Subscribe to our RSS feed
Follow us on Twitter
Ridder “meant no harm”: Testifying in person at yesterday’s injunction hearing in Ramsey District Court, Star Tribune publisher Par Ridder said he “didn’t plan on using the Pioneer Press financials” because to do so would give the Star Tribune an “unfair advantage.” I wonder how this admission — that the pilfered information is critical to the Pioneer Press’ daily operations and competitive market position — serves Ridder’s legal strategy? Isn’t the theft of data and the potential for misuse legally troubling enough?
I Harte Par: While Chris Harte, chairman of the Star Tribune Co., says Par Ridder won’t be fired over his admitted theft of Pioneer Press data, a former PiPress managing editor said, “You don’t get a do-over for ethics in the journalism business.” Ken Doctor, an analyst with Outsell Research, said, “I’m surprised he hasn’t stepped down already.”
Lawsuit… Jumpsuit? While MNspeakers are having a great time photoshopping Ridder in a prison jumpsuit, the Pioneer Press isn’t filing a criminal complaint… yet. They’re seeking damages, the removal of former PiPress execs from their jobs at the Strib and a promise that the Minneapolis paper will stop poaching employees from the paper Ridder’s family used to run. However, the Strib’s Matt McKinney reports that the Pioneer Press “may seek criminal charges unless Avista lets Ridder go.”
The Silver Spoon Theory: Some local newsroom insiders are suggesting that MediaNews CEO William Dean Singleton won’t settle out of court, instead preferring to watch Ridder squirm on the witness stand. So the next question is: Is it personal? The Rake’s Brian Lambert, who keeps bumping into Singleton during bathroom breaks, asked Singleton point blank. Singleton denied it, but his replies suggest another explanation. He told Lambert, “Look, I’ve been in newspapers since I was 15,” and, indeed, Singleton scrapped his way to the top, often inviting controversy along the way. “In the case of Par I think some of the explanation [for his actions] lies in the fact that he had everything given to him,” he said. “He felt he was entitled to act as he has.”
Got a tip for Media Monitor? Email us your media news.
Leave a comment
Become a fan on Facebook
14 Comments »
Comment posted June 27, 2007 @ 9:42 am
One small correction [quote] Lawsuit… Jumpsuit? While MNspeakers are having a great time photoshopping Ridder in a prison jumpsuit, the Pioneer Press isn’t filing a criminal complaint… yet. They’re seeking damages, the removal of former PiPress execs from their jobs at the Strib, and a promise that the Minneapolis paper will stop poaching employees from the paper Ridder’s family used to run. However, the Strib’s Matt McKinney reports that the Pioneer Press “may seek criminal charges unless Avista lets Ridder go.” [endquote]
Of course, it isn’t up to the Pioneer Press. If a criminal complaint is filed, it will be done by the county attorney, or perhaps even the US attorney, although the latter seems unlikely. The PiPress could ask one of these prosecutors to investigate.
Think of the mayhem that would result if a party to a lawsuit could file charges against an opponent, just for the leverage.
Comment posted June 27, 2007 @ 11:27 am
Seeking charges… I suppose you’re right. The PiPress has to *ask* for criminal charges, but only the authorities can actually charge Ridder with anything. Thanks for the comment.
Comment posted June 27, 2007 @ 11:53 am
How many lawyers can dance on the head of a pin? Although, Paul, it is possible for a prosecutor to bring charges even when a “victim” doesn’t ask them to be. It is harder to prove the case when the victim is not cooperative, but it can and does happen. Domestic dispute cases are but one example.
A prosecutor might decide the Par Ridder engaged in the theft of intellectual property, or engaged in mail or wire fraud, or whatever, and decide to charge him irrespective of whether he kissed and made up with the PiPress.
Comment posted June 27, 2007 @ 2:45 pm
It’s not just the money or the charges Let’s just say you are the Strib. You know what’s coming in this trial, yes? Let’s assume you don’t think that you did anything that merits a criminal investigation or damages.
How on earth can you say that the potential value Par Ridder brings to your organization outweighs the incredible PR beating he is getting? Even if you take away anything that involves lawyers, it’s still not worth fighting over.
Plus, you have to factor in the new management team and their relationship with employees, which is not exactly healthy at the moment. What do regular employees think when some of their best and brightest colleagues are let go rather unceremoniously while this trust fund gobshite is defended to the hilt?
The Strib itself is arrogant and stupid here. Par Ridder is only the tip of a very hard, cold iceberg. The real damage is always done below the waterline.
(I wish someone had an interview with Jennifer Parrant – to my knowledge, she hasn’t been paid in months, has no trust fund to fall back on, and her career is as over as Ridder’s).
Comment posted June 27, 2007 @ 3:11 pm
Now _that’s_ an interesting suggestion:
Comment posted June 27, 2007 @ 3:25 pm
Parrant’s pay Actually, the Strib went to court to get the OK to pay her … while pushing its 140-plus folks out the door. Think how that looks for PR purposes.
Comment posted June 27, 2007 @ 4:37 pm
Parratt is getting paid for sitting home Yes, Parratt is getting paid for nothing. The judge originally barred her from going to work at the Strib. A couple-three weeks later, the Strib sought pay for her. The judge agreed she could draw a paycheck, but she still can’t go to work.
