Oregon Media Central
or Register Now

KOIN-TV: Delete this tweet or face legal action

KOIN PortlandOn Wednesday, December 2, I received an email from an employee at a local television station telling me that people were buzzing about YouTube videos from the set of Portland, Oregon's CBS affiliate, KOIN-TV. They had been posted by a YouTube user named "kointastic." While some were funny, most were "really embarrassing" for anchors Jeff Gianola and Kelley Day, the email said.

I searched YouTube for "kointastic," but all I saw were links to videos that no longer played. The videos, which were only a day old, had been removed by the user, YouTube said, and the account had been closed. I wondered if these quickly disappearing videos might be worthy of a story, so I looked for people who had seen them and could describe what happened. I wrote the following on Twitter:

Anyone see the behind-the-scenes @KOIN_Local_6 videos posted by "KOINTASTIC" before the account was closed? http://3.ly/vBq

The link was to the search results page on YouTube for the disabled videos. Since then, those results have disappeared entirely.

People who had seen the videos described unflattering and embarrassing outtakes of Gianola and Day during commercial breaks at KOIN several years ago. While it sounded interesting, it didn't seem like news, especially without the video. I moved on to other stories.

But the next day, I received this email from KOIN News Director Lynn Heider with the subject line, "Remove video links from your Twitter account":

From: Lynn Heider <LHeider@koin.com>
Date: Thu, Dec 3, 2009 at 11:55 AM
Subject: Remove video links from your Twitter account
To: Oregon Media Central <oregonmediaatgmail [dot] com>

The "kointastic behind the scenes video" lifted by one of your followers from YouTube, was stolen.
That is the property of KOIN Local 6. Kindly remove that posting and link so that we don't have to pursue legal action.

Thank you.

Lynn Heider
News Director
KOIN Local 6
222 SW Columbia St.
Portland, OR 97201
P 503.464.[redacted]
E LHeider@koin.com

I was shocked. And confused.

Then I grew insulted.

Did a professional journalist and the leader of a news organization really have so little respect for others' free speech that she felt she could demand I delete a link and a question? And that legal threat! How gullible did she think I was to believe I had done anything even remotely illegal? I was completely offended.

But I calmed myself down. I reminded myself that Heider had been helpful, reasonable, and even kind with me on earlier stories involving KOIN. Perhaps I was misunderstanding the situation. There was a reference to "one of your followers" and to a "posting." Maybe someone had posted something problematic to my website. I checked, but found nothing. I replied to Heider:

I'm sorry, has someone posted something to my website? Or are you talking about my Twitter post yesterday?

I had decided to be as polite as possible with her. Her legal threat told me she was unpredictable, and she was the only one in the conversation with the resources to go to court. It didn't matter that I had done nothing wrong; I would have no way to deal with a lawsuit, frivolous or not, while still finding time to operate my website and work at my paying job.

I confess to having been a bit scared. I thought that, on the slim chance this had somehow been a valid takedown request for copyrighted material whose posting I was simply unaware of, I should probably indicate my willingness to act on it promptly and in good faith. I published the following to my Twitter account and website:

I received my first threat of legal action from a news director today. I'm trying to understand what they want me to delete.

I figured it was best not to name Heider and send a bunch of angry readers her way. Two hours later, she responded to my email:

Yes, a Twitter post. I don't hold your site responsible, I just need the link removed. Thank you.

I was even more confused. If I wasn't responsible for whatever was wrong, why was she demanding that I take action to fix it? And again: She's a news director! How could an experienced practitioner of journalism possibly feel justified in telling anyone to delete something that is so clearly First Amendment-protected speech?

I reasoned with her:

Oh, there are no videos there, just dead links showing where the videos used to be. Are you sure that's a problem?

And she backed down:

Thank you. If the links won't play we won't pursue it.

But I was still incredulous about my supposed legal jeopardy. I asked copyright scholar and author Lawrence Lessig, a Stanford Law professor and founder of the university's Center for Internet and Society, if I could have ever been in any legal danger, regardless of whether the videos played. It was a straightforward case for him: "You aren't at risk because of a link," he said.

David Ardia, a fellow at Harvard Law School's Berkman Center for Internet & Society and director of the Citizen Media Law Project, agreed. "Someone who merely links to defamatory or infringing material does not bear liability. Even in the context of hosting infringing material for a third party, the Digital Millennium Copyright Act provides a broad safe harbor. For these reasons, it is highly unlikely that a link posted on Twitter could open someone up to legal liability."

