The Times-Standard has filed an unfair business practices lawsuit against the Eureka Reporter.
The California Newspaper Partnership, which owns the Times-Standard and the Tri-City Weekly, filed a lawsuit in Humboldt County Superior Court this week alleging unfair business practices by The Eureka Reporter.
The complaint argues that since its inception The Eureka Reporter has embarked on a campaign to take advertising away from the Times-Standard and the Tri-City Weekly by a variety of “illegal methods.”
It states The Eureka Reporter operates at a loss, giving away free or below cost advertising and targeting known customers of the Times-Standard and the Tri-City Weekly with the intent of eliminating the papers as competitors.
The practices “are and were unlawful, unfair and deceptive in violation of (the) California Business & Professions Code,” the complaint states.
Priceless.
The lawsuit follows a recent court victory for the T-S who won an appellate ruling that determined the ER is not a “newspaper of general circulation.”
RSS - Posts
August 22, 2008 at 10:24 am
I think it was Brian Morrisey that declined to comment, Heraldo, not Rob A.
August 22, 2008 at 10:27 am
It sounds so much better if it says Rob A.
August 22, 2008 at 10:36 am
YAY Times-Standard! Can the other local newspapers join this lawsuit or would they want to given that some of them utilize Arkley’s presses?
August 22, 2008 at 10:38 am
Indeed. You are correct. Thanks.
August 22, 2008 at 10:48 am
Awesome. I suddenly am the biggest fan of the Times-Standard ever.
August 22, 2008 at 11:29 am
The paragraph that stood out to me in a Bay Guardian story about their $15 million judgment against the SF Weekly (http://www.sfbg.com/blogs/politics/2008/07/judge_denies_sf_weekly_motion.html)
was this:
“The evidence also showed that [SF Weekly's parent company's] executive editor, Michael Lacey, had vowed to put the Guardian out of business, and that Weekly advertising and business staff were instructed to try to take business away from the Guardian by below cost pricing, whatever the sacrifice in revenue and profits.”
August 22, 2008 at 12:14 pm
I’m curious exactly who’s idea this was? Regardless of any legal merit to this case, or lack thereof, it would be difficult to prove any harm done since it’s the Reporter that’s in trouble financially.
This lawsuit seems to me like kicking someone when they’re down with the T-S doing using the courts to do the same thing to the Reporter as they accuse the Reporter of unsuccessfully doing to them.
August 22, 2008 at 12:22 pm
As the court recently ruled, the Eureka Reporter is not a legitimate daily paper. Which means that Arkley’s stated purpose for starting the Eureka Reporter is a proven lie. Everyone knows Arkley’s real intention was to put the Times-Standard out of business, since they refused to toe Arkley’s political line on local issues, unlike many of the other publications that Arkley is reponsible for printing.
August 22, 2008 at 12:25 pm
Did you see Judy Hodgson’s letter in the NCJ a few weeks ago? She said something to the effect of the Journal getting squeezed because of the ER selling ads below market prices in its war with the T-S. The Journal is consequently downsizing the paper (literally — it’ll be a smaller paper) and raising their ad prices.
August 22, 2008 at 12:28 pm
The court made no such ruling.
It declared that the ER is not an adjudicated newspaper because it does not have a bona fide subscription list. That means it can’t run legal ads.
August 22, 2008 at 12:33 pm
Fred. You’re wrong. The ER has been selling below-market advertising at a loss for years, relying on cash infusions from Arkley to stay afloat. This is illegal in California and an unfair business practice. That’s how the Bay Guardian was able to win such a large jury award from the SF Weekly. This practice by the ER has not only hurt the T-S, it has cut into the income of the North Coast Journal, and probably even the smaller weeklies such as the Arcata Eye and the McKinleyville Press.
I’ve talked about the possibility of this lawsuit for years. Largely because I know the attorney who has won the landmark cases in this field, Ralph Alldredge, a former employer of mine. I suspect this is who the Times-Standard has retained.
August 22, 2008 at 12:33 pm
Next the TS will sue boggers who give away news and beat the paper to the story.
Note to H, make sure you don’t cut into the TS business by giving away your news.
August 22, 2008 at 12:35 pm
“She said something to the effect of the Journal getting squeezed because of the ER selling ads below market prices in its war with the T-S.”.
I’m a bit skeptical of that claim. First, seems I’ve heard most newspapers are struggling for advertising dollars. Second, I suppose it’s possible that the Reporter has snagged a few NCJ accounts, but I don’t recall seeing any advertising in the Reporter that I used to see in the NCJ but don’t see anymore. Then again, I usually don’t pay much attention to ads.
August 22, 2008 at 12:40 pm
You’re skeptical but don’t pay attention?
Hodgson’s letter ran for at least two weeks about five weeks ago. I don’t think her letter was published online.
August 22, 2008 at 12:50 pm
Fred. What the ER did lowered the market rate for all newspaper advertising in Humboldt County. That’s what you’re not grasping.
August 22, 2008 at 12:51 pm
This week’s McKinleyville Press has scooped all other papers with a story about illegal campaign contributions to Measure C. in possible violation of Measure T. Now that’s a juicy story.
August 22, 2008 at 12:56 pm
Keep posting Fred. The ER is bound to recognize your talent and incisive intelligent take on these things and reward you sooner or later with Hannaford’s job.
You were born for the role. Only you can walk in the great man’s shoes.
August 22, 2008 at 1:25 pm
Do all the legal notices the ER has run need to be redone, because they weren’t in fact a legal newspaper?
August 22, 2008 at 1:35 pm
Fred. You’re in the landscaping business, right? OK. Let’s assume Heraldo dislikes you so much that he’s determined to put you out of business. And let’s assume the Heraldo is a millionaire, so he can afford to spend as much money as he pleases to pursue his vendetta against you. Let’s assume you charge $20 per hour for your services.
Heraldo starts his own landscaping company and hires a bunch of people to work for him at $20 per hour. But he only charges customers $5 per hour. Heraldo targets all of your customers and says I’ll do what Fred is doing, only I won’t charge $20 per hour I’ll only charge you $5 per hour. Meanwhile Heraldo keeps his faux company afloat by means of his deep pockets, until he has taken all of your customers.
Would you sit still for this?
August 22, 2008 at 1:47 pm
Wrong Tom. The Press scooped the other media outlets weeks ago. This is a follow-up story.
There’s been a media blackout outside of McKinleyville about the Measure T violation. Hmmm. Will we hear progressives calling for blood when it’s a school district cozying up to outside corporations? Not so far.
August 22, 2008 at 1:59 pm
So basically the Eureka Reporter is the newspaper version of WalMart. Go GOP!
August 22, 2008 at 2:01 pm
In reality, trying to “educate” Fred and hoping he’ll “get it” is useless. Pretending he has a “landscape business” is like saying a kid selling lemonade on the sidewalk is a “retailer”.
Fred’s brains cells are fried from lack of use and too much pot. Let’s just keep funneling him welfare money and let him lay there, bewildered and confused. He’s harmless to everyone but himself.
Arkley’s “starve ‘em out” strategy, the one his ancestors used so well against the Indians, only works when he can intimidate everyone else into letting him be a tyrant. We’ll all lose information if the TS goes under at the hands of the ER.
August 22, 2008 at 2:16 pm
Andrew asks, “Would you sit still for this?”.
That’s a good analogy, Andrew. The only difference is, despite being subsidized by the Arkleys, the Reporter is the one that’s had to move to cheaper paper and cut back hard copy publishing days from 7 to 5.
Besides, if my customers had any sense, they’d be fools not to hire some other gardener that knows what he’s doing and doesn’t do crappy work like I do.
August 22, 2008 at 2:18 pm
Anonymous 1:37, thanks for the tip. I put part of the story on my blog and aired it on kgoe yesterday. I would have to agree that there has been somewhat of a blackout on this. That’s why I brought it up.
August 22, 2008 at 2:18 pm
I might add, it wouldn’t surprise me if the Reporter has to cut back even more before Arkley decides to shut it down altogether. Not that I’d want to see that happen. I just think it the Reporter might be headed that way, eventually.
August 22, 2008 at 2:25 pm
You guys need to get a grip on reality. The entity that owns the TS has more money and power than the ER.
You folks are ridiculous if you are looking at the TS as the victim here. The Times-Standard was the only daily newspaper of Humboldt County for a while until eventually, it passed out of local, family ownership into a newspaper chain, Thomson Newspapers, who held it until 1996 when it was bought by Dean Singleton’s MediaNews Group, which owns it to this day. MediaNews Group, based in Denver, Colorado, is one of the largest newspaper companies in the United States. It is privately owned and operates 56 daily newspapers in 12 states, with combined daily and Sunday circulation of approximately 2.6 million and 2.9 million, respectively. The company also owns KTVA, a CBS affiliate in Anchorage, Alaska, and radio stations in Texas.
The company’s chairman is Gary Wright and its chief executive officer and vice chairman is founder William Dean Singleton. The president is Jody Lodovic. Steven B. Rossi is executive vice president and chief operating officer.
Singleton founded MediaNews Group in 1983.
In August, 2006, the MediaNews Group took out around $350 million in loans to purchase four newspapers from McClatchy Company. The loan was mostly used to help pay for the acquisition of two significant San Francisco Bay Area newspapers (and some smaller papers), including the San Jose Mercury News and the Contra Costa Times, the dominant papers in the San Jose and Contra Costa County, California markets; in total, the purchases amounted to roughly $737 million.
The TS under MediaNews have been overcharging for ads for years in Humboldt – ever paid for one at the TS? I have.
Frankly I read both papers everyday and have been buying the TS and then getting the ER online.
From now on, no more TS. This is pathetic and a waste of judicial resources. MediaNews Group dwarf’s Arkley and you guys are jumping on their bandwagon. Talk about schizophrenic thinking. The MediaNews Group/corporate monster is the enemy. You folks need to wake up and smell the coffee.
Oh, god, you can’t…you hate Arkely to much and don’t give a damn about the facts.
August 22, 2008 at 2:33 pm
ps: On July 14, 2006, San Francisco businessman and real estate investor Clint Reilly filed a lawsuit against MediaNews Group and San Francisco Chronicle parent Hearst Corporation, alleging that the two companies have been conspiring to control advertising rates, a violation of antitrust laws. In November 2006, Reilly’s attorney presented to U.S. District Judge Susan Illston a letter from Hearst senior vice president James Asher to MediaNews President Jody Lodovic that said the two companies agreed to “offer national advertising and internet advertising sales for their San Francisco Bay Area newspapers on a joint basis, and to consolidate the San Francisco Bay Area distribution networks of such newspapers ….” Illston, suggesting she had been misled by MediaNews Group and Hearst when they said they had not been collaborating, issued a 14-page ruling forbidding Hearst and MediaNews from working together on national advertising sales or distribution.
August 22, 2008 at 2:33 pm
MediaNews Group is a very cash poor company. Standard & Poor’s recently down-graded its debt load deep into junk bond territory. The company could go into default at any moment. Google: “MediaNews Group Standard &Poor’s” if you want to know the truth.
August 22, 2008 at 2:42 pm
You tell ‘em, Andy! Someone’s gotta have their wits about them in here …
August 22, 2008 at 3:01 pm
It not how much money you have. If you don’t make a profit, you’ll eventually run out of money no matter how much you have now. The dot com crash of 2000 is the most recent example of how that works.
But that’s the business plan Arkely has implemented with the ER. Clearly, layoffs and issue reductions show it isn’t funded with a stable endowment as a community philanthrophy. Its a business. Arkley isn’t willing to continue putting money into into it at the rate he has been.
Arkley’s plan to make a profit most likely is to massively raise prices when there’s no more competition. He’ll have his day in court to defend against the lawsuit by showing his practices aren’t predatory and anti-competitive. If it gets that far, it will be interesting. I’m sure he’ll try first to rely on Humboldt judge Feeney being sympathetic to him and dismissing the suit.
August 22, 2008 at 3:07 pm
You need to get over yourself NAN and over your obsession. It simply is not healthy!
August 22, 2008 at 3:36 pm
Media News group sucks ,because you cannot mass produce a newspaper, consisting of mainly AP articles taking off the wire, and the only “real” news they run are the other “stories” of which come from the locals of other publications they run. All their papers are the same…check em out…
August 22, 2008 at 3:45 pm
If MediaNews Group begins to feels the T-S is a liability, they will shut it down immediately. Obviously, from this lawsuit, we can deduce that MediaNews Group consider the T-S worth fighting for and spending money on. That’s good new for us.
The point is: if the PURPOSE behind the ER’s very existence is to put the T-S out of business, then once that’s done why should the ER continue to exist? In other words, once the T-S is gone, why should the owner of the ER continue his money-losing operation? The results for us: NO PAPER AT ALL.
And even if the ER did continue to operate after the T-S closed, the ER doesn’t represent the views or interests of many people in the area. So having it as the only game in town is going to suck, from the point of view of someone who wants information beyond the extreme right-leaning variety.
August 22, 2008 at 3:49 pm
And characterizing the ER as “suffering” is just plain silly. That paper has been operating in the red from the start, as it did even on its business plan. Profit is not the point, revenge is, as this lawsuit is pointing out.
August 22, 2008 at 3:57 pm
Anon 3:07. You’re confused between me and the TS. They’re the ones who filed the suit. And likely, it contains many of the exact same allegations I made. Sorry if it pains you so much to see your Hero unmasked. Maybe you should find a different star to hitch your wagon to.
August 22, 2008 at 4:00 pm
media news is the corporate giant here, and arkley the local competition. wake up bean sprouts.
August 22, 2008 at 4:01 pm
Revenge is not a sufficient reason for a newspaper to exist. May the Eureka Republican, I mean Eureka Reporter go out of business as soon as possible.
August 22, 2008 at 4:05 pm
NAN, there you go again, working without tools. The ER is not my hero. Niether is the TS. I just can look, read and come to my own conclusions.
MediaNews Group is the Goliath here and the ER is the David. For you to jump on their bandwagon saying they are poor and picked on his hilariously funny. I pointed out above that they own basically all the big papers and you just ignore it. They have more money than god and you also ignore it. I think it has been good for all involved to have competition between the papers. It brings me better news by the competition.
I just HATE whiners, especially hypocritical ones.
