davis_square | Bob Trane suing The Somerville Journal

Well they also didnt run his full page ad that he prepaid for...thats a legal issue right there.

I'm certainly curious to hear more. That piece is just a press release and given the other material Trane's campaign has put out over the past month, I'm not inclined to go on blind faith here. I'd like to hear what the Journal has to say about it, too.

Here's the Journal's story.

Suing over a cartoon is ridiculous, but he does have a legitimate complaint that the Journal failed to run his ad in the last issue before the election. That kind of egregious mistake can't really be repaired. I do not understand how this can occur:

Journal advertising Director Cris Warren explained the ad running in the wrong paper last week was a booking mistake on part of her department in Needham and had nothing to do with the editorial department in Somerville. Her department intends to refund the Trane campaign for the one ad that was not published in Somerville.

“This political advertisement was inadvertently published in the Cambridge Chronicle instead of the Somerville Journal. The Community Newspaper Advertising Department regrets and apologizes to all involved for this unfortunate error,” Warren said.

(No part of Cambridge is in the district.)

did it on purpose is a bit paranoid. If they paid for a service that was not delivered then they should negotiate on getting back part of their money, not sue.

Not that I disagree on it being a huge error, but Gatehouse Media is going through such upheaval that I am not surprised some things are falling through the cracks. And also, things like this do happen at newspapers from time to time, upheaval or no. Not that that is any consolation to Trane, nor should it be, but these things do happen. I sincerely doubt the Journal/Gatehouse did anything purposefully, as it would surely backfire in their face if they did.

I'm sure that Gatehouse didn't do this on purpose, but still, I expect better from my long-established local newspaper. This wasn't a little 6-inch, 2-column ad, this was a full-pager, a hard thing to lose track of.

Yeah, but we only have Trane's story on that. It could be as direct as the S'Ville Journal trying to throw him off or as simple as a goofup somewhere in the chain of command.

It might even be that he paid for three issues and they ran it for three issues and that was it, or it might've been a miscommunication about which specific issues it was supposed to run in. Either Trane or the Journal might've goofed up, or both. Or Trane's press release might be misleading (based on what we've seen from him in the recent past, a real possibility).

Remember when Joe Lieberman accused the Ned Lamont campaign of taking down his web site on election day, and it turned out the Lieberman campaign was using very cheap web hosting that simply couldn't handle the election day volume? Sometimes when a campaign goofs up, they accuse first and noticed what they've done a little later. Let's wait a bit and see what this one turns out to be.

I'm actually guessing this was a production mistake.

I have to admit though, Trane being so tetchy over a cartoon does raise an eyebrow. Maybe he doesn't like his chances?

It looks like he is an unreasonably litigious person and a person with some temper problem. That's the way it looks.

Sounds like Bob's got a couple of different issues.

One, with CNC (the Journal's parent company) for mistakenly running the ad in the Cambridge Chronicle.

Two, with the Journal, for running the political comic in question. This is deliciously ironic. For someone who's been riding the dogsled of attack dogs known as the Somerville News as long as Trane has, for him to get this thin-skinned over a cartoon?

Jesus Christ, Bob, you're running *the* most ignoble campaign I've seen in local politics in the 17 years I've lived in Somervillle, and that includes Vinnie Ciampa's failure to denounce anti-homosexual fliers supporting him four years ago. This is embarassing.

I agree, the Somerville News has been trashing Sciortino and publishing pro-Trane propaganda for a long time. They would not call themselves homophobes, but it certainly smells like that.

One of my personal favorites was the column denouncing Carl as "xenophobic". Excuse me?

What? Xenophobic? Based on what evidence?

Evidence? We don't need no stinking evidence!

http://somervillenews.typepad.com/the_somerville_news/2007/11/the-view-from-p.html

This is textbook News opinion writing here, but there are loads of bonus features: check out James Norton's response to Sciortino (who actually responded to this nonsense). There's also discussion of Heller's mysterious "orange flyer" allegedly smearing Trane - but no one actually could directly quote from it. the only thing that's missing is a post from the legendary Cambriville personality Dr. Mrs. McCarthy.

