In Defense of Michael Bates

Michael Bates, author of Batesline and one of the finer gentlemen who blog Oklahoma, is being sued for libel by the Tulsa World (World Publishing Co.)

At 3:46 pm yesterday I received a phone call from Tulsa World reporter Randy Krehbiel, asking for my reaction to the lawsuit filed against me by the World Publishing Co. I told him I was unaware that a suit had been filed and that he was the first Tulsa World representative to contact me about a suit.

According to the OSCN database, at 3:01 pm on Thursday, Jan. 15, just 45 minutes before Krehbiel's phone call, attorney J. Schaad Titus filed a civil lawsuit on behalf of World Publishing Co. against Renegade Publishing Inc. DBA Urban Tulsa, Keith Skrzypczak, and Michael D. Bates alleging libel.

I have not seen a copy of the complaint. Based on the offense named and the defendants named in the suit, it appears to have something to do with a column I wrote, likely the most recent column dealing with layoffs at the daily paper. ...

If WPC believes I've written something in error, I'm disappointed that the company would file a suit against me without first contacting me with evidence to contradict what I wrote and giving me the opportunity to issue a clarification or correction.

I'm certain that I am not guilty of libel, but that doesn't mean this won't be a difficult time. Your prayers would be appreciated.

According to the McCarville Report the World is upset by the Jan. 15 Urban Tulsa Weekly story which stated

that the World concealed circulation declines from 1997 to 2007. Bates specifically alleges that a 2006 report by the Audit Bureau of Circulation "suggests the World was inflating its circulation by as much as 20 percent." ...

The World said the ABC audit showed drops of 6 percent in daily circulation and 5 percent in Sunday circulation for the period in question. ...

The lawsuit does not dispute that the newspaper's print editions have lost circulation over the past decade, but it does dispute Bates' claim that the losses were concealed or might have been greater than reported. ...

But the real laugher is this sentence:

Lorton said he does not object to criticism of himself or the World but will not stand for the organization's honesty being impugned.

It's been a long time since anyone I've read has publicly accused the Tulsa World of honesty.

It's possible this is mostly about protecting its advertising revenues. After all, a paper which has just trimmed its staff by 28 people is obviously concerned about receivables. I have yet to read the Urban Tulsa story, but I find it difficult to believe that Mr. Bates said anything remotely actionable as he is a very careful writer who strives to get his facts straight. Furthermore, as modern libel laws are construed in Oklahoma, I do not think it possible that you can libel a newspaper, per se. A newspaper, or its publishing company, is about the ultimate in what one would consider "a public figure."

So what we probably have here is the owners of the Tulsa World using their considerable power of the purse to intimidate and attempt to silence someone who has embarrassed them. How noble they must see themselves!

And it's not the first time that the World has turned its legal guns on Michael Bates. In 2005 they claimed that he violated their copyright by posting excerpts from their news columns on his blog. This was absurd on its face in that every news organization worthy of the name knows about fair use.

But that's really the point, isn't it. The Tulsa World has for a long time been a poor role model for responsible reporting. (It was a very sad day when the vastly superior Tulsa Tribune was forced to close.) The World has chosen to pursue editorial policies that run contrary to the philosophies and beliefs of much of its readership, slanted articles to reflect the biases of its editors, and has chosen to ignore some inconvenient stories and/or facts altogether. Of course, it is the World's First Amendment right to do all of these things, but they should not be shocked when subscriptions and readership drop.

Even if Michael Bates is being attacked for something he wrote outside of Batesline, he deserves the support of Oklahoma's blogging community. Whether or not you like his views or personality, you should realize that if the World succeeds in silencing him, they can silence anyone. We need to speak up - accurately and with truth - against the injustice of a big multi-million dollar corporation attempting to use the court system to silence an alternative voice.

I do not know if we can shame the World out of this action, but indeed its ownership should be ashamed.

Obviously, there will be more to say on this topic.