A few more (last?) thoughts on Donald Rosenberg v. Plain Dealer and Cleveland Orchestra

Tim Smith, with whom I participated in a twitter chat 2 nights ago, expressed there and on his blog yesterday, the kind of thinking about the conflict between Donald Rosenberg, the Plain Dealer, and the Cleveland Orchestra that represents a problem and dispute resolving attitude that, I think, the best lawyers embody. There’s no question Rosenberg was no fan of Franz Welser-Möst, the Orchestra’s conductor. There’s no question his views on Welser-Möst were shared by many (though by no means all). There’s no question the repeated expression of those views irritated the Orchestra. So, what should have happened? Perhaps the Plain Dealer could have split up the reviews of the Orchestra between Rosenberg and another reviewer. Perhaps they could have published “dueling” reviews.

In short, there were things the Plain Dealer could have done to address the problems they perceived short of the ham-handed way they did handle it. Indeed, it may have been a better idea to have reassigned Rosenberg years earlier, at the point the Orchestra replaced Christoph von Dohnányi, whom Rosenberg was a fan and friend of, with Welser-Möst.

Let that be a lesson. Anticipate and address problems, and address them creatively, not in blunt fashion that exploits nothing more than your clients power.

That’s not to say, as should be clear from all I’ve written on this affair, that I think Rosenberg did a wise thing in suing in response to the Plain Dealer’s ham-handed way of dealing with the problem. As I’ve said from the beginning, it was very unlikely that Rosenberg would prevail on any claim in his lawsuit. Nor was it a situation the defendants were likely to settle in order to resolve what little legal uncertainty did exist for them. The Plain Dealer and Cleveland Orchestra’s biggest problem resulting from the lawsuit wasn’t any potential damages they might have to pay, no matter how unlikely — rather, the biggest problem was the hit Rosenberg’s claims had on their reputations. His claims resonated in the larger world. At times he seemed almost like a martyr to the cause of critical integrity. And, indeed, the problems caused by our corporate media’s corruption by the subjects they cover is a huge one (though I happen to think Rosenberg’s situation is a rather minor instance of it, if it even is an instance of it).

If the Plain Dealer and the Orchestra had settled the lawsuit, the perception would have been that they had conceded on the issue of undue influence by the Orchestra over the newspaper. Since the perception of that influence was their biggest problem vis-a-vis Rosenberg, they could ill afford to settle. Settlement was even less attractive since their legal position was so strong. So this lawsuit was not going to settle. And in all likelihood — a very strong likelihood that I would never deem a certainty only because law doesn’t permit certainty any more than does, say, medicine — Rosenberg was going to lose (as I’ve said from the very beginning).

And what did Rosenberg have to gain by suing and losing? I don’t think he gained anything. If anything, having had a jury declare his claims without merit, he seems less compelling a figure than he did before the trial. There’s the virtual certainty the lawsuit cost him quite a bit of money. And lawsuits are not fun for litigants.

Some suggest that the mere fact of discovery in the lawsuit made it a worthwhile endeavor. But what did we learn as a result of the evidence compelled by the lawsuit? That the Orchestra didn’t like Rosenberg’s repeated negativity, and that the Orchestra wasn’t alone.  That the Orchestra expressed these views to the Plain Dealer. Unlike Tim Smith, I see nothing noteworthy in Anne Midgette’s belief that the trial disclosed something new about the Orchestra’s role in Rosenberg’s reassignment. One would have to be particularly naive to believe that the Orchestra would not express its disagreement to the Plain Dealer with Rosenberg’s repeated negative views regarding Welser-Möst. Finally, we also learned, as we would have known with a second’s thought before the lawsuit, that the Plain Dealer’s editors know less about music than Rosenberg.

We knew all these things already. So the lawsuit did nothing but hurt Rosenberg, cost the defendants and taxpayers money, and generate a lot of material for a few writers.

One final word: I do not mean to say Donald Rosenberg had no right to file the lawsuit. He had every right, and assuming he knew that he was very likely to lose, I would even have been happy to represent him. I would have been clear to him, however, that I did not see the benefit he was deriving from it. There’s no question I would have derived a lot of benefit from it. He would have paid me, and it would have been a fun and interesting lawsuit to be part of.

Tweet chat at 9pm tonight on Donald Rosenberg v. PD and Cleveland Orchestra

Janice Harayda has arranged and agreed to moderate a twitter chat on the Donald Rosenberg lawsuit against the Plain Dealer and the Cleveland Orchestra tonight at 9 p.m. EDT. I will be fortunate enough to be participating with Tim Smith, the classical music critic for the Baltimore Sun. The hashtag for the chat will be #DonR.

Addendum: Rosenberg’s claims against the Plain Dealer are grounded in an article he wrote for the newspaper on August 25, 2004, an article which, he claimed, provoked a concerted campaign on behalf of the Cleveland Orchestra to have the Plain Dealer assign someone else to review their concerts. Four years later, in 2008, the Plain Dealer reassigