What does this have to do with "Easongate?"

Proximity in time, for one thing. And at least potentially, both are wrapped up in the anger expressed towards bloggers by some journalists at sites like Poynter and PressTalk.

What in Blog's name is an "unauthorized link"?

BTW, if anybody caught Bob Beckel's tirade against the blogs on FOX, in which he was content to pretend that Easongate was entirely invented by bloggers (ignoring the statements of Dodd and Frank), that's a good example of the hatred and the thirst for vengeance that will follow on this.

And keep in mind that Beckel is a "Democratic Strategist" (ha ha ha ha) not a journalist.

Re: #2

Robin, did you mean PressThink? I believe there is also a publication called PressTalk.

Yup - Jay Rosen't site is PressThink. Good catch, Glen!

"Proximity in time, for one thing. And at least potentially, both are wrapped up in the anger expressed towards bloggers by some journalists at sites like Poynter and PressTalk."

That sounds like complete nonsense to me. I can't imagine that this is in any way related.

I can't believe in the year 2005 we still have people who don't quite understand how this whole "intarweb" thingy works. You just feel like grabbing them, shaking them and shouting "HE IS GIVING YOUR WEBSITE TRAFFIC YOU MORONS!!!" This whole thing is just going to make them look silly. Nobody can tell anybody else what they can or cannot link to on their own website under threat of legal action. Period. It's a non-starter and I have no clue what kind of idiot lawyer would lead them to believe this could ever get off the ground.

File this one under "Reasons Why We Need a Loser-Pays system."

Glenn,

In a later post you referred to the MSM as liberal and hating bloggers.

But oddly enough, this is a story of the alleged MSM threatening a liberal blogger.

How exactly do you square these two facts?

Davebo: How exactly do you square these two facts?

Because I seriously doubt if the Tulsa World knows or cares about the content of BatesLine. They know it's a blog, though, and therefore a Class Enemy.

There is more to this story than the Tulsa World's allegation of copyright infringements.

Several years ago, Tulsa residents were asked to approve of an increase of the Tulsa sales tax in order to pay for something called the "Tulsa Project".

The Tulsa World endorsed the tax increase. Michael Bates led the opposition to the tax increase. Tulsa voters rejected the tax increase.

A few years later, Tulsa voters were asked to approve of an increase of the Tulsa sales tax in order to pay for the re-incarnation of the Tulsa Project (re-named "It's Tulsa's Time").

Again The Tulsa World endorsed the tax increase.
Again Michael Bates led the opposition to it.
Again Tulsa voters rejected it.

A few years ago, Michael Bates ran for a seat in the Oklahoma House of Representatives. The Tulsa World endorsed Michael's opponent.

Now do you know why The Tulsa World would want to harrass Michael Bates?

By the way, Michael Bates is not a liberal. He is a conservative. I know because I am personally acquainted with Michael and his wife.
I used to attend church with Michael, and he and I used to be members of the same prayer group.

By the way, Michael Bates isn't the only person that The Tulsa World has attacked. The Tulsa World has a tendency to use sneaky tactics to attack anyone who opposes whatever the Tulsa World wants.

[P.S. My 1st post gives the wrong URL to my blog; this post gives the correct one.]

Dodo David -

Thanks for that background.

I notice there's a lot of steam rising around this issue, which the Tulsa World will probably live to regret. But chances are that the MSM "take" on this will focus not on TW's misdeed, but on the "blogstorm" that it will generate - the supposedly sinister character of which will become the story and the central focus of concern.

Oops! I erred regarding Michael Bates' political activities.

Here is how Michael responded to me over at Wizbang!:

"Dodo David: Nearly correct about the two sales tax issues, in 1997 and 2000. While I opposed the '97 proposal, and wrote an op-ed against it which appeared in Urban Tulsa Weekly, I wasn't a leader of the opposition that year. I was an opposition spokesman against Tulsa Time in 2000, and again in opposition to 2003's Vision 2025 sales tax hike, a battle we lost, but it turned BatesLine into a blog focused on local politics.

Also, I haven't run for State House. I ran for Tulsa City Council in 1998 (first attempt at elective politics, finishing 2nd in the Republican primary), and then was the GOP nominee in 2002, losing to a World-endorsed opponent."

I still believe that The Tulsa World has more against Michael than what he does on his blog.