So an impotent threat had been averted. But I was still in disbelief that a journalist in a position of importance had demanded I delete my protected speech and had used a legal threat to convince me to do it. It didn't matter that this was just a tweet, or that we had resolved the issue. Journalists should have a higher regard for others' protections under the First Amendment, I thought.

Just to be sure, I asked Ardia: A question like "Have you seen this?" is protected under the First Amendment, right? He agreed. "That question is innocuous," he said.

Realizing that this story was going to be rather lopsided against her, I emailed Heider to tell her that I thought she was trying to protect her employees, which is an admirable trait in a boss, and that I appreciated how helpful she had been with me in the past. But I also said that I felt she had threatened me with legal action for journalistic activity. I asked her if she agreed that I was practicing journalism, and what law she thought I had broken.

On Friday, December 4, Heider emailed me with a surprise. She said that I was not the intended target of the threatened legal action. She wrote, "I actually said 'remove it so we won't have to pursue legal action.' I had the thief in mind."

Assuming that I was supposed to have inferred the words "against someone else" at the end of her sentence, then so, too, should readers of this article infer the words "against someone else" at the end of this story's headline.

But if this is the case, the phrasing of her email seems terribly ambiguous. Pointing out how her words could be construed as a threat against me, I asked Heider if she had understood that ambiguity at the time of her writing. Her response was simply, "Got it."

I'm still unsure why I would be worried about a stranger's legal jeopardy, or why their risk would be dependent on the status of my tweet. She referred to a "follower of yours" in the email, but I have no idea who "kointastic" is, and she doesn't appear to, either. "My biggest concern here," she said in a later email, "is to find out where that stuff came from and which current or former employee stole it and tried to go public without permission."

Heider added that one of her duties as a news director is to "protect the product's license, reputation and ability to be productive. That's hard to do when you are dealing with 10 (or more) year old material that no longer reflects the product's brand, look, set or even some of the personnel included in some of the discussions."

But while I can understand how that's part of her job, I don't see why I should be drafted to help with it.

As to what law I had broken, Heider wrote, "I think once informed you're violating a copyright law by hosting material that you're not free to use, you could be subject to legal consequences."

I asked Heider how she thought I or anyone but YouTube was hosting the videos. She didn't answer.

And regarding whether I was practicing journalism when I wrote what I did on Twitter, she responded, "When? Publishing a tweet? No. Good journalism as you know is a lot more than pushing tweets. It seems that right now, you are trying to check facts and be accurate. That's journalism."

I maintain that I was looking for witnesses to describe what had happened, which is a basic and protected exercise of the journalistic process. I asked Heider if she could point to a definition of journalism she agreed with, hoping to see how it didn't apply to my actions. She didn't answer that question, but she did say she thought that what I was seeking with my tweet was "pretty much hearsay unless you saw" the videos. And while everyone's hearsay matched up, I had reached more or less the same conclusion. But I had exercised my own editorial judgment to reach it.

Heider has not expressed regret for her original email.

As my regular readers know, I've been operating this website anonymously for the past six months, but I recently announced that I would be revealing my identity.

There are many reasons why I've decided to come out. The primary reason is to become a better reporter by developing better relationships with my sources and the subjects of my stories.

But to be honest, a big factor in my decision to come out was the fact that I was able to successfully operate this website for six months without an incident like this one. Had I received this legal threat a few weeks earlier, I may very well have decided to shut this site down. I don't need this kind of stress in my life. And I don't know where I would find the time, money or energy to deal with an actual lawsuit.

But having made a promise to come out, it feels wrong to back out now. I've received kind words of support from people I respect. And when I do come out this Sunday, I may receive more support.

But I'm still an individual blogger. A legal threat is scary regardless of its legitimacy. And I have no one like Heider to stand up for me. Honestly, I'm vulnerable.

If you want to help, please don't harass KOIN or Heider. But I do believe that the best deterrent an individual blogger has against legal threats is to be noisy when they receive one. So if you'd like to spread the word about what happened, feel free to tweet this, share this on Facebook and/or flog this on the website or social network of your choice. And as always, if you're feeling particularly generous, you could help me offset some of the time and money this site takes away from my paying job by making a small contribution.

I hope that, regardless of how much Heider and I disagree on this issue, we can find a way to remain on good terms. I've already indicated a willingness to visit her at KOIN. I hope we can work something out.

