Exactly one week ago I sat in a Shasta County Superior family law courtroom. I was there to await word about a potential ruling regarding Record Searchlight reporter Christy Lochrie’s restraining order against Beth Norby, citizen and environmental consultant.
No grant, no dismissal. Instead, the case was scheduled for trial next month. With witnesses and the whole shebang.
When I wrote about this, some of you asked, understandably, “Why, why, why in the world would you publicize this stuff? Do we really want to roll around in this Jerry Springerish pit and get covered with this phat, pink mud?”
Point taken.
However, not to sound like a certain editor’s Apology of the Week, but I do have my reasons.
To understand my preoccupation with this restraining order, a little background might prove helpful.
On its face, this story, as one Food for Thought reader opinied, does seem so daytime TV:
Two women. Former friends (or maybe not). One’s a newspaper journalist. One’s not. The journalist has a track record of writing highly personal stuff in her newspaper blog, Phat & Pink, some of which is seen by former friends and in-her-dreams friends as betrayals and stabs in their collective backs.
Meet Beth Norby, the non-journalist who felt smeared and stabbed by the journalist, Christy Lochrie, on Lochrie’s blog, Phat & Pink, on the Record Seachlight’s own Redding.com.
Norby explained that her satirical blog, No Phat & Pink Chicks, was created out of frustration. She said it was her reaction to her feelings of helplessness after she felt publically smeared and dragged (as a “friend”) through the mud on Lochrie’s newspaper blog.
She said it was also a backlash to Norby’s and some others’ attempts to write comments on Redding.com that were critical of Lochrie, only to realize that the comments were quickly removed.
Other strangeness ensued, such as when Lochrie shared with her P&P readers how to discover and uncover the secret IP addresses of people who send anonymous comments.
Suddenly, some formerly anonymous Redding.com commenters who criticized Lochrie were outed.
Golly, where’s a fig leaf when you need one?
Begs a question: Can a newspaper have it both ways? Can it feign ignorance about cruel and nasty online comments about citizens, and thus avoid libel lawsuits on some parts of its site; while on other parts of the same site allow a journalist to monitor and/or yank dissenting or critical comments about her?
Enter Norby’s blog. It poked fun at Lochrie and everything about her: hair, wardrobe violations (camel toes, heaven help us), writing style, but mostly, it ridiculed Lochrie’s Phat & Pink Redding.com blog.
Without going into too much detail, lest we muddy the already muddy-enough waters, I’ve walked a few miles in Norby’s shoes.
Following my firing, Lochrie wrote a long P&P blog that dished up the “real” story about my “departure” – complete with descriptions on how scrunched up my face looked when I cried as I left the building that day, as well as half truths, rumors and speculation, all tied up with twisted pieces of misinformation.
Not exactly my idea of high journalism standards, unless you’re into the National Enquirer.
My gut reaction was to dash off a long reply on Lochrie’s blog. I wanted to protest chapter and verse. I wanted to call her names. And to think she referred to me, as she once did Norby, as a friend.
. . . pants on fire.
Nearly everyone’s advice to me was the same. Do not take the bait. Do not throw yourself into the public toilet with this person. Do not look back. Do move forward.
I only mention this so you know why I didn’t interview Lochrie for her “side” of this story. In my opinion, she’s lacking in the truth, credibility and good judgment department. If anything, I feel sorry for her.
I met Norby for the first time by chance outside the courtroom last week. (I correctly guessed Norby’s identity when I spotted her in a sharp outfit, topped by a stunning, hot-pink jacket.)
Now Lochrie’s cease-and-desist restraining order against Norby’s blog, and other “harassment” – remains in legal limbo. It never had legs because a judge denied the order pending last week’s hearing.
Maybe this story’s final chapter will be written after it goes to court next month.
Meanwhile, more questions come a-beggin’.
Is dissent a privilege reserved only for media?
Is this No Phat& Pink Chicks case an example of what happens when the public believes they have no recourse after they’ve felt their community newspaper has squelched and humilated them for slamming the paper?
Is it kosher for a newspaper to uncover the identity of anonymous commenters?
Is it weird for the publisher to send dissenters letters of disapproval?
Are future backlashes to be expected if other readers feel banned, exposed and/or intimidated?
So many questions, most of which are made for more than daytime TV. In fact, my guess is these might eventually make the nightly news and newspaper headlines.
Bring your boots and shovels. There’s a precedent-setting story buried under this phat, pink mess.
