The News-Press slings mud on Earth Day
Just when it appeared the boiling-hot feud between the News-Press and former employees of the paper had been reduced to a simmer, the News-Press published a scathing, front-page report on Sunday allegedly linking former editor, Jerry Roberts, to a computer which contained child porn.
Mr. Roberts, who now operates the business side of UCSB’s Daily Nexus - which has recently published some unrelated, yet questionable content of their own right - has denied involvement, according to the “staff report”.
The News-Press appeared to have made inroads over the last two months with their softer, testimonial-driven public relations campaign… then this unnecessary and public airing of dirty laundry. Will such mudslinging backfire? And/or is this story, as first reported on the Blog, just a sad and bitter return to normalcy?
Update: During a Sunday-afternoon press conference, Roberts and his attorneys strongly denied that he ever downloaded child pornography… and they went on to suggest that Roberts will seek “massive damages” against the paper.
PS: Take the time today to read the comments - some articulate responses by engaged Blog readers, as usual. Continue the conversation here…
April 22nd, 2007 at 4:04 pm
Your snide aside about the Daily Nexus doe not make sense in this context. Perhaps you missed Jerry Robert’s editorial in which he described how the Nexus operates.
Roberts goes on to clarify- for people who were not paying attention- “The publications director makes decisions about the business operations of the paper, not its content.” Again, your swipe tying the content of the Nexus’ sex-column to Roberts is off-topic and a gimmick.
- Liam Keane
student, UCSB
manager, News Off The Press
April 22nd, 2007 at 5:47 pm
The two things that bug me the most about today’s article regarding Jerry Roberts is this….why wait until this particular Sunday to publish it when all this time has gone by regarding the matter….and if the story is so important and accurate to put on a Sunday front page, why isn’t there a reporter assigned to the story instead of the byline being News-Press staff report? Or is Mr. Armstrong, Mr. Steepleton, or whoever that afraid to put their name to the story?
April 22nd, 2007 at 7:18 pm
Totally unnecessary. WHy did the News Supress choose Sunday instead of their light Wednesday edition? This pissy, holier than thouh attitude, is what turned the public off in the first place.
April 22nd, 2007 at 7:24 pm
One wonders if Travesty had access to that specific computer.
April 22nd, 2007 at 8:55 pm
booo
We don’t need this crap
April 22nd, 2007 at 9:13 pm
sleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeezy.
Sign the by-line if you have a news worthy story.
April 22nd, 2007 at 11:13 pm
I rather liked that Daily Nexus article.
April 23rd, 2007 at 12:30 am
I don’t think the new newspress would print something they didn’t find credible. It is apparent that the reason that many people are not employed by the newspress is because there was a problem with the old employee’s biased reporting. If Mr. Roberts has a problem with child porn by downloading it on his computer, he should be exposed. To hurt a child is the most disgusting thing any human can do and those types should be taken care of in a legal and public manner, so we can all be aware of who is and who isn’t dangerous. Anyone who disagrees, doesn’t have childrens best interests at heart, therefore being less than human in my opinion. Now I know this will piss most of you off, but I’m entitled to my opinion as you are entitled to yours. What a great country we live in! Thanks to our soldiers for protecting our freedoms!
April 23rd, 2007 at 8:33 am
Nicole, your posting is even worse than the NP article itself.
You postulate a simple truth that no one can deny like “humans should be disgusted by child porn” but then twist your comments is such a way that implies that anyone who does not want to go after Jerry Roberts does not have the best interests of children at heart.
Give us all a break here.
Yes child porn is bad and yes we all want to protect children from exploitation by it and exposure to it.
However we cannot do that by vengeful and unfounded witch hunts like the NP is doing to Jerry. In fact, attacks like this can only serve to undermine the integrity of any real investigation of child porn.
Images may have been found on a computer that Jerry Roberts used, but there is no tangible evidence that he had anything to do with those images or that he even knew they were there.
None of us know whether or not he had any connection to these images so an allegation against him is no more founded than an allegation that Wendy, Travis and Nipper all used this computer to view child porn.
There is a reasonable process that will lead us to some reasonable conclusions about how these images got to this computer and until that process is complete ANY allegation about who might of might not be responsible is inappropriate.
Smearing Jerry or Wendy or Nipper or Travis is despicably wrong and should be condemned.
Unless the process is protected, and unless clear abuses like this one can be prevented, how can we expect “real” investigations to be viewed and allowed to proceed?
April 23rd, 2007 at 8:56 am
This is the lowest yet of the rapacious McCaw’ team’s gutter “cawing” , this time over supposed kiddy porn sites on a commonly shared comupter used previously by 5-6 NP emplyees but attriburted to Jerry Roberts. Time to cancel your NP subscription if you haven’t done so already.
April 23rd, 2007 at 9:14 am
Nicole, that’s a brilliant parody of a wingnut — you almost had me fooled, but no one can be *that* thoroughly loony!
April 23rd, 2007 at 9:19 am
You are obviously out of touch and nothing more than an SBNP apologist if you think they’ve accomplished anything like making “inroads” or exhibiting a “softer” anything…
Newsflash for you, sir: It’s the same old crap, business as usual on DLG Plaza.
And yes, your snide comment about the Nexus was totally irrelevant and unnecessary. As you said yourself, it’s “UNRELATED.” The Nexus has arguably published those kind of “questionable” columns for years, in case you hadn’t noticed. Maybe you should explore the breadth and depth of college newspaper journalism, since you’re obviously unaware of what’s commonplace in that realm. Maybe you’d like to start with the Berkeley Daily Californian?
April 23rd, 2007 at 9:46 am
Here is your statement “Mr. Roberts, who now operates the business side of UCSB’s Daily Nexus”. Clearly he has NO control over the editorial content of a Student Newspaper. However you had no problem linking him to a raunchy article in the Student run paper that he had NO responsibility for. It also seems like you enjoy recycling unfounded and outrageous claims made by the pathetic N. P. crew. I hope the Mr. Roberts’ legal team wins a large judgement from the evil N.P. empire.
April 23rd, 2007 at 10:05 am
Agree with Dave, I liked the story about drug-enhanced sex. It made me feel old, yet added a little levity to this disgusting event
April 23rd, 2007 at 10:07 am
No publication or person is wholier than thou, but this attempt at yellow journalism probably crosses the line of decency. Even if true, not sure how it helps the Supress in any way, shape or fomr.
April 23rd, 2007 at 11:04 am
If there was any doubt as to the character of the owner and operators of the News-Press, Sunday’s anonymous article about Roberts cleared up the matter. Every word choice, from “tipped off Roberts” (twice), “criminal defense attorney” and “claimed to have passed” was pure slime. It was innuendo at its lowest posing as news. Not until paragraph ten do we get even a hint that there is no way to connect the alleged porn to Roberts.
This is what happens when you cross a very rich person of no character who happens to own a newspaper. Those moronic full-page homilies in the News-Press showed how dumb these people are. Sunday’s article showed how low they are. How anyone can continue to pay for a paper that prints such garbage is a mystery to me.
My parents have taken the News-Press for decades, Dad is 91, Mom is 87, and this was the last straw for them; they will cancel. So I guess that’s the good news; they’ve made me proud yet again. I hope others follow their example. Maybe we should all pitch in and buy the paper. It’s obvious the News-Press serves only the interests of the owner; if the public owns it, it could truly be the public trust a newspaper should be.
April 23rd, 2007 at 11:32 am
I canceled my subscription 3 months ago, but still read when I am able to pick up a copy- I have read the paper for 18 years- it’s hard to give up….This is terrible- and what the heck is Wendy/Nipper and crew thinking? I guess they aren’t thinking at all. I am so saddend by the decline of the paper, beyond insulting to our community.
April 23rd, 2007 at 12:02 pm
The News Press has been a poor news paper for years. The decline started when the New York Times took over and turned the paper into a wire service produced rag. The present ownership has only accelerated the decline. Wendy should sell the property at DLG plaza and euthanize the News Press. It is thin and almost unreadable Please put it out of it’s misery.
April 23rd, 2007 at 1:08 pm
I usually don’t comment on blogs, but I am so outraged by the article implying Jerry Roberts had child porn on his computer, and the sneaky, unethical way it was published, that I have to. The News Press owner/co-publishers have sunk to the lowest of the low, and I hope Roberts sues for as much as possible, and wins. I canceled my daily subscription a long time ago, but still get the Sunday paper because I like to see certain sections of interest. Not any more. I refuse to give one more dime to such a morally bankrupt newspaper owner.
April 23rd, 2007 at 1:10 pm
From his initial posting here, this blog editor really thinks this is true?
“The News-Press appeared to have made inroads over the last two months with their softer, testimonial-driven public relations campaign…”
Still feeling the effects of 4/20 ?
April 23rd, 2007 at 3:02 pm
nipper wants his hard drive back
April 23rd, 2007 at 5:02 pm
I think that it is safe to say the “softer, testimonial-driven public relations campaign” is not working. Just like you cannot polish a turd or make chicken salad out of chicken shit.
April 23rd, 2007 at 5:43 pm
Jerry Roberts is an upright, moral man. I am sure he will be exhonorated of all this slander. It seems strange to allow the reporters to run this story and squelch the story about the trial of Travis Armstrong for his DUI.
April 24th, 2007 at 12:13 am
YES, Thank and honor soldiers. Tues April 24, 2007. House Committee on Oversight & Government Reform. Pvt Jessica Lynch, Cpl Patrick Tillman, Jr. and others seeking truth.
At Bagram military base north of Kabul, Afghanistan Sgt. Jim Wilt wrote “I find it ironic that the flags were flown at half-staff for the young men and women who were killed at VT, yet it is never lowered for the death of a U.S. service member,” .
April 24th, 2007 at 4:54 am
Wendy & Co. have been guilty of some egregious lapses of judgment in the past 10 months (ranging from laughable to downright scurrilous), but Sunday’s attempt to smear Jerry Roberts’ reputation as a professional journalist and a gentleman cannot be defended. It is simply one of the most malicious, cowardly, and unconscionable abuses of a public trust by a newspaper that I have ever witnessed.
And I hope the courts will make their displeasure known - and, in doing so, set an example for other newspaper-owning narcissists - by ruling for Roberts and providing him with a record damages award.
April 24th, 2007 at 8:15 am
What is left? Only to do everything possible to run the cold, heartless, vicious b out of the area. She’d enjoy a castle in the mediterranean where she can keep hollywood types, coke dealers and british gossips as pets.
April 24th, 2007 at 10:17 am
I’m calling all those businesses that still advertise with this “rag” and give them a piece of my mind…but never any of my money should they continue their advertising support.
Jerry’s already taken a polygraph test and passed. Let’s see how WcCaCa, Little Nipster and Travesty do in theirs.
April 25th, 2007 at 11:14 am
Here’s what everyone is missing.
The News-Press fired several people, and in most cases the paper kept the reasons to themselves. This was done to avoid a libel or slander lawsuit. If you do not reveal to other people your opinions of someone there is no defamation.
However, in the case of Jerry Roberts, he initated a lawsuit against the News-Press and demanded in public that the News-Press explain their actions. The News-Press obliged.
Roberts has no case against the News-Press. Wendy McCaw wished to keep her reasons for firing Roberts private. Roberts legally forced the News-Press to reveal their reasons, against the papers desire for privacy.
At this point the D.A’s office has no proof that Roberts did anything illegal, and no one should assume guilt. Only a conviction in a court of law should cause anyone to call Roberts a criminal.
Wendy McCaw owns the News-Press and can fire anyone with or without cause.
April 25th, 2007 at 12:10 pm
P.S to my above comment,
Roberts initiated a wrongful termination lawsuit againt the News-Press in January of this year. This was after the News-Press initiated a breach of contract suit against him.
April 25th, 2007 at 1:20 pm
Clearview,
Your statement, “Roberts has no case against the News-Press”, I am curious are you an attorney? If so you might want brush up on your employment law. If Mr. Roberts had a contract then Ms. Mc Caw would have a reason to fire him based on the terms of the contract. If he was fired for a reason covered under the law such as for race , creed ect,. he would also have a strong case. Finally, based on case Law in California, after seven years of employment, an employee is presumed to be a long term employee and can only be fired for cause. I am not a lawyer, but a previous employer fired me after a decade of employment and tried that “at will “bullshit. Guess what? I took legal action with a strong case and received a generous settlement. Ms. Mc Caw may think that because of her considerable wealth that she does not have to follow the law, however her recent experience with the Teamsters is showing how wrong she is. My hope is that Mr. Roberts, legal team takes the Newspress, Ampersand ect. to the cleaners.
April 25th, 2007 at 2:25 pm
To Mas Gaviota,
Legally, Roberts resigned his position with the News-Press, so he’s the one who ended his employment.
But we all know that when someone resigns, they are being asked to leave, Just like Don Rumsfield “resigned”.
You see, Mas, Wendy has boatloads of money, owns a newspaper, has an army of lawyers and is quite ruthless.
Do you really think Jerry Roberts wants to have this thing go to trial with those pictures shown to a jury and News-Press management tesifying against him? Do you think he wants to be questioned under oath about those pictures, wilth his testimony possibly used against him in a criminal court of law?
And what about all the other former News-Press employees who are going to be dragged into this thing because of Roberts? Does he care about the damage done to them and their families? Do the spouses of those employees care?
For everybody’s good Roberts and Barney and all the others should just let this thing drop. If you think what happened on Sunday was ugly, you ain’t seen nothin’ yet.
Wendy McCaw is a ballbuster. She is in full ballbusting mode because she is being attacked. She’s just getting the printing presses warmed up on this one.
April 25th, 2007 at 4:05 pm
As usual Clearview, your view is anything but clear
Much like Alberto Gonzales does not want to “air” the reasons why the attorneys were fired, Wendy et. al. don’t want to air the reasons they have terminated many employees.
It is she not Roberts that has the most to lose
Also Roberts has a claim that he was constructively terminated which is the same as an actual termination a far as damages goes.
I would guess that he and the other employees would relish the chance to get Wendy, Travesty, Scott and others on the witness stand.
This latest skirmish does nothing to diminish that.
April 25th, 2007 at 5:11 pm
To Artuzi at #32,
Just let it go, man. How much more pain has to be inflicted on people before you’re satiated?
At this point, McCaw will probably be willing to let bygones be bygones if Roberts and Barney and the others just shut up. But if those former News-Press employees keep attacking her in the manner they have you can expect a lot of ruined lives and careers.
Roberts and Barney and Nick Welsh have gone over the top on this issue as far as McCaw is concerned. She considers their attacks personal in nature, and she is a very private person. What she does with her newspaper is her business and only her business. She can hire and fire as she pleases and the fact that you and many other people are slamming her for firing an employee suspected of downloading child porn is shocking.
Wendy McCaw gave Roberts a choice: either resign or be fired. Roberts resigned. He should have gone on with his life and come to terms with losing his job. Same with Barney and all the others. Same with you.
April 25th, 2007 at 5:50 pm
Clearview,
You must either work for Mc Caw or have some overeaching need to kiss her ass. She can hire and fire as she pleases as long as she OBEYS THE LAW. That is no different than any other employer. Roberts and Barney and Nick Welsh are entitled to their own ideas just as you are. Your argument that they better shut up because Mc Caw has soooooo much money and will destroy them is wrong. This town has many “ball busters”, big wheels, plutocrats ect. The funny thing is that almost none of them likes Mc Caw, in fact many can not stand her. I am sure that there are enough well healed types that hate Mc Caw’s style of “ball busting” and would love to contribute to Mr. Robert’s defense fund. There is a certain Ms. Mc Cune that comes to mind.
Clearview, you really should appy for a job at the N.P. (if you do not already work there). Your style of writing would really fit in. You wrote “…the fact that you and many other people are slamming her for firing an employee suspected of downloading child porn is shocking.” Most people are slamming her because she has a crap newspaper. What is shocking is that no one in law enforcement or even Mc Caw has accused Mr. Roberts of downloading child porn. The Mac computer he used along with many others, which the N.P. bought used, at one time had child porn on it. That is it. The Newspress knows damn well that had they actually stated that Mr. Roberts was a suspect when he was not, the libel suit against them would be a slam dunk. That is why even the N.P. fell short of making that claim. Nice try Clearview.
April 25th, 2007 at 6:53 pm
Wendy has convinced clearview and thousands more that those are Mr. Roberts pictures. She has damaged his whole family and the community. Wendy and anyone with access to the computer could be suspect. She singled out one person on weak circumstance. You want people to just “shut up” now? You’re not only clueless, you’re mad, like Wendy. She did similar tactics before she came to Santa Barbara, she’ll continue. Let us know when you get the toothpaste back in the tube.
Child porn is the worst, to distract from the other suspects is criminal because she could take the case in the wrong direction. Wendy is responsible for how she’s handling this and what she causes her current employees. She can play the “protect the children” card but anyone who’s been involved with an abused child knows it’s just as criminal to interfere with an investigation in anyway.
April 26th, 2007 at 10:24 am
Really Mas? Can you show us the California case law you are referring to that supported this “generous settlement”? This 7 year rule you are referencing is news to me.
April 26th, 2007 at 10:57 am
Munny,
I paid my lawyer to do the research. I am not an attorney. If you are curious ask an employment law specialist. Looks like, as usual ,you have nothing new to say about this topic. If you have an idea express it.
April 26th, 2007 at 1:58 pm
Sorry Mas, there is no such case law and there is no such rule in California. California is an at-will state and longevity doesn’t change or alter that status. Your statement of fact was completely and totally wrong in that regard. If your lawyers charged you for that research, you got robbed……..
Please don’t start including false or other misleading information simply to drive home a point. You don’t need it……..your opinions are generally well stated without going that route…..
As for Roberts, I don’t know the facts well enough to opine as to whether he will ultimately succeed or not. However, the Newspaper is not doing itself any favor by publishing these allegations…….it just appears malicious…..
April 26th, 2007 at 2:54 pm
Ok Munny here it is,
I, unlike you, can back up my statements with fact. Since you offer only opinions I cannot comment on your usual unfounded statements. There are three areas of exception to at will employment in the State of California: public policy exception, Implied contract exception, and covenant of
good faith and fair dealing exception. My case was based on the last example, the covenant of good faith and fair dealing exception. Here are two cases for you to read up on: Lawerence M. Cleary v. American Airlines, Inc., Kmart Corporation v.Ponsock (a Nevada case), . My source for this information is a publication from the U.S. government:
http://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/2001/01/art1full.pdf
According to my lawyer the seven year time period is a generally accepted time frame for an employee to be considered a long term employee. He did not even charge me for that information. My case, for you information, was taken on contingency basis so I paid nothing, but thank you for the snide remarks. If you think that “at will employment” has no legal limits you are a fool. You probably also think that when you park your car in a parking lot that that little ticket you receive releases the lot owner of any liability. WRONG, just like your last post.
April 27th, 2007 at 8:42 am
I’ll be honest Mas…..I simply know more than you on this topic. First, Lawerence is no longer good case law (read up on Foley and Guz (24 Cal.4th 317), two well cited cases). Second, Nevada case law has absolutely zero applicability to California. Third, at the risk of repeating myself, there is no “generally accepted time from for an employee to be considered a long term employee.” (There is a reason he didn’t charge you for that “information.”).
You stated, “Finally, based on case Law in California, after seven years of employment, an employee is presumed to be a long term employee and can only be fired for cause.” That statement is simply not true and I called you on it. You have now tried to backpeddle and claim “exceptions” to the California law. However, those exceptions don’t arise merely because somebody is employed beyond 7 years and they don’t automatically create a “for cause” termination status. Simply put, Labor Code section 2922 establishes a presumption of at-will employment if the parties have made no express or or written agreement specifying the length of employment or the grounds for termination.
Just because you are able to post it on a blog doesn’t make your statements fact.
April 27th, 2007 at 9:21 am
Munny,
The fact is that there are exceptions to at will employment. My case was a few years ago, so possibly the case law has changed. Tha tdoes not change the fact that there are protections and exemptions to the idea that an employer can simply fire anyone at any time. My point of refering to the Nevada case should have been that according to the UnitedStates Bureau of Labor Statistics that eighteen states recognise the three exemptions the at will employment. Yes the time of employment does matter in some cases when bonuses and commisions are involved. Your attack on a minor point of one of my posts shows how empty your ideas are.
April 30th, 2007 at 11:20 am
See you all Wednesday 5/2 at 8:45 am- at the Courthouse arch on Anacapa- bring your Independent cover to raise in the air!!
January 25th, 2009 at 8:05 am
Oooh, I just love seeing those poor balls getting kicked