I can be reached at infoatoregonmediacentral [dot] com.

Comments

She was trying to intimidate you

She was trying to intimidate you to avoid embarrassment for the station.

Looks like that didn't work. Good job.

Your rating: None Average: 3 (2 votes)

that's it? Lame.

that's it? Lame.

Your rating: None Average: 1.5 (2 votes)

Worth the wait

.

Your rating: None Average: 3 (1 vote)

Holy [?]!

He whipped out Larry Lessig on KOIN's ass!

Your rating: None Average: 2 (2 votes)

Advice

Jack Bogdanski could have given you plenty of advice a lot quicker than the guy you sought out.
Also, if that little bit of nothing seemed scary, how does someone keep a site like comcastsucks.org up and running this long?

Your rating: None Average: 2 (1 vote)

It's not the worst threat, no

But what surprised me here is that a news director made it against someone exercising their free speech. Whether that speech comes in at under 140 characters doesn't really matter.

Your rating: None Average: 3 (1 vote)

Well done

A tough situation that is deservedly revealed. KOIN higher-ups should know better.

Your rating: None Average: 3 (1 vote)

Well done

Way to stand your ground, both to KOIN's ND and to your detractors on this blog. Funny how people who post anonymously don't think the threat of a lawsuit is something important to write about.

Your rating: None Average: 3 (1 vote)

Welcome to the new digital age.

Threaten first, then back down if your bluff is called.
Threatening legal action has become a default action for most of the business world now days it seems.
Easier than actually using a real lawyer and far more scarier. You will need a thick skin and the same savy that reporters of the 20s and 30's used to have to publish these days. Where are the classes that taught us about our rights in this digital age? DMCA takedowns work both ways. You will be threatened again in the future for posting something that you had every right to post. Be ready for it as bulling is always easier than talking. The new media is like a school playground full of children crying "take that back" and where fists were used before, threats of "legal action" are used now. You should always reply "Are you threatening legal action against me for doing X?" if the reply is yes then either remove the offending item or get a lawyer and fight for your rights. Unless you fight for your rights they mean nothing and everyone will know it. How long after you cave before someone demands you expose a confidential source? What then? This page is a window into the world of the providers of the information that we use to make informed daily decisions. We need to know what is going on behind the curtain not just seeing the image of the wizard in front of it.

BTW you can still find still shots of the videos at http://video.aol.com/video-search/query/koin%20news%20bloopers

They do look real funny.

Your rating: None

practioner of journalism

Hello - Thanks for taking the time to share this story. After not watching much news for more than a decade I started tuning in last summer because I was interested in following the presidential election. I cannot think of a word to convey what I've been watching for the last year, but I wouldn't even dream of insulting journalists by referring to it as "journalism." Clearly, the news director at the station wouldn't know anything about journalistic principles or laws because she's not in the news business. Thank you for running this site - it's a good read, always.

Your rating: None Average: 3 (1 vote)
(view hidden comment) I highly respect Lynn and by Anonymous Source (not verified)

Your anonymity doesn't help, here...

Gotta be accountable for what you write. That means put your name on it. Or they can dangle all kinds of [?] over you and you're vulnerable to it.

Your rating: None Average: 3 (1 vote)

It doesn't matter

Whether or not you put your name on it, "they" can dangle all kinds of [?] over anyone "they" feel like. The call for an end to anonymity is silly. Using one's real name doesn't make one's writing more credible, certainly.

Your rating: None

Don't delete the tweet

Heider should have admitted that she erred and given you an apology, which is what anyone who has class would do. I think your showing her as an idiot in your article is justice for her improper threat.

Your rating: None Average: 3 (3 votes)

Leaked?

I'm wondering if perhaps those were leaked videos... tapes from the station that weren't supposed to air. If so, they were probably put on youtube by an employee, either as a laugh or a critique of the station itself.

TV stations are very sensitive about that kind of thing. That's the only reason I can see them pursuing any kind of legal action. There is a fine line on what freedom of speech entails if it was stolen, since that would be company property, and then you have the whole legal entanglement that employee contracts carry.

Your rating: None Average: 3 (1 vote)

All stations have blooper reels

Doesn't anyone remember those Dick Clark specials featuring on-air bloopers and outtakes from local TV journalists? Unless these KOIN clips feature extreme profanity or very off color humor, I doubt anybody's going to get that concerned about it.

President Regan threatened World War 3 against the Soviet Union during a radio address warm up and was then able to brush it all off as a "joke".