Pathetic. The question I have is: why? What can Trane do for the Somerville News clan? It must have something with to do with real estate in Somerville. But what exactly?

I'm not going to post the link, but I don't see how one can think of suing a newspaper for a cartoon and hope to win. Sounds like a silly publicity stunt.

I'll post it:

Oh my! Now Trane will sue community.livejournal.com !!! :)

Lot of that going around. Maybe it's just contagious.

We should counter-sue him and whoever writes his press releases for the damage caused to us who read it. I will never recover the brain cells killed by this sentence: "Add to this that after weeks of printing paid advertising from the Trane Committee in the agreed to position and page in the Somerville Journal, the final Trane ad which was to have appeared in the Journal in the very edition of the paper where the libelous cartoon was printed failed to be printed."

"To have also deliberately done so in it's last edition before the primary, thereby denying Mr. Trane the opportunity to confront and refute this scurrilous lie in the same pages where it appears, is journalism at its very worst and most despicable."

Edited 2008-09-16 12:55 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't mention the two counts of egregious mis-use of "it's"; that's only a misdemeanor, after all. ;-) But it is especially funny given the single correct use, proving that whoever wrote it at least knows of the existence of "its".

Is the improper use of "it's" only a misdemeanor now?

Yeah, it was decriminalized about a year ago. The fines are pretty hefty, though, and of course the points add up. Whoever wrote that press release is pretty close to getting their fingers revoked.

To repeat a comment from above, this is the type of 'mistake' which cannot be repaired. The Journal can offer an apology, or a refund, however, because of the timing, neither can really repair the possible damage. Regardless, it is an error that is inexcusable for a newspaper to make, I don't care how it happened. And it further erodes the credibility that the Somerville Journal should have, but doesn't.
It is funny, though, that many comments are referring to the fact that Trane seems a little paranoid because he thinks it was done on purpose. It gives me pause, because when Sciortino lost his nomination papers he just about outright stated that Trane, or someone working on his behalf, had stolen them. Paranoid??? I think that some of the statments made at that time by Sciortino constituted slander, and Trane may have had a case, but did not pursue it. Perhaps an underlying reason for his alleged 'thin skin'?

But it sounds like Trane's beef is with the parent company, and not the Journal though (at least on the advertising issue).

As far as paranoia? I think trying to combine the missing advertisement with a political cartoon into a Grand Unified Theory that people are out to get you, yeah, that qualifies.

If you don't think so, perhaps you'll validate my Grand Unified Theory that says that missing papers from Carl's office, plus a $300 contribution to Trane from a mail clerk in the State House equals, well, you do the math.

I don't think the Somerville Journal exists as an independent company, so if you're "suing the Journal", you're really suing Community Newspaper Company aka GateHouse Media.

Legally, of course, that's correct. But in terms of whom Trane's beef is with, there are two different targets. The problem with the ad is almost certainly due to the ad or production staff in Framingham or Needham or wherever they are. The cartoon, or at least the decision to run it, is a product of the editorial staff in Somerville. I hope that they don't talk to each other too much.

"when Sciortino lost his nomination papers he just about outright stated that Trane, or someone working on his behalf, had stolen them"

I would really like to see the statements you're talking about. I have searched and not found any quote from Sciortino attributing the theft to anyone.

That's why the cartoon is funny, in my opinion. Some people obviously think that Trane had something to do with it, but I have never heard anyone say it - least of all Sciortino.

Edited 2008-09-16 14:48 (UTC)

I've never seen anyone from Sciortino's campaign, much less Sciortino himself, suggest that the missing papers were due to Trane. If anything, I've seen Carl Sciortino step up to the plate and say he should have kept better track of them, and he'll never make this mistake again. The truth is that we can't know what happened to the paperwork, and Sciortino has never said anything else. For all we know, the night cleaning staff could have put them in the recycling by mistake.

The Journal can offer an apology, or a refund, however, because of the timing, neither can really repair the possible damage

So how would suing help?

Seriously, how would it help?

Having worked in the Statehouse (as a journalist, no less! and for CNC's prior owners too!), I can tell you that it's entirely plausible that someone lifted the papers in question from Sciortino's office. I'm not saying someone did, mind you, least of all accusing Trane, but I am saying that that building is a vipers' nest of intrigue, double-dealing and backstabbing of the highest order. Like the man said, "You'll never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy."

But setting that issue aside, the Journal has done Trane an egregious and irrevocable injury in failing to print his ad just a week before the election. I'm obviously biased here, as a former journalist, but to me it's the sacred duty of new outlets to be reliable, objective and impartial sources of information to readers/viewers/users. And I don;t think it's overstating the fact to say that our democracy depends on this.

In my view (and please note, I take no stand on who to vote for here), the Journal abrogated this responsibility, even though seemingly through a bureaucratic snafu. Trane can never get back the exposure the ad would have brought him at a crucial time in the election, which could affect the outcome today. To me, that is an inexcusable lapse. The Journal will have a long row to hoe to regain the credibility it's lost in the community.

Has anyone seen the Trane ad in the Chronicle? Is it all warm and fuzzy, or is it more like his recent piece "Why I'm the best candidate for state rep" which ran in last week's Journal:

http://www.wickedlocal.com/somerville/news/opinions/x536704736/Trane-Why-Im-the-best-candidate-for-state-rep

Because if it was all prickly like the Bob we've all come to know and (tough) love, CNC may have unintentionally aided Trane by not running the ad...

It was big and had a photo of his family. It seemed pretty similar to a flyer that was posted here earlier.

I'm so used to reading about this race here that I didn't even wonder why it was in my paper.

The Journal will have a long row to hoe to regain the credibility it's lost in the community

"Regain"?

"According to Sciortino the remaining signatures were stolen from his State House sometime before May 6. Two judges refused to allow him on the ballot."
"In court, Sciortino’s lawyer Ed Colbert said Sciortino had 186 signatures....But before Sciortino could submit them to the Secretary of State, Colbert said, the papers had been stolen."
"The papers are missing,” (the judge) said. “We don’t have any information other than that they were on [Sciortino’s] desk and now they are not....”
"Sciortino reported the papers missing to the State Police on May 19, almost two weeks after he first noticed they were gone."
"According to Sciortino's attorney, 12 nomination papers containing 72 signatures were taken by an unknown person from his State House office."
I would personally have more respect for someone who stood up and simply admitted that they had been lost or misplaced. To immediately refer to them as 'stolen' is simply passing the buck for your own mistake (all candidates routinely copy the signatures immediately, why hadn't Sciortino at least done that?). And who, other than Trane, could be the purported thief? The inference is that it is his opponent.

Copies of signatures are not legally accepted. You have to submit the originals.

infer away. but that's YOUR inference. It's completely inaccurate, though, to say that Sciortino "just about outright stated" Trane was responsible. He stated nothing of the sort.

Bob Trane suing The Somerville Journal

no subject

no subject

no subject

Hmmm. But assuming that the SJ

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

It looks like he has no sense of humor

Two-pronged fork

Re: Two-pronged fork

Re: Two-pronged fork

Re: Two-pronged fork

Re: Two-pronged fork

Re: Two-pronged fork

The actual cartoon is on the Somerville Journal site.

Re: The actual cartoon is on the Somerville Journal site.

Re: The actual cartoon is on the Somerville Journal site.

Re: The actual cartoon is on the Somerville Journal site.

no subject

ha ha

Re: ha ha

Re: ha ha

Re: ha ha

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Statehouse shenanigans

The best of (un)intentions...

Re: The best of (un)intentions...

Re: Statehouse shenanigans

no subject

no subject

no subject