August 22, 2008 at 4:15 pm
also, the TS used the same tactics 8-10 yrs ago to sink the tri-city.
August 22, 2008 at 4:31 pm
lodgepole Says:
August 22, 2008 at 1:25 pm
Do all the legal notices the ER has run need to be redone, because they weren’t in fact a legal newspaper?
Jack: I would argue that the ER was, in fact, a legal newspaper when it was running legals. A Superior Court judge decreed that the ER was a legal paper, which it was until another judge decided it wasn’t.
So the legals it ran are fine. But I’m not an attorney.
August 22, 2008 at 4:43 pm
Well Anon 4:05, looks like hate is something you know well and have lots of.
Big, small, whatever. A business plan that eliminates competition by selling below cost is suspect, under the law. Predatory, dumping, restraint of trade, unfair, it all amounts to abuse of capitalism which presupposes that the primary legitimate goal of an enterprise is profit, not securing monopoly pricing or keeping a product off the market. Just what is it about standing up and demanding that others obey the law that arouses so much hate in you? The TS isn’t whining, it is valiantly fighting off an unprovoked attack through ethical legal channels. (Unless you’d consider not endorsing the mayoral bid of Arkley’s wife a provocation).
August 22, 2008 at 9:38 pm
My impression from the posts above and elsewhere is the owners of both papers are experiencing some financial difficulties.
August 22, 2008 at 10:27 pm
Two dinosaurs fighting over the prey…
August 22, 2008 at 10:39 pm
I agree with whoever posted above that the TS ad rates had gotten way out of hand – charging way too much. The Eureka Reporter, on the other hand had to charge less for a number of reasons – one is that they had no track record, and they had to build a customer base by convincing advertisers to a. come over and advertise with them, and b, that the ads would be effective.
If b didn’t hold true, the advertisers wouldn’t come back no matter the price – just look at the Advocate.
Most start up businesses lose money at first, sometimes because they have to charge less – once they are in demand, they can raise the rates.
From what I hear TS rates have come down to a more reasonable level. They still have to deliver what advertisers need and want – readers, traffic and name recognition. Better yet, they have to reach the people with disposable income, so that those people will come in and buy goods and services that are advertised….
The days of businesses buying full pages and double-trucks seem to be long gone. Back in the 70s it was common to see The Works run double-trucks. The last big boom was the cellular phone ad war, there’s been next to nothing since then – it is a dying medium in that regard.
August 23, 2008 at 7:46 am
“As the court recently ruled, the Eureka Reporter is not a legitimate daily paper.”
That’s funny, it sure looks like a newspaper.
August 23, 2008 at 8:19 am
The E-R’s story this morning is interesting. Ralph Alldredge, the attorney for the E-R is cautioning “Lawsuits involving newspapers carry a special risk that extensive pretrial publicity might disqualify local judges or jurors,” Alldredge said. “That risk increases when a large newspaper chain has sued a much smaller, locally owned newspaper, because Mr. Singleton may well believe he has a better chance of winning if he can get this case moved outside Humboldt County.”
The E-R is hoping for home court advantage.
August 23, 2008 at 8:20 am
Do you think there are any local judges who aren’t friends with at least one side of this legal battle? Seems pretty unlikely to me.
August 23, 2008 at 8:32 am
“TS ad rates had gotten way out of hand – charging way too much.”
I’ve heard this complaint from a few old business owners. Correct me if I am mistaken, but it appears that Media News Group did little to improve their profitable little franchise here in Humboldt over the years until the ER started competing “unfairly” with them.
August 23, 2008 at 8:36 am
The Times-Standard needed a swift kick, no one can deny.
August 23, 2008 at 8:47 am
Funny, I heard it was the times standard who was cold calling to beat the ER rates from different people who placed ads in the reporter.
August 23, 2008 at 8:50 am
The suit will probably come down to the recent precedent case in SF with the Bay Guardian and the SF Weekly. If they can make a clear connection, then they’ve got something substantial.
August 23, 2008 at 8:51 am
It was not unusual for my family member advertising rentals to spend over $300-$500 in ads in the T-S seeking prospective renters. I think the competition in the ad area has been good.
August 23, 2008 at 9:13 am
The ER retaining Ralph Alldredge is a very interesting development from my perspective. Alldredge and ER publisher Judi Pollace both serve on the California Newspaper Publishers Association Board of Directors. Ralph is an officer; Judi is a district director. Ralph has litigated two of these cases on behalf of plaintiff newspapers in two unfair business practice lawsuits that I know of: The Manteca Bulletin v. The Manteca News and the SF Bay Guardian v. The SF Weekly. He won both cases and got large jury awards for the plaintiff newspapers. The Manteca case was a precedent-setting case.
Actually, I thought he was going to wrap up his legal career after the Bay Guardian case and sort of retire to Calaveras County to become a full-time newspaperman. At any rate, the ER is extremely fortunate that Alldredge is their lawyer and not the Times-Standard’s.
August 23, 2008 at 10:09 am
It’s hard to believe the T-S didn’t tap him to write and file the case since he’s got those two winning suits under his belt — especially on the heels of the Guardian case.
August 23, 2008 at 10:23 am
I saw the Measure T issue come up on Rose’s blog quite a while back and it sure didn’t seem to pick up any interest there. Have to agree that other than the McKinleyville Press, there hasn’t been anything. The other newspapers too scared to get into what a school district has done?
August 23, 2008 at 10:51 am
Jane,
You left out the funniest part of the ER article, the characterization of the paper as a “family-owned upstart newspaper”.
As Bill Moyers often points out, in their self interest, the media minimally cover issues involving their business controversies and disputes.
I’d say Alldredge is making a veiled threat. If the TS extensively covers the facts behind the lawsuit, he will accuse them of willfully attempting to bias the legal process, a serious allegation.
Arkley has good reason to not want the facts behind the suit to be aired locally. They could severely tarnish his crafted image of being motivated primarily by a desire to increase diversity of media viewpoints. The facts may well show his actions were actually intended to squelch and marginalize opinions independent from his.
In a town economically dominated by a very small group, an independent strong local voice is rarely found. At least for long. I recall Bret Harte was “run out” of Humboldt when he editoralized against particular racist policies of the local moguls.
To my mind, out of town ownership of the TS is a positive. Singleton is unlikely to interfere with editorial policy for local issues because of his personal life. That’s in contrast to a media owner who has local social relationships.
August 23, 2008 at 11:33 am
Man, really I dont give two cents about any newspapers political views, but what I want is some local stories, and not headlines grabbed from the latest AP wires…which mean nothing to me. My personal opinion is that the ER(even though I do not have them deliver) is a better local paper, politics aside, my political views come from my bullshit meter and most times the bullshit meter is high no matter whos telling the story. The T S has a front page and a mid page on the local shit, and thats about all…I mean unless your into the crabs or that allen guys fish stories..whew…so all in all the Crappy ER gets 1 more point than the Crappier .TS
August 23, 2008 at 3:04 pm
And I thought you were part of the ‘buy-local’ ‘local control’ gang, NotANative. Guess local’s only good if it agrees with you,
‘Course, the Eye and the Press and the Independent, and the Journal, they can have a local owner and it doesn’t make any difference at all, eh? Even though, in those cases the owners are actually the editors and publishers. Whereas Arkley isn’t in charge of content at all, nor, I would argue, does he have time to be.
And they all have social relationships and all that in the community, too.
Hilarious!
August 23, 2008 at 3:52 pm
“Did you see Judy Hodgson’s letter in the NCJ a few weeks ago? She said something to the effect of the Journal getting squeezed because of the ER selling ads below market prices in its war with the T-S. The Journal is consequently downsizing the paper (literally — it’ll be a smaller paper) and raising their ad prices.”
Heraldo unmasks themselves pretty well point-blank with that statement. Have you ever noticed Heraldo to take a position contrary to that of the Journal?
August 23, 2008 at 4:07 pm
C’mon Rose, get off it, you’re a real piece of work.
Very adeptly, you find the sinister hidden influence of Richard Salzman, Ken Miller, David Cobb, Mark Lovelace, Greg King, Pete Nichols, and EPIC in every corner of the county. But nowhere can you find Robin Arkey Jr. as a influence, despite the fact that he personally controls vastly more local economic resources than all those others put together and many people feel their livelihoods are completely dependent on his personal good will. Maybe you’re clutching that Republican cloth coat so tightly around you that its obstructing blood flow to your brain.
Comparing the influence of the ER to the Press? That’s just silly and you know it. Why not cite Greenfuse and Eco News too? The difference is none of those papers is attempting to drive the others out of business.
The Eye and Press are one person shops that completely reflect their owner’s pet peeves. They don’t maintain comprehensive staffs. They often reprint the same news article written by various freelancers in fairly bland terms.
The Eye, Press(which is up for sale, cheap, tells you how influential it is), Independent, and Journal aren’t put out five days a week or have broad area coverage and readership. Their editorials and political endorsements are seldom noticed and have little effect, unlike the ER.
August 23, 2008 at 4:22 pm
NAN, I really object to your absurd grouping of these individuals as if they were on the same team.
Greg King is a well-respected environmental organizer who literally discovered the Headwaters grove.
Richard Salzman is a non-profit fundraiser and representative for many talented illustrators.
Pete Nichols is a former Coast Guard and well-regarded conservation biologist.
Mark Lovelace is supervisor-elect for the 3rd District of Humboldt County.
Now to lump these talented and esteemed individuals, all of whom have roots here in Humboldt County, with this Texas transplant chalatan David Cobb is just simply inaccurate and an affront to the good work of all of the above.
