1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Latest from our favorite publisher in Santa Barbara

Discussion in 'Journalism topics only' started by GuessWho, Aug 14, 2006.

  1. GuessWho

    GuessWho Active Member

    If this is DB-ing, my apologies

  2. Ace

    Ace Well-Known Member

    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?
  3. dixiehack

    dixiehack Well-Known Member

    Unavailable for comment.

  4. 805atHeart

    805atHeart Member


    Now McCaw wants equal reporting.

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

    Trust NoOne Member

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

    JayFarrar Well-Known Member

    Just to be a (Casey) Dick, 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 shitty 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 piss 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.
  7. SF_Express

    SF_Express Active Member


    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 shit 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.
  8. Ben_Hecht

    Ben_Hecht Active Member

    Choke, bitch.
  9. terrier

    terrier Well-Known Member

    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.
  10. GuessWho

    GuessWho Active Member

    I know we all have our management horror stories, but could you work for this person? I mean, really? :p
  11. 2muchcoffeeman

    2muchcoffeeman Active Member

    The latest, via E&P ...


    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.
  12. Buck

    Buck Well-Known Member

    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.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page