Funny thing, slander and libel, especially in the age of Blogs, YouTube, Twitter, Facebook. The concept seems so . . . well, Victorian. Nowadays, who has a “reputation?” All it takes is a few anonymous key-strokes and anybody, for any reason, can be publicly trashed. But here’s the odd thing: Nowadays, who believes anything they read anywhere anymore? Kinda hard to be “slandered, defamed and libeled” if nobody believes a word of it. Or they believe every word but never bother to find out whether it’s true or not, so “facts” and “false facts” just become meaningless gossip, subject to change at any moment.
Hard to maintain a “reputation” of any kind in such a downpour of swirling blither.
And funny thing about suing somebody for libel is that news of the lawsuit will spread the libel even farther than the original libel, so you’re likely to face the ridiculous possibility that you should maybe sue yourself for making sure that libel got the widest possible coverage. So, either way, damned if you do, damned if you don’t.
Case in point, yesterday’s Tribune carried the headline “A.G. man accuses news site of libel.” According to the story, “Charles Tenborg, CEO and president of Eco Solutions, a hazardous waste management service in Arroyo Grande” filed a lawsuit against “CalCoast News and reporters Karen Velie and Daniel Blackburn” for publishing a story that claimed that “Tenborg’s company illegally transported hazardous waste for San Luis Obispo County’s Integrated Waste Management Authority.”
See the problem there? I’ll bet none of you reading this ever heard of Charles Tenborg or Eco Solutions. Likely you’re not even familiar with CalCoastNews. And I’m also betting you missed the original story all together. So, there’s the problem: If a “libel” falls in a forest of “news” and nobody sees it, is it still “libel?”
Ah, but file a lawsuit, especially in a small town, and it gets picked up by the one newspaper of record, well it’s sure to be splashed far further than the original story ever went. Toss in the fact that CalCoast News regularly makes headlines by their muckraking and pot-stirring, and you’re sure to spread whatever “libel” you think you’re dealing with all over the place.
So there you are. You feel your reputation was dinged in a news report likely read by nobody and now, thanks to your lawsuit, your dinged reputation is now splattered all over the newspaper in big headlines and now everyone and their uncle is aware of your previously quasi-dinged reputation and they’re now blinking their eyes and saying, “Gosh, I didn’t know Mr. So & So was a crook.”
Meanwhile, your bet noir, CalCoastNews now gets another bite at the apple to refresh and repeat the whole story and add their two cents defending their actions and so the whole thing gets rehashed again.
Hopeless. It’s a no-win deal. The lawsuit story will now stick in a whole lot of people’s minds even before you have to go to court and face impossible odds of actually proving “malice” and “willful” intent from your accusers. Or if the news agency agrees to publish a retraction or modification of the original story, or maybe you even win your lawsuit, it’s a good bet that story will appear on page B6 buried under an ad for underwear.
So there you are. Win, lose or draw, your efforts to right a perceived wrong just made a bigger mess.
On the other hand, if a news agency is running amok and falsely accusing folks of illegalities, (the Tribune notes that “this is the second defamation lawsuit in two months that has involved CalCoastNews”) then somebody needs to put a stop to it.
But at what price for all the players? Except for the lawyers, who get paid regardless.
Posts
17 comments:
Maybe you can get the LOCSD to pay the legal fees so none of the "players" are out of pocket?
Worked for the PZLDF and Ann Calhoun!
Easy solution here.
Just be nice and you will not be sued for slander.
As for CCN, they are reaping what they have sown.
FUN FACT: In 2011, Ann Calhoun was involved in talks with CalCoastNews to start a news site, which she would profit from with ad revenue sales.
Ann's non-disclosure shows her lack of integrity.
Fundamentally true.
They used to say no publicity is bad publicity, or was it; any publicity is good publicity.
Wait another week till the search engines can tag this current post and conduct a search for "Eco solutions" back to a couple of weeks after the Cal coast article sprang.
Compare to a restricted search that goes back forever and stops just before the cal coast article. Also a search that captures the actual "breaking news CC article".
Paper of record? The solidly stolid Tribune? Who could be outstanding in a field if they were to get out of their offices and head east toward Broad street.
The real losers are anybody who could benefit from the activity of what CalCoast at one time may had imagined they could be. They even broke a real story at least once.
CalCoast online as an experiment awry. He was right, Pondscum burblings releasing methane into warming skies. In the long long term, we all lose, even the lawyers.
Anon sez:"FUN FACT: In 2011, Ann Calhoun was involved in talks with CalCoastNews to start a news site, which she would profit from with ad revenue sales.
Ann's non-disclosure shows her lack of integrity."
LOL, Anon. Here's a fun ACTUAL REAL FACT. I was indeed involved in talks with CalCoastNews when Blackburn called several people with an idea of starting some kind of alternate news outfit. It was, at that point, just a gleam in Blackburn's eye, but when I saw who actually showed up at the preliminary meeting (or should I say, when I saw a father/son team show up at the meeting,) I made a phone call and was out the door, buh-bye, so there was no need for "disclosure" since I wasn't part of whatever got formed, if anything. Now, a question: Do Anon's False Facts, stated here as if they were real facts, indicate a lack of integrity on his part? And can we also presume that Anon was present at those early meetings? And that maybe Anon was one of a pair of reasons I headed for the door? Just asking.
Alon sez:"The solidly stolid Tribune? Who could be outstanding in a field if they were to get out of their offices and head east toward Broad street."
Indeed. Cudda, shudda, imagine what they could do with better funding and reporters on the ground.
So you, Ann Calhoun, do admit that you never paid your portion of the failed PZLDF lawsuit and that you feel fully justified that the rest of the district had to pay for the LOCSD paying the full cost of that failed lawsuit?
You had the guts to sign on that lawsuit, then why haven't you ever paid your share of the cost to the district of that action!
Three funny things:
Ann writes:
" ... or should I say, when I saw a father/son team show up at the meeting,) I made a phone call and was out the door, buh-bye... "
That's funny.
Alon writes:
"The solidly stolid Tribune? Who could be outstanding in a field if they were to get out of their offices and head east toward Broad street."
That's funny (and, yes, I do believe there are several large fields out on Tank Farm Road).
And, an Anon writes:
"Ann's non-disclosure shows her lack of integrity."
That, coming from an Anon, is REALLY funny.
Getting back to CCN... I've given them this excellent journalism lesson in the past, but, for whatever reason, the refuse to learn it.
They could save themselves a TON of headaches, if they were to learn just one simple rule of journalism: ATTRIBUTE.
I mean, here's the story in question:
http://calcoastnews.com/2012/11/hazardous-waste-chief-skirts-law/
Go look at it... there's not ONE link to a source. And, as I show over and over and over and over and over again on SewerWatch, that's, like, THE BEST thing about online journalism -- the ability to link directly to primary sources.
Then they write things like this:
"City employees said Tenborg encourages municipalities to ignore reporting protocols by filling out IWMA forms that allege the municipality is a small generator because it self-transports; then, Tenborg transports the loads himself in violation of state law. He charges the city $2,000 to $3,000 for each load, and takes them to one of IWMA’s five household hazardous waste facilities — all managed by Tenborg."
"City employees said?" Huh?
At ol' Cal Poly journalism school, that kind of sloppy attribution got ya an automatic "F."
Of course, IF CCN actually knew how to link to a source, they could easily show that IWMA -- that is allegedly kicking down FAT dough to Tenborg's Eco Solutions -- includes Adam Hill on the Board, and Adam Hill HATES CCN.
See? If CalCoastNews.com simply knew how to make a link, they could save themselves so many headaches.
Online Journalism 101.
There are some factual inaccuracies I'd like to put out there. For one, you were involved in e-mail correspondence that occurred after the preliminary meeting. You left after we pulled out of the partnership.
I spoke to Ramos briefly after the dissolution in talks happen, and he said you wanted to be "on board" with CalCoastNews as a writer. This is while you were promoting CalCoastNews when they launched "Sex and the Los Osos Sewer." You allowed Karen Velie to harass Maria Kelly when she was defending herself and her children. This happened way after the preliminary meeting.
Online Journalism 101: Disclose what is relevant.
"Sex and the Los Osos Sewer."
That means the Julie Tacker - Jeff Edwards affair for those who have missed the sideshow leading to the LOCSD bankruptcy! We also know this as the "Tacker Sex and Lies" show which is costing Los Osos the very serious sewer bills.
We have yet to find out what the final cost of the bankruptcy will cost us! Thanks to you Lisa, Julie, Chuck, and let's not forget the moral compass, Ann Calhoun!
As much as I can't stand AO, Ron is by far the larger fabricator of misinformation. AO's problem can be attributed to his parents, but Crawford's egotistical, stuck in 1960, approach to his selective muck raking can only be attributed to his rejection by sweet Julie. Apparently even she has some form of ethic, although sleeping around while married has never bothered her conscience. Can Jeff ever be sure?
Calhoun's is one of four links featured on Cal Coast News, so it's clear that she approves of the trumped up, attack "journalism" they foist on the public and which she has orchestrated here for years as "progressive" thinking.
"If a news agency is running amok and falsely accusing folks of illegalities, then somebody needs to put a stop to it. But at what price to all the players?"
That price is whatever the price that truth is going for these days, if the truth still matters at all.
Truth is only what Calhoun has ever perceived it to be.
Tacker has never known truth!
Aaron Och sez:"Aaron Ochs - Managing Editor of The ROCK said...
"There are some factual inaccuracies I'd like to put out there. For one, you were involved in e-mail correspondence that occurred after the preliminary meeting. You left after we pulled out of the partnership."
Why, Aaron, are you fessing up now to being "Anonymous?" After all, in my comment on the early CCN days, I mentioned no names. Only people at that meeting would know what was or was not discussed. And yet here you are popping up claiming, Why, it's so MEEEE! And this, after you have been specifically banned from this blog, after being put on notice that this is an Ochs Free Zone and has been for years? Yet here you are. And I can only presume that you've been sneaking in to comment regularly as an"Anonymous" for years now, all the while talking about integrity and disclosing what's relevant?
Let's see a show of hands from the folks who are familiar with the various commentor "voices." How many think that one of the Anons over the past few years has been Aaron pretending to be an "Anonymous" so he can sneak into an Ochs Free blog?
Re CCN, I pulled out of whatever Daniel was trying to get set up when I knew you two were involved. The only official connection I have with CCN is this: My blog's been linked to CalCoast's website, as it is linked to other blogs (at one time I recall linking to The Rock, and vice versa remember? That, of course, was before this blog became an Ochs Free Zone.)Being linked to another blog is not the same as being part of the organization. You seem to have conflated the two. It's just a link. Or are you now claiming that I was part of and "on board" The Rock?
As for "allowing" Karen Velie. . .? LOL. I don't "allow" Karen to do or not do anything.
Another Anon (who may also be A?, with Anons, you never know, do you?) sez: "Calhoun's is one of four links featured on Cal Coast News, so it's clear that she approves of the trumped up, attack "journalism" they foist on the public and which she has orchestrated here for years as "progressive" thinking."
Your conclusion is wrong. CCN, when it's minding its manners, it does a pretty good job in its niche. When it turns over rocks and finds real bedbugs, everyone says "hooray" (and government officials get pissy and/or they investigate further and fix things that have gone wrong, c.f. the Wallace south county sewage mess) and when it runs amok, then it gets smacked or Adam Hill yells at them. That's the way it works.
But Ron's right on this one: Sources, please. And so we'll see how this particular story shakes out. Lawsuits are oftentimes excellent ways to pin down "sources."
Lawsuits are oftentimes excellent ways to pin down "sources."
Especially for those who have the ability to get corrupt government leaders to fund frivolous lawsuits at the expense of the LOCSD taxpayers.
Ann Calhoun has yet to repay the LOCSD for the failed PZLDF lawsuit!
Ann, that is not "progressive thinking", that is flat out lying to the district as you have done for the past 10 years.
One word, Ann: No.