David Cobb has been defeated by the voters here in Humboldt at every opportunity. His only lasting impact is the horrific Measure T, which will presently be used to rob the public schools of McKinleyville of hundreds of thousands of dollars in needless legal fees until the entire pile of trash is simply ruled to be unconstitutional.
August 23, 2008 at 4:24 pm
And FYI,
I buy local from people who are trading fairly, have something of value to me, and aren’t attempting to monopolize a market or develop economic leverage against me with the money I give them. Otherwise, I look elsewhere. Not all locals are cooperators, not all out of towners are predators. Some things like real property I’m compelled to buy locally. In that case I check out the folks in the ‘hood for wolfishness.
August 23, 2008 at 4:31 pm
Anon 4:22, I agree those folks aren’t peas in a pod at all, but I won’t argue their varying attributes.
My point was only that Rose irrationally lumps them together into her personal evil empire.
August 23, 2008 at 4:49 pm
Lovelace as supervisor wields more power than Arkley, at least the power that matters, being one of a handful of voices that ultimately shape the county’s future.
August 23, 2008 at 5:02 pm
Arkley is paying for the RAPIT media blitz.
August 23, 2008 at 5:09 pm
A media blitz doesn’t make change. Elected representatives make change, at least on our local level.
August 23, 2008 at 5:54 pm
Ahh, it makes sense now why they would be suing the ER for several million dollars, they’re a “very cash poor company” and like so many others in the country, are trying to grab some quick cash.
August 23, 2008 at 5:57 pm
If you think suing a rich and pompous man like Arkley is a way to get “quick cash” you must be crazy.
August 23, 2008 at 6:13 pm
u guys are comparing apples and oranges comparing Media News Group suing the ER to the Guardian and SF Weekly fight.
If any of you bothered to look at the case, it was the Guardian (the smaller paper) that sued the SF Weekly (the larger paper) for undercutting ad rates.
Although there are similarities with between both cases, the circumstances are far different. The SF Weekly undercut their ad rates and stayed afloat through revenue generated by the Village Voice, based out of Phoenix.
The Guardian, a family owned newspaper that started in 1966, had no way of competing with the SF Weekly at that level. They didn’t have an outside source to infuse them with money.
It was the SF Weekly’s objective to bankrupt their competition, sure.
Now you have this case between Media News Group and the ER. It’s flipped and kind of strange.
Here, the large corporate newspaper is suing the “family owned” newspaper trying to make the claim that they are undercutting their ads to bankrupt them.
Despite what Andrew Bird says about Media News Group being “very cash poor,” the corporation has the ability in infuse the TS with money if its operating at a loss. Whether they have or not will come out when the books for both newspapers open up during the trial.
There is NO WAY the ER could bankrupt Media News Group, even if they tried. Even if the ER had lower ad rates and a infusion of money from its wealthy owner, ever consider how long the ER has been running in its print form compared to the TS. It takes years upon years to just break even in a business. I don’t see anything strange in what is happening with the ER.
Regardless of the personal issues people may have with Arkley, all you intelligent people on these blogs have to see that this is just another example of a large corporation trying to overtake the locally owned competition for its own sake.
You decry places like WalMart yet cheer for Media News Group for all the wrong reasons. No matter what you think of Arkley, allowing the Media News Group paper to be the sole daily here in the county is not a good thing for residents here, and its not a good thing for local business. Neither is having the ER as the sole daily. Competition is good, encourages innovation and diversifies what readers get.
August 23, 2008 at 10:17 pm
Think About this: Nobody here is calling for the ER to quit publishing, obviously a lot of folks here, including me, read it regularly or from time to time. Its great if its a competitive business. We want as many media outlets here that can sustain themselves, on their own journalistic merits and legitimate business plan. But not on a plan of playing chicken with other media too see who is more willing to withstand a loss. Arkley isn’t trying to “bankrupt” the TS, just to make them unprofitable and cease operation. That what the lawsut alleges. If it happened then we’d really only have one major media left and a lot of smaller media cowed and intimidated lest they be the next target if they incur the wrath of HRH Arkley.
August 24, 2008 at 9:22 am
Think about it thank you for pointing out the hypocritical position folks like Andrew Bird have taken.
August 24, 2008 at 10:50 am
Some people start restaurants with little or no capital, others are well-capitalized and have a business plan to get them from start up to established.
Same with these newspapers – The Journal, the Press the Eye, the Independent have all had to fight for every inch of success in a market that is very media heavy, and one where no one wants to pay for anything. A market where the lowliest business can afford TV ads, because a TV spot here cost less than a radio spot elsewhere, but they still scrimp on production, and it is a dog-eat-dog hard sell for any sales rep.
So Arkley has more money and went for the daily, rather than the monthly or weekly, went for the nicer paper, and went for full staffing, and ultimately even a nice facility…
If you remember they started out as a blurb on the radio news, with a note to go to eurekareporter.com for more…
It was in iffy venture – few people thought it would survive at all.