She’s probably making 10-15K a month. So, the Strib is out roughly $30-40K on her so far. (She did actually work for a day and a half before the judge barred her.)
Lawyers: They have spent the last eight weeks feverishly deposing people. I’m only guessing, but say at least four lawyers are billing an average of 25 hours a week on this, at an average rate of $400 an hour. That’s 100 hours a week x $400 for eight weeks, which comes to $320,000. That’s probably a conservative estimate and doesn’t include this week’s hearing.
So right now, you’re looking at around $350,000 so far spent on Ridder’s behalf.
But wait, there’s more! At least a half-dozen or more Strib execs have been deposed so far. The paper has lost dozens if not hundreds of hours of productivity from some of its most highly compensated people. In addition, this whole thing has been a tremendous distraction to people in sales, marketing, finance, etc. — more lost productivity on the business side.
Plus, all of Par’s executives hate him because a.) they know he wanted to replace them all and b.) he dragged them into this legal mess.
Is young Par really so good at what he does that saving his ass is worth all these costs?
Comment posted June 27, 2007 @ 4:42 am
One small correction [quote] Lawsuit… Jumpsuit? While MNspeakers are having a great time photoshopping Ridder in a prison jumpsuit, the Pioneer Press isn't filing a criminal complaint… yet. They're seeking damages, the removal of former PiPress execs from their jobs at the Strib, and a promise that the Minneapolis paper will stop poaching employees from the paper Ridder's family used to run. However, the Strib's Matt McKinney reports that the Pioneer Press “may seek criminal charges unless Avista lets Ridder go.” [endquote]
Of course, it isn't up to the Pioneer Press. If a criminal complaint is filed, it will be done by the county attorney, or perhaps even the US attorney, although the latter seems unlikely. The PiPress could ask one of these prosecutors to investigate.
Think of the mayhem that would result if a party to a lawsuit could file charges against an opponent, just for the leverage.
Comment posted June 27, 2007 @ 6:27 am
Seeking charges… I suppose you're right. The PiPress has to *ask* for criminal charges, but only the authorities can actually charge Ridder with anything. Thanks for the comment.
Comment posted June 27, 2007 @ 6:53 am
How many lawyers can dance on the head of a pin? Although, Paul, it is possible for a prosecutor to bring charges even when a “victim” doesn't ask them to be. It is harder to prove the case when the victim is not cooperative, but it can and does happen. Domestic dispute cases are but one example.
A prosecutor might decide the Par Ridder engaged in the theft of intellectual property, or engaged in mail or wire fraud, or whatever, and decide to charge him irrespective of whether he kissed and made up with the PiPress.
Comment posted June 27, 2007 @ 9:45 am
It's not just the money or the charges Let's just say you are the Strib. You know what's coming in this trial, yes? Let's assume you don't think that you did anything that merits a criminal investigation or damages.
How on earth can you say that the potential value Par Ridder brings to your organization outweighs the incredible PR beating he is getting? Even if you take away anything that involves lawyers, it's still not worth fighting over.
Plus, you have to factor in the new management team and their relationship with employees, which is not exactly healthy at the moment. What do regular employees think when some of their best and brightest colleagues are let go rather unceremoniously while this trust fund gobshite is defended to the hilt?
The Strib itself is arrogant and stupid here. Par Ridder is only the tip of a very hard, cold iceberg. The real damage is always done below the waterline.
(I wish someone had an interview with Jennifer Parrant – to my knowledge, she hasn't been paid in months, has no trust fund to fall back on, and her career is as over as Ridder's).
Comment posted June 27, 2007 @ 10:11 am
Now _that's_ an interesting suggestion:
Comment posted June 27, 2007 @ 10:25 am
Parrant's pay Actually, the Strib went to court to get the OK to pay her … while pushing its 140-plus folks out the door. Think how that looks for PR purposes.
Comment posted June 27, 2007 @ 11:37 am
Parratt is getting paid for sitting home Yes, Parratt is getting paid for nothing. The judge originally barred her from going to work at the Strib. A couple-three weeks later, the Strib sought pay for her. The judge agreed she could draw a paycheck, but she still can't go to work.
She's probably making 10-15K a month. So, the Strib is out roughly $30-40K on her so far. (She did actually work for a day and a half before the judge barred her.)
Lawyers: They have spent the last eight weeks feverishly deposing people. I'm only guessing, but say at least four lawyers are billing an average of 25 hours a week on this, at an average rate of $400 an hour. That's 100 hours a week x $400 for eight weeks, which comes to $320,000. That's probably a conservative estimate and doesn't include this week's hearing.
So right now, you're looking at around $350,000 so far spent on Ridder's behalf.
But wait, there's more! At least a half-dozen or more Strib execs have been deposed so far. The paper has lost dozens if not hundreds of hours of productivity from some of its most highly compensated people. In addition, this whole thing has been a tremendous distraction to people in sales, marketing, finance, etc. — more lost productivity on the business side.
Plus, all of Par's executives hate him because a.) they know he wanted to replace them all and b.) he dragged them into this legal mess.
Is young Par really so good at what he does that saving his ass is worth all these costs?
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Leave a comment