The Finch Formerly Known As Gold

2 March 2005

Meanwhile in T-town

Michael Bates' ongoing battle against the Tulsa World got three-quarters of a page in this week's Oklahoma Gazette. You'd think this would be an obvious item for their Web site, but it fell through the cracks or something. (But see Update below.)

Ronald Coleman, general counsel for the Media Bloggers Association, characterized the World's outburst as "an incredible emblem of the thick-headedness of old-media monopolies."

World attorney Schaad Titus advances a new notion in this piece: if links by BatesLine or other blogs prompted the reader to shell out the World's regular fees before viewing, that's okay with them. I wish they'd asked him if they were going to cut Bates in on any revenue he might generate if he did this.

And speaking of Schaad Titus, two years ago he and the World pushed for access to a database compiled by the city of Tulsa as part of the settlement of a lawsuit alleging employment discrimination in the Police Department. "It is important for city [residents] to understand what has happened and have them believe the settlement is good for the city, to unite the city rather than divide the city," he said. "If you don't have public access, you'll have no way to understand." There is no record of whether Titus or the World offered to pay the city for database access.

(Update, 3 March, 11:30 am: Here's a link to the Gazette story. My thanks to Editor Rob Collins.)

Posted at 6:54 PM to Blogorrhea


Gee, the Gazette doesn't seem to be freaking out over -your- link to their story.

Posted by: unimpressed at 2:24 PM on 3 March 2005

Considering it was the editor thereof who sent me the link, I suppose not. ;)

The Gazette has somewhat greater understanding of blogdom than most Oklahoma media; they were writing about it back in 2002 (I mentioned it here), and I know at least some of the staff read this goofy little site of mine, because they've responded to things I've said about Gazette articles.

Posted by: CGHill at 8:35 PM on 3 March 2005

Heh.

What it boils down to is that the _Tulsa World_ apparently can't stand any sort of criticism of their articles.

Their attack of Mr. Bates is preposterous, ridiculous and smacks of vindictive retribution.

Common sense seems to have no part in the argument brought forth by the _Tulsa World_.

Posted by: unimpressed at 6:58 PM on 4 March 2005