Even with all the capital behind it – it still faces an uphill battle winning advertisers, and even once it gains established credibility as an advertising vehicle, it is STILL in a market where no one wants to pay for anything, and the ad market is in a slump generally. Big time.
It’s no easy path – and the reason this suit is so stupid is it ignores the basic fundamentals that FORCE the ER to charge lower prices to get established – and even then they face the larger company’s ability to undercut them for a number of years and wait out their survival.
But, cheer on.
August 24, 2008 at 11:05 am
Anonomous at 4::22 said
“His only lasting impact is the horrific Measure T, which will presently be used to rob the public schools of McKinleyville of hundreds of thousands of dollars in needless legal fees until the entire pile of trash is simply ruled to be unconstitutional.”
The schools in McKinleyville wouldn’t be involved – just the corporations that gave the contributions and they have plenty of money.
August 24, 2008 at 11:16 am
That’s my take on it. Under Measure T, it’s the donors (outside corporations) that have a legal problem. The worst case scenario for the donors is that they’ll have to pay 10 times the amount they donated to the county.
This will simply cut into the donors’ profits, being that they’ll make gobs of money off the school bonds that they helped pass.
August 24, 2008 at 12:22 pm
“This will simply cut into the donors’ profits, being that they’ll make gobs of money off the school bonds that they helped pass.”
WRONG! Really Jack, are you selling the McKinleyville Press because your partisan hackery is just running out of steam?
Read the badly written unconstitutional piece of trash Measure T is (since David Cobb insisted that HE KNEW BETTER than a number of real-life California lawyers who told him it was unlawful) and see what it really says. The County will have to PAY and PAY and PAY to prosecute this turkey, only to have it thrown out by the appellate court as unconstitutional, which means the County will PAY again to cover the legal costs of these big bad corporations trying to rebuild our local schools.
This obsession with corporations, this sickness from the David Cobb/Kaitlin Sopoci-Belknap CORPORATION known as Democracy Unlimited which has infected the progressive community and the whole county, this will all end up being very expensive for the rest of us.
August 24, 2008 at 1:25 pm
Seems like it might make more economic sense to pay the fines rather than pay lawyers to fight Measure T.
August 24, 2008 at 1:30 pm
You’ll be happy to know that I’ll continue full steam ahead with my “partisan hackery” whether I own a newspaper or not!
August 24, 2008 at 3:25 pm
Oh, please. Do you think a case involving a school district measure will get prosecuted? I think they’re guilty as sin, and the measure should be repealed and put to a fair and honest vote, but that’s beside the point.
And thank you Jack and Kevin and Hank and all the other partisan hacks that anger the fringe loonies. I’m not talking progressives, but the real far left and far right crazies who scream at the world because they alone know best.
August 24, 2008 at 6:36 pm
According to the measure, the lawyers will start racking up the billable hours as soon as any whacko registered voter in the county files a complaint.
August 24, 2008 at 7:00 pm
There’s already a complaint filed – and the donors will have to suffer for awhile – how were they to know about Measure T? Where else in the State does this kind of insanity exist?
You can bet that some of the people on the school committee voted for that piece of shit because they bought all the hackery that the Gallegos camp poured out there. They NEVER thought it would come back on them. They KNEW what it was really about – it was about preventing Palco from ever contributing to any campaign to oust Gallegos ever ever again – in the interests of ‘f-a-i-r-n-e-s-s.”
Well, now that ignorant – but innocent – vote HAS come back and IS going to hurt.
And it will finally be appealed and hopefully tossed out before it costs the county too much money.
But the activist camp will appeal it (the tossing), you can be sure of that, it is too valuable a weapon for them to give up easily. It may end up in the US Supreme Court. And it will undoubtedly get laughed out of every appeal court along the way. JUST LIKE GALLEGOS’ POS Palco case which caused all of this.
And btw – Jack, as far as I know, is so far the only one covering it – you should be commending him.
August 24, 2008 at 7:06 pm
It was the responsibility of the person managing the campaign in Humboldt County, who received the campaign contributions, to know the law.
It is a responsibility of anyone making a campaign contribution to understand the laws of the locale in which he or she is making that donation.
Ignorance of the law is not an excuse.
August 24, 2008 at 7:10 pm
Oh, and for the record, all anyone had to do was to ask the registrar of voters what pertinent laws apply to contributions for the campaign. It’s not difficult. It strains the imagination to believe an organization would launch an advocacy campaign for a ballot measure without attempting to understand the laws that govern their actions.
Shame on our other local media (not Jack) for shunning this news story. It’s a fine example of advocacy journalism, except in this case the reverse — ignoring a story due to the sympathetic nature of the accused parties.
August 24, 2008 at 7:15 pm
I think the SF Bay Guardian has a similar lawsuit going against the SF Weekly. I haven’t kept up with it.
The big question is – who can cover this objectively?