You've said for years, "Anonymous have no credibility. Don't take them seriously." I only post under my own name because there's more weight to my words. That's just one voice; the only voice I need.
Your fellow blogger Sewertoons once wrote to me, "Thanks for confirming for me that the bloggers using multiple monikers who spout these same words against me on the comment sections in the various venues are now revealed as being you!" There's no point to harvesting anonymous comments to generate buzz (like CalCoastNews). I leave it to the professionals.
Apparently you're saying that I'm "banned" from this blog, but here I am, "ankle-chewing" as you like to call it. I call it "replying."
The only reason you proclaim this blog an "Ochs-Free Zone" isn't because you one day decided I was banned (not that I'm actually banned), but because you posted libel on your blog and I told you to remove it. As it turned out, you removed it but the caveat was that my name couldn't be mentioned by anyone or else the comments would be "trashed." That was your design, not mine.
So was Former Editor Ramos wrong when he said you were applying for the writer position at CalCoastNews?
Of course you allowed Velie to interrogate Kelly. Why change history now?
http://calhounscannon.blogspot.com/2011/06/karen-velie-of-cal-coast-news-does-it.html
I read your column and you don't seem to understand why people file libel suits to begin with. People file libel suits because the false information spreads so far and wide that a lawsuit is the only remedy available to officially clear the record.
According to the lawsuit papers, Mr. Tenborg was alerted to the fact that many of his colleagues and associates were made aware of the article. The article was also distributed to an intranet list-serv mailing list, which went to several hundred waste management professionals employed by the state. Velie and Blackburn will be served next week.
Tenborg's reputation has already been tarnished. There's nothing to lose by filing in order to clear the air.
You're familiar with libel, Ann, and so are some of your blogger friends. Your blog has hosted some of fairly malicious comments toward community members. I still get people e-mailing me with things they find on your blog from years ago, and they're shocked that you've hosted such objectionable content while taking no responsibility for it.
Sometimes you need to be taken down a peg, Ann. We're part of the same community. Either you deal with disagreement like an adult or you retire from the blogging business.
My take away from this is twofold. 1. Ann's a hypocrite.
2. Ann doesn't think her writing has any impact or meaning and that therefor she is absolved of anything she has written that is libelous.
Prosecuting a blog site that slanders people, because technically it can't be considered libelous since it isn't a recognized "news site" is a loser lawsuit. On the other hand, a blog site that claims to be a news source has, more than likely, opened itself up to be prosecuted as such.
All in all, the people that have "witch hunted" and attacked individuals, without seeking out the facts and written articles based in agenda and perception are bullies and cowards.
Aaronymous sez:"Your fellow blogger Sewertoons once wrote to me, "Thanks for confirming for me that the bloggers using multiple monikers who spout these same words against me on the comment sections in the various venues are now revealed as being you!" There's no point to harvesting anonymous comments to generate buzz (like CalCoastNews). I leave it to the professionals."
So, Toonces thanks you for confirming for her that it was YOU who were a lot of the anonnymice, eh? Really. Now, that's very interesting.
And Ramos is mistaken or perhaps didn't finish the rest of the story? While Dan was trying to put together a sort of vague on-line newspaperish thingee, exactly how this would look or operate, was all up in the air and a lot of ideas were kicked around by various participants, including having various columnists/writers be part of whatever he was trying to put together, in whatever capacity they could. Was Dan considering using my column as part of the mix? I presume so, since he invited me to the preliminary discussions. Does that mean I was "applying to be a writer"in the usual sense of that word when used in the context of a "newspaper?" No. That's not what I do or was interested in doing. By the time the project began to vaguely congeal, a certain duo arrived and I knew I was out of there.
And, yes, you were banned, 86'd, told you're not welcome here, Shoo, go away. that's what an Ochs-free Zone means. And that did cut down on the crazies for a while. But guess who crept back. I had no idea you were my number one FanBoy who apparently (clearly) has been lurking on this blog for all these years. Amazing.
Well, buh-bye again, and take all those "confirmed" anonnymouse clones with you.
Post a Comment