Comments on: An ill-fitting suit http://www.dustbury.com/archives/7558 I couldn't possibly fail to disagree with you less. Mon, 13 Feb 2012 03:23:16 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: CGHill http://www.dustbury.com/archives/7558/comment-page-1#comment-16417 CGHill Thu, 12 Feb 2009 21:36:05 +0000 http://www.dustbury.com/?p=7558#comment-16417 <a href="http://www.batesline.com/batesline-spotlight/2009/02/10/Retraction.pdf" rel="nofollow">Bates has posted a retraction</a>. Bates has posted a retraction.

]]> By: Charles Pergiel http://www.dustbury.com/archives/7558/comment-page-1#comment-15648 Charles Pergiel Sat, 17 Jan 2009 21:20:09 +0000 http://www.dustbury.com/?p=7558#comment-15648 "It’s a lose-lose for everyone because of the PR fallout."??? I don't think so! Bloggers everywhere will rejoice in having more fodder for their flack cannons. Shoot, it might even provoke a flame war! Watch those web site hit meters rack up the points! “It’s a lose-lose for everyone because of the PR fallout.”??? I don’t think so! Bloggers everywhere will rejoice in having more fodder for their flack cannons. Shoot, it might even provoke a flame war! Watch those web site hit meters rack up the points!

]]> By: CGHill http://www.dustbury.com/archives/7558/comment-page-1#comment-15635 CGHill Sat, 17 Jan 2009 15:42:55 +0000 http://www.dustbury.com/?p=7558#comment-15635 The <em>World</em> has now posted a <a href="http://www.tulsaworld.com//webextra/content/items/suit0116.PDF" rel="nofollow">PDF</a>. Meanwhile, <a href="http://www.slate.com/id/2208981/" rel="nofollow">Jack Shafer notes in <em>Slate:</em></a> <blockquote> <em>My unsolicited advice to Bates and </em>Urban Tulsa:<em> Call a press conference, pass out party hats, and say that you welcome the </em>World's<em> suit! Tell the Tulsa press corps you're dying to use the power of discovery to dig deeply into the </em>World's<em> circulation numbers to determine precisely how accurate its audits have been over the last 20 years. Oh, and make sure to enlist one of the </em>World's<em> big, regular advertisers as your ally. They'll be very interested in getting a close-up of the paper's circulation numbers.</em> <em>I'll bet the </em>World<em> would fold like a supermarket insert.</em> </blockquote> The World has now posted a PDF.

Meanwhile, Jack Shafer notes in Slate:

My unsolicited advice to Bates and Urban Tulsa: Call a press conference, pass out party hats, and say that you welcome the World’s suit! Tell the Tulsa press corps you’re dying to use the power of discovery to dig deeply into the World’s circulation numbers to determine precisely how accurate its audits have been over the last 20 years. Oh, and make sure to enlist one of the World’s big, regular advertisers as your ally. They’ll be very interested in getting a close-up of the paper’s circulation numbers.

I’ll bet the World would fold like a supermarket insert.

]]> By: Gold http://www.dustbury.com/archives/7558/comment-page-1#comment-15620 Gold Fri, 16 Jan 2009 23:06:55 +0000 http://www.dustbury.com/?p=7558#comment-15620 If I understand correctly, Bates is being sued as a writer for Urban Tulsa and not in his capacity as a blogger. The petition (they call it a "petition" in state court instead of a "complaint" like in federal court) is available at the Tulsa County District Court civil desk, second floor. It will not be available online unless a blogger or newspaper of other private indicidual or person puts it up. The World has a pretty serious financial interest in whether people believe its advertising numbers to be correct, I reckon. If I understand correctly, Bates is being sued as a writer for Urban Tulsa and not in his capacity as a blogger.

The petition (they call it a “petition” in state court instead of a “complaint” like in federal court) is available at the Tulsa County District Court civil desk, second floor. It will not be available online unless a blogger or newspaper of other private indicidual or person puts it up.

The World has a pretty serious financial interest in whether people believe its advertising numbers to be correct, I reckon.

]]>