August 24, 2008 at 7:17 pm
The Advocate and Sentinel – a joint investigation by Humboldt’s two finest and most productive journalists.
August 24, 2008 at 7:35 pm
Eric . . . the SF Bay Guardian won their suit against the SF Weekly. The court awarded some steep damages . . . can’t remember how much tho’
August 24, 2008 at 10:31 pm
Thank you Moonshadow. I found an article about the verdict. It was for 15.6 million. Of course, that was a San Francisco jury and probably a bunch of bleeding heart types rooting for the underdog.
http://www.sfbg.com/blogs/politics/2008/03/guardian_wins_156_million.html
August 25, 2008 at 9:11 am
I think this case is different from the S.F. case. Here, the advertising is not “below cost.” The advertising is priced well above its variable cost. Moreover, it is the TS that is the established paper with the ER trying to break into the market. There is a First Amendment right to subsidize a newspaper. Consequently, I think that the TS will lose. Moreover, I suspect the ER will file an anti-SLAPP motion and if the anti-SLAPP statute applies – an arguable point based on the nature of the case, forcing the TS to come forward with evidence supporting each and every element of its case which the TS may not be able to do. Conversely, I suspect that the ER can and will prove that its advertising lessens its loss by a large amount and that, while it may have offered advertising at a lower price, that is hardly unusual for a new publication trying to break into the market.
August 25, 2008 at 2:32 pm
Andy, you have some good points, there’s a tension between the right to publish and the right to be free from “unfair” competition.
The TS isn’t suing the many other “distributed for free” media who carry paid advertisements. That would indicate to me this isn’t a SLAPP suit. Perhaps the circumstance of TS withdrawal from job shop printing other media and the ER now anchoring their printing needs could be predatory behavior, I don’t know enough facts to have an opinion about that.
I don’t think the free speech argument outweighs if the ER “business plan” relies on predatory pricing that presupposes demise of the TS. The public policy result would be to displace one media for another, not adding new voices. I thnk the issue will come down to whether the ER is a “going concern”. If it isn’t, then what is it?
August 25, 2008 at 3:36 pm
We will all just see.
just a few observations.
1) Ralph Alldredge is the ER’s lawyer. If he is on board, I question the NewsGroups claims immediately.
2) MediaNews Group is cash poor? So was PALCO because Hurwitz bilked it. Just as Singleton has bilked MediaNews. Sorry, can’t cry for MediaNewsGroup. If you don’t think that they have been infusing the TS, you are living in fantasy land.
3) I operate a business in Eureka. I am thankful that I can afford to advertise in the ER. The TS used to have most business’ by the shorthairs because there was no competition. I thank god for the competition. Before the TS, most of you wouldn’t believe how unbelievably unfair the TS was regarding advertising. Little folks just couldn’t afford it. Now the market is controlling it. The ER came in with low rates to build the business and the other papers have to adjust.
And for you corporate apologists of MediaNewsGroup….I guess it all is who the corporation is. If you guys like the big nasty corp. then they can do no wrong.
Got to get back to work now, all you anti-arkely whiners are sure to keep blowing hot air and defend MediaNews. As for me, I will simply say thanks to the ER for giving me rates that I could finally afford.
August 25, 2008 at 4:31 pm
Anon 3:36 Arkley helping the “little guy”? That’s a hoot.
If you really do own a business you sure aren’t paying much attention to details. The price of advertising isn’t nearly important as the results you get from it. Forgot about that factor, huh? And have you tried advertising in any of the other local media or compared their rates and results? How about TV, radio ads or passing out flyers or mailers? Are you a blowhard poseur or an Arkley apologist?
August 25, 2008 at 4:44 pm
It’s reality. The Economic Fuel challenge is an example, launching students’ business dreams. You’re just a hater.
August 25, 2008 at 4:50 pm
Andy – I don’t know anything about the merits of either case, but I just want to make a couple of points.
1. The SF Bay Guardian got started in the early 1960s, I think even before SF Weekly. I’m not sure that matters anyway. The issue was that the Weekly, part of a much larger media organization, allegedly used its scale to operate at a loss to undersell and eliminate an opponent. I don’t know whether that’s really comparable to this situation.
2. I’m not understanding how the SLAPP statute can be used. What is the protected First Amendment activity? Surely the TS isn’t seeking an injunction against publication. The price you charge for advertising isn’t protected by the First Amendment, though one may argue it has some protection under the “Bill of Rights penumbra” right to contract. Remember the bakery case in law school, where Justice Holmes dissented against the majority? I think that decision has pretty much been qualified when a state has a legitimate interest in regulation, I’m not even sure if it has to be “compelling.”
Anyway, to get by the first prong of the anti-SLAPP statute the ER would need to show that the specific activity complained of by TS is protected by the First Amendment. I don’t believe that in indirect relationship (“if I can’t sell ads, I can’t publish”) is enough.
Am I missing something?