Your rating: None

A little background.

The major media networks have been sending out take down notices to you tube, google, etc.. and other video sites, and seeing them take down everything they request to have taken down without a discussion. The media legal teams are batting 1.000 on seeing all take down requests for videos get taken down by the video website without even going to the first step of a actual lawsuit.

This is effectively a "guilt by accusation" legal system on copyright violations, because nobody is willing to fight over one particular video, when there's thousands/millions of clips to show. A major media network lawyer makes an accusation of copyright violation, that basically been the end of the discussion for several years now. The major networks have gotten spoiled by this ease of ordering someone to take down something, and they jump to comply. So easy they have been abusing that ability. They have started demanding simply embarrassing incidents get removed now.

What you had was essentially the KOIN-6 anchors "Christmas Reel". That's what blooper compilations get called by people who work in media, because that's where every on-air mistake anyone who has ever worked in the media traditionally shows up, the station's Christmas Party.

Nobody wants anyone to see their screw-ups, except when they are drunk with the rest of their co-workers at the station Christmas Party. Considering the timing, I'm almost certain some KOIN employee was putting together their Christmas reel, and someone else leaked it.

Clearly, nobody can tell anyone to stop fair use of anyone else's broadcasts, as NBC, Dick Clark Productions, and Ed McMahon made a small fortune over the years broadcasting the screw-ups of national/local TV news personnel.

However, because the legal teams have such a great record of scaring people to pull video files off the net, everybody in media is getting into the act now. Any mistake any part-time weekend news producer from Fargo finds embarrassing that pops back up on the net is getting hit with copyright lawsuit threats.

KOIN-6 can't tell anyone to stop showing their Christmas blooper reel. If KOIN-6 doesn't like that, tell them "Dick Clark, Ed McMahon, and Adam from Portland said QUOTE Tough Toenails UNQUOTE".

Your rating: None Average: 3 (1 vote)

I think you're mistaken Adam

At my stations over the years, those clips that went to Dick Clark, etc were always sold by the station. The bloopers made a profit for the company. At one station, they put the money into a fund for newsroom parties, etc.

Your rating: None

Dick Clark

"those clips that went to Dick Clark, etc were always sold by the station"

How much did they pay?

Your rating: None

First Amendment

While the threat from the KOIN news director is appalling as a matter of journalism, it is not a First Amendment matter. The First Amendment restrains GOVERNMENT. It says that "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..."

It says nothing about private individuals.

The KOIN news director works for a private organization, not government, and thus can try to muscle you and no First Amendment issue is raised. Other questions do arise, however, especially about the judgment of KOIN management in employing a news director so lacking in finesse.

Your rating: None Average: 3 (1 vote)

The Supreme Court says otherwise

See New York Times v. Sullivan. The First Amendment applies to defamation lawsuits filed by private plaintiffs. The Supreme Court found that a court's enforcement of defamation common law is sufficient state action to trigger First Amendment protections (in that case, the actual malice requirement). Because the KOIN news director was threatening legal action, the First Amendment surely applies.

Your rating: None Average: 3 (1 vote)

I get it and I think you're right

It's like saying.. stop saying this.. or I'll get the government to shut you up. Sooner or later the gov. is involved (courts) therefore 1st Amendment protections come into play. Well done Lawyer.

Your rating: None Average: 3 (1 vote)

It's more than just that

KOIN can't just create it's own kangaroo caselaw and then sue someone using it. All private lawsuits are brought under caselaw that ultimately originates with the Congress. Thus the distinction drawn in the earlier comment expressing disagreement was an artificial distinction.

Your rating: None

Blooper, indeed

I always love when people try to cover up an embarrassing story and the cover-up itself becomes news, bringing the underlying story to light. I'm in Chicago and never would have known about this had Romenesko not picked it up. Way to "protect the product's reputation," Ms. Heider!

Your rating: None

The Videos

I saw the videos, as did most other people on the evening shift over here at one of the "other" stations. They were no "Christmas Reel". Maybe one of the ten was genuinely funny to the general public. The rest were meant to make Jeff and Kelly look mean and vindictive. Some showed Jeff throwing a big fit, which we've been re-enacting over here, or Kelley saying things that all anchors say, but don't want recorded. What we do on the set during commercial breaks and off-air should not leave our stations unless the station or we (the anchors) give permission. I would hope we all agree!

Your rating: None

Public people do have private lives

I understand that people in the media should be able to have private time and private conversations, which was another part of my decision-making in deciding not to write a story about these videos. There wasn't anything so extraordinary here, it seemed, that violating that privacy seemed warranted. But now, of course, everybody is interested because it was the subject of a legal threat.

Your rating: None

Limited Agreement

I'm not a news anchor, but it seems to me a little common sense is in order.

It appears that it is well known to those who work at TV stations these blooper tapes are made while on-air talent is on the set. Knowing that, why would anyone expect what they say/do on the set to remain private? As I said, I'm not a news anchor - but I do work in a profession where what I see, hear, or am told must remain confidential as a matter of law. Knowing that, I do not have confidential conversations in public places, nor do I discuss confidential information I am privy to in public. Put simply, if you don't want something publically known, don't say or do it in public. Why would that simple guideline not apply to on-air talent at television stations?

Your rating: None Average: 3 (1 vote)

True, some stuff that news

True, some stuff that news anchors and people in the media say "shouldn't leave the newsroom," just like any other one person or group says in a private setting. People are typically "more blunt" so to speak about issues with people they are comfortable around.

But I think the biggest dose of common sense needs to go for Gianola and Day. If you're wearing a hot mic, don't assume that just because you're in break, people aren't watching, listening and possibly recording. Veteran anchors should expect that, especially around production assistants in the control room, often the most crude and cynical people in the business. Not to pan PA's, but from my experience, lots of production staff seem to brush off what many could construe as offensive, as harmless.

Your rating: None

news anchors immune really

why should news anchors be treated and different than how they treat others? as far as those videos go of all people anchors should protecting first amendment rights.

Your rating: None

First Amendment

Previous poster is correct. Too many people take "free speech" as an absolute and literal right. In the workplace, for example, employer work rules will always take precedence over First Amendment unless the government is trying to stifle you. You need to gear up on what your constitutional rights really are before trying to hide behind the cloak without real knowledge.

Your rating: None Average: 2 (2 votes)

Free speech

It's true that I can delete comments on this site and Heider can cut a story from a newscast and it's not impacting anyone's free speech. But the idea that I have some legal responsibility to delete something that I'm free to say conflicts with the idea of free speech.

Your rating: None

Artificial distinction

If a private entity is able to successfully use the law to squelch your speech then that is ultimately an example of government suppression because the government makes the laws being used to silence people. Whether the government set out to deliberately squelch any given individual or entity is a side issue. They create the laws and ultimately any law suit brought under those laws is an extension of that prior governmental action.

Your rating: None

I saw them too and...

They were funny. I watched some of them 10 or 12 times, laughed my ass off the whole time. I dont know what the big deal is...honestly people take themselves way too serious sometimes. You think that local news really needs to "think about the crediability" of its anchors...its freaking local news for christ sakes, we are the bottom of the rung. Most of our "product" is sub par to begin with. If people want to worry about crediability maybe start with content.

Your rating: None

can you describe it in

can you describe it in detail?

Your rating: None

This is the top story on Huffington

This is the top story on Huffington Post's tech section, BTW.

Your rating: None

Don't take any crap...

My site has gotten several C&D letters and threats from various media outlets. Don't worry about it and don't take any crap...especially if media you are using is hosted somewhere else and you are linking or embedding into your site.

Your rating: None

Similar situation in Lafayette, LA

Letitia Walker (ND) and Andrew Shenkan (GM) at KATC TV in Lafayette, LA did something similar last year after a reporter said "the F-word" in a look-live that made it on the air (go figure!). With in seconds, the video was uploaded to Facebook.com and YouTube.com. Days later the two threatened legal action, notified the website managers who deleted the videos from users accounts. It's the same station that circulated a viral video from YouTube showing it's reporter in a blocking the competition's live interview from an election two years before. Watch it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFS6X3vQbAo

Your rating: None

Huffington Post

This is the link to the story on Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/08/koin-tv-threat-delete-twe_n_384...

Your rating: None

Sweet

I'll bet my sweet new Patagonia Day Pack and entire contents, that the comment on 'OMC Receives First Legal Threat', posted last week by Ms [Mr] who finds you so "disgusting", and only supposedly goes to the Media Circus events, in order to find out who the "weird little troll is", wishes she [he.....whatever] was getting noticed by Momma Huffington.

Your rating: None Average: 3 (1 vote)

Flippin' The KOIN ...

I was one of those posters who was a bit critical of OMC in the initial posting about this topic. I was also critical of the then unnamed news director. Having now read the followup, I retract some of my criticism toward OMC (but not all) and offer apologies.

I offer no such retraction toward the KOIN news director. That said ND has yet to offer her own regret for making something out of nothing compounds her own problems. Not only does this diminish her own credibility but she takes her entire news operation down as well. Yep, I'm deliberately invoking the fruits of the poisonous tree concept here. Is that fair? Maybe. Maybe not. But in the real world, perception is reality, regardless of intent or truth. A competent news director would know that.

Your rating: None

I hope Lynn Heider had to get

I hope Lynn Heider had to get it many times over what she has done to you.

Your rating: None

Hey Look!

Here's a former Portland anchor having a moment that those crude and cynical PAs probably shoudn't have recorded:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2tJjNVVwRCY

Anyone want to put up a guess as to why this gem hasn't been taken down?

Your rating: None

Just a guess...

Because he was so well-liked here, and is such a sweetheart now? /sarcasm

Your rating: None

Cached page of KOINTASTIC:

Cached page of KOINTASTIC: http://74.125.155.132/search?q=cache:17TdfNwq3asJ:www.youtube.com/user/k...

Your rating: None

Here's an idea...

Why didn't you call this woman on the phone instead of letting ambiguity and veiled threats be left to emotionless and context-lacking emails? This "saga" only prolonged because of your apparent insistence on passive communication.

And, she's right, "tweets" aren't journalism.

Your rating: None

Saga

I wanted a record of our conversation, given that there was a legal element. Deliberation and care seemed to be more important ingredients than emotion in this discussion. Plus, after the first day, I was so sleep-deprived that I would not have been able to speak coherently on the phone. Seriously, this whole ordeal screwed me up physically.

There's also the fact that I'm still anonymous for a few more days. Why should I let this nonsense be what ruins my coming-out plans?

As for whether tweets are journalism, tweets are communication. Gathering sources is part of the journalistic process. I was gathering sources. I was essentially polling the neighborhood for witnesses — that neighborhood being the local news professionals and news addicts who follow my Twitter account and would have been likely to see these videos before they were pulled.

And indeed, people who followed me had seen them.

Your rating: None

RE: Here's an idea...

It's tough to do anything directly when you run a blog anonymously. Maybe that'll change after this weekend.

Your rating: None

Classic Lynn

Ladies and Gentlemen, presenting Lynn Heider, with all of her personality disorders exhibited, brought to you by Lynn Heider. She's a piece of work. Now all the world has had an eyeful. All the way to Huffington Post - what a dubious distinction! This could become a landmark instance for media history.

Your rating: None

I'm more bothered by this.

An ND went off half-cocked and threatened an anonymous blogger over a broken twitter link. Does a competent person do that? Is this the way she runs the KOIN newsroom?

Your rating: None

Heh heh heh

So in Lynn Heider's effort to save face for her anchor team she makes herself look bad. Everyone is a winner!

Your rating: None

If you're the same snotty

If you're the same snotty Jess from the last thread, it's kind of funny you're calling others drama queens.

Your rating: None Average: 2 (2 votes)

WOW so you are so courageous

One of us has the courage to use their name when saying something and it is not you.

Your rating: None

I know I'm not likely to win

I know I'm not likely to win you over, having been too quiet for you before and too noisy now. But looking at your complaints here, the main thrust is that I shouldn't have brought much attention to this situation. But like I said in the post, the best deterrent an individual blogger has against this sort of thing is to make noise when it happens. The lesson is that, if you scare the skunk, it makes a big stink. I did nothing to bring this on but ask a question.

As for "milking" this, "exposing" Heider, and painting myself as "saintly," I suppose you can look at me as cynically as you'd like and I can't change that, but there was certainly no enjoyment going on while I tried to figure out how to deal with this. I accurately quoted Heider and I talked about how she had been helpful with me before and how I hoped her threat and my reporting on it wouldn't be cause for some lasting grudge. And of course, I don't consider myself a saint, that's a straw man.

As for saying I'm not credible, I reported what happened to the best of my ability. The person in the last thread who said I'm not credible is someone who routinely stinks up this site with comments criticizing women and Jews and has called me a "f---ing DOUCHEBAG C---SUCKER !!!!!!!" so I don't take it personally.

And I apologize for bringing up the idea of paying for content. It's voluntary.

Your rating: None

Maybe it is because you do not know when to stop

Your explanation whether I agreed with it or not was logical and I could see your points but then you did what I see as what turns me off to your side.

This exchange was between us so why bother bringing up

The person in the last thread who said I'm not credible is someone who routinely stinks up this site with comments criticizing women and Jews and has called me a "f---ing DOUCHEBAG C---SUCKER !!!!!!!" so I don't take it personally.

Take yourself out of the equation for a second and ask yourself if I was just reading this thread only would it be possible that you are saying I am that person? I know you are not but others might make that mistake.

In a way just like Lynn was not clear with who she was threatening legal action against, you were not clear here.

That is my point about why I believe you should have picked up the phone first before saying anything to the world.

I do appreciate that you understand my questioning the plea for money.

I do not think you are a bad person and agree overall that Lynn was the bad guy here but I just do not think this was as big an issue as it was made out to be.

And sorry but you are going to be threatend with more lawsuits down the road, it is the nature of the beast for what you are choosing to do here. It is not fair but it is the reality

Your rating: None

Thanks, Jess, for that

Thanks, Jess, for that response. And for the record, I was the one who gave your "snotty" critic there a one-star rating, because it was just name-calling. (I don't rate those who target their personal attacks at me, however.)

I just don't necessarily agree that oral communications are clearer than written ones, or that legal matters should be hashed out on the phone rather than in writing, or that emails aren't direct communications. If someone is going to make demands for deletion and toss in a legal threat, they should have their facts in order and consider their words carefully, and, well, I don't know if that was done here. This not being done on the telephone seems a little bit beside the point.

Your rating: None

And I will tell you...

If you were a client sitting in my office right now, I would tell you the LAST thing you should do is get into a telephone conversation that, if it really came down to it, would be a he-said-she-said situation. Writings (unless someone wants to claim forgery, their e-mail account was hijacked, etc.) do not have that same inherent risk. That is not to say writings cannot be misunderstood or misinterpreted, but at least with a writing everyone start's off with the same words and same set of facts.

In short, from a legal perspective, you did good!

Your rating: None

you have only scratched the surface

I can tell you by conversations with many KOINers I know that you have only felt a small ripple compared to the the proverbial tsunami of threats and insults experienced by news people during the reign of Queen Heider.

You were very fair and balanced in your recap. She's shrewd...and yet certifiable.

Your rating: None

Just my opinion, of course...

I think someone may have a personal stake in this situation. What possible reason would there be for a disinterested individual, detached from the circumstance at hand, to have such strongly held feelings that s/he is willing to post such caustic commentary?

Your rating: None

Worth noting

Let's examine who's showing the greatest lack of critical thinking:
A) OMC - Posting, not hosting, material of dubious origin.
B) Heider - Who would surely be out of business if the precept of non-publication of unflattering stories or material were to catch on.
C) The Anchors - Who, despite the fact that they are front and center in a studio with several million dollars worth of RECORDING EQUIPMENT seem to think they will not be recorded.

Your rating: None Average: 3 (1 vote)

BTW

Those are rhetorical questions...

Your rating: None Average: 3 (1 vote)

Excellent

Excellent work. Will be linking to OMC from my little corner of the web.

Your rating: None

Journalistic hypocrites

Notoriously, journalists have little regard for the rights of any but themselves.

Your rating: None

I wouldn't have been as nice

I have been a (photo)journalist more than 40 years now. Along the way, I got a Para-Legal degree. Sometimes the two fight inside. In this case they would have!
I would have told her to blow it at the first e-mail. Heider's response to you shows that she both was wrong AND not big enough to admit it. The other option is realizing she was wrong and scared you might sue her over the lawsuit threat.
Being in the business you know that most of these TV on air people get big heads. Some stay down to earth and they abecome the good ones. It must be the behind-the-scenes where the refer to them as "the talent" that gets their egos up.
In any case, I would have taken it on at the first threat. "Hey, if you think you have a lawsuit file it. If you file a frivilous lawsuit, be prepared to defend it. Oh, by the way, please give this the same coverage on the evening news that other media will."

Your rating: None

threats of lawsuits

this last post is great. maybe it is time to deflate that ego a bit.

Your rating: None

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <i> <strong> <b> <blockquote> <img> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Each email address will be obfuscated in a human readable fashion or (if JavaScript is enabled) replaced with a spamproof clickable link.
  • Filtered words will be replaced with the filtered version of the word.