed to bargain in good faith for six months," I've removed one unencyclopedic list of staff names, just as a starting point, and tagged for NPOV and OR. Perhaps those who know this best are the best ones to do the further cutting. DGG (talk) 03:58, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

The introductory reference to Santa Barbara News-Press publisher and owner Wendy McCaw's marital status as "a divorcee" is irrelevant in substance, intended to be disparaging, and is completely unacceptable. Such references to marital status are illegal in most commercial contexts, for good reason. Is a man ever called a "divorcee?" No.

The intention is to imply that the great fortune amassed by Ms. McCaw and her ex during their marriage had nothing to do with her efforts. There is no evidence that she did not participate in her family enterprises. This unusually invective term should be removed immediately.

More to the point, this "article" does not advise the reader that a Federal Judge finally dismissed the employees's suit on the grounds that a newspaper has a right to control both its content and its personnel under the guarantees of the First Amendment. [ McDermott v. Ampersand Publishing LLC, Central District of California, No. CV08-1551 (2008) ] The Ninth Circuit is considering whether to grant "en banc" review of its 2-1 decision upholding the district court.

The above statement was factually incorrect. A federal judge denied an injunction sought by the NLRB to obtain immediate reinstatement for the 8 unlawfully fired reporters, but that ruling has nothing to do with the ongoing administrative cases still before the NLRB. The administrative case seeking the same relief that was denied in the federal court and more is still ongoing, pending before the NLRB. In fact, an Administrative Law Judge in December, 2007 found the News-Press guilty of illegally firing the eight reporters, and also many other unfair labor practices. The company appealed that ruling to the NLRB, where it is still pending. Meanwhile the NLRB has appealed the federal district court injunction denial, and contrary to the flat-out lie above stating "Appeals failed", as of this date, a three-judge panel rule 2-1 to uphold the district court, but a petition for rehearing of that three-judge panel decision is still pending. -

Leaving out the result of the very litigation it makes so much of leads to the conclusion that its author is deliberately trying to mislead the reader.

At best, this last tag line is disingenuous. There has been a great deal of litigation, thanks primarily to violations of the law, and/or overreaching, by McCaw and her lawyers. There have been three NLRB proceedings, with a fourth now scheduled for October. The first addressed the News-Press' bogus attempts to overturn the union's election. The News-Press lost that case and it is final. The second addressed the first wave of News-Press labor law violations, including eight illegal firings, and the News-Press lost at the ALJ level, and has appealed. The third addressed the second wave of News-Press labor law violations, including a ninth illegal firing, bad faith bargaining and several other violations, and the hearing has been completed and an ALJ decision is pending. A fourth NLRB hearing is now scheduled for October, to address yet another unfair labor practice by the News-Press. - - - -

The dispute began when the publisher objected to her staff publishing the address of a well-known film and television star in a newspaper article about the County Planning Department’s activities with respect to the house. She believed that it was a security threat, against policy, and unnecessary. She openly criticized some of the persons responsible.

Ms. McCaw and the organization also provoked the ire of the news staff by refusing to print a story about a high level employee who had been charged with a serious violation of traffic laws.

Others resigned en masse on the grounds that the publisher had no right to interfere with “the news,” a view unsupported in newspaper history. [ See: Katherine Graham, Woodward and Bernstein, the Washington Post, Watergate; Benjamin Franklin and the Philadelphia Inquirer; Otis Chandler and the Los Angeles Times, etc. ]

They were fired for not showing up to work, but they claimed a right to strike. They sued on the grounds that they had a right to join the Teamsters Union, which they had joined.

The Court found that the nation’s news organizations rights of free speech trumped union rules.

Also noteworthy is that Ampersand Publishing won its case for copyright infringement against the Santa Barbara Independent, where many of its former employees went to work. Ampersand won the key issues in the case, and SBI settled, resulting in a dismissal at the request of the parties. Federal District Court Central District of California. CASE NO. CV 06 6837 (R) (AJWx)

http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/ampersand-publishing-v-santa-barbara-independent

Ms. McCaw has a web page where her views of the matters are presented for any and all to see.

http://wendy-mccaw.com/issues/052908.html

The interesting story of the dispute involving the newspaper is worth reporting. However, the present version of the "article" is too slanted to survive in its present form.

CASE NO. CV 06 6837 (R) (AJWx) STIPULATED DISMISSAL OF CIVIL ACTION

http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/ampersand-publishing-v-santa-barbara-independent

District Court Denies Injunction Based on First Amendment Concerns

A high-profile labor dispute recently presented the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California with cutting-edge issues focusing on the interplay between the National Labor Relations Act (the “NLRA”) and the First Amendment. In McDermott v. Ampersand Publ’g LLC, C.D. Cal., No. CV08-1551 (2008) the court denied a Section 10(j) Petition for Injunctive Relief filed against Ampersand Publishing LLC (“Ampersand”) based on the court’s finding that an injunction would significantly risk infringing the publisher’s First Amendment right to editorial discretion.

The dispute arose when a group of employees, including reporters, organized with the International Brotherhood of Teamsters (the “Teamsters”) in an attempt to wrest editorial control of the newspaper’s content and editorial function from its owner. Ampersand responded by terminating, threatening to terminate, and otherwise disciplining employees who were disrupting its business operations. An Administrative Law Judge (an “ALJ”) found that Ampersand’s response constituted numerous unfair labor practices, which prompted the National Labor Relations Board (the “Board”) to file a Section 10(j) petition on behalf of the union and employees. Separately, the Teamsters obtained leave to file briefs and were allowed to participate in oral argument.

The court held that: (1) notwithstanding the nonexistence of any “on point” legal authority, the injunctive relief sought raised a “significant risk” of infringing upon Ampersand’s First Amendment rights; (2) as a result, the ALJ’s legal findings were not entitled to deference and the petitioners were required to make a “particularly strong showing” in order to obtain equitable relief; (3) the ALJ’s findings to the contrary were erroneous as a matter of law; and (4) most importantly, the Board (along with the Teamsters) failed to carry their burden of proving either a sufficiently strong showing of irreparable harm or that the balance of hardships favor a grant of equitable relief. Ultimately, the court decided that, in the unique context of a privately owned newspaper, the newspaper’s First Amendment rights trump the reporters’ rights to engage in conduct that otherwise likely would be protected under the NLRA. Not surprisingly, the Board has since appealed the court’s decision.

-	omelveny and myers page.

http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/view_subpage.php?pk_id=0000003016

http://wendy-mccaw.com/issues/052908.html

Kdmoss (talk) 23:14, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Cleanup in response to the above comments
I have cleaned up the article in response to the above comments and removed the two tags, concerning WP:Neutral point of view and WP:No original research. Feel free to put them back if you want. In editing the article, I have moved most of the information regarding union organizing at the newspaper to a new page, Labor relations at the Santa Barbara News-Press (the original article was getting really long). There is still a lot of work to do, mostly dealing with the References. I discovered very many dead links, and I think many of the references are not complete. I've corrected some of them and will work on the others soonest. Yours very sincerely, in friendship, GeorgeLouis (talk) 01:22, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you -- greatly. It's looking much improved.  I haven't really wanted to edit it myself, having lived here through the whole thing, and having certain strong opinions about the matter.  Cheers, Antandrus  (talk) 01:38, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Citations and clarifications needed
When there is a request for a source or a clarification, please make them instead of simply deleting the requests. Otherwise, those particular sentences are just ripe for deletion altogether. Sincerely, 01:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC)