Yesterday I wrote about a completely idiotic, boorish article by Michael Stutz in the Union Tribune; "Remember, City Hall – we buy ink by the barrel." Stetz boldly boasts of the Tribune's willingness and ability to write anything it desires and its determination to "spill" some of that ink to put anyone who has the mitigated gall to challenge its yellow journalism in their place.
Today I came across a couple of articles where Martin Singer, attorney for Platinum Equity (Owners of the Union Tribune) sent a letter to the S.D. Reader, threatening to sue them for an article related to two law suits filed against them. Singer took a page from Stetz and used some of that ink, as he penned a letter which contained 2,587 words.
I started laughing to myself as I read the threats from Singer. I could not help but reflect back to yesterday and the comments of Stetz. Singer is threatening to sue the S.D. Reader for a story, they were about to publish, about two law suits filed against Platinum Equity in Los Angeles. Singer writes; "In the event that you proceed to recklessly and maliciously publish a Story which falsely states, either directly or by implication that my client engaged in wrongdoing as alleged in those lawsuits or otherwise, you will be exposed to substantial claims for defamation, giving rise to potentially astronomical damages." Maybe Singer should counsel the journalists (I use this term loosely) at the paper owned by Platinum Equity about the implication of "proceeding recklessly and maliciously to publish stories which falsely states either directly or by implication wrongdoing or otherwise."
In the letter to the S.D. Reader, Singer accuses them of having a "pre-conceived agenda to attack, disparage and defame." Singer goes on to add, "we are confident that the Reader's pattern of publishing negative stories about my client, culminating in the upcoming Story, would establish the Reader's use of these journalistic devices, and would supply ample evidence of malice." AGAIN, maybe Singer should sit the editors, writers and bobble heads who work at the Union Tribune and explain all of this to them.
We need look no further than the latest series of articles; "Watchdog Report / Digging into San Diego's Finances" as an example of a "pre-conceived agenda to attack, disparage and defame." I am confident the Union Tribune's "pattern of publishing negative stories about City workers and their wages and benefits, culminating with the 'Watchdog Report / Digging into San Diego's Finances" series, would establish the Tribune's use of these journalistic devices, and would supply ample evidence of malice." So now the question begs to be asked; how does Singer or any attorney for Platinum Equity/Union Tribune defend a suit brought by City employees for this continued behavior?
This is simply another example of, "Do as I say, not as I do." The bully in the park pushes and taunts those he views as inferior. City employees and the S.D. Reader are bullied by the Union Tribune / Platinum Equity because they view themselves as above the law and superior to both. The continued attacks and pattern of publishing negative stories about City workers, their wages, benefits and retirement has clearly established the Union Tribune's malice against City of San Diego employees. Maybe someone should send Singer's letter to Chris Reed, William Osborne, Robert Kittle, Logan Jenkins and Karin Winner. To think there was a glimmer of optimism when Platinum Equity bought the Union Tribune that somehow the quality of the paper would improve. To the contrary; San Diego's only newspaper has gone from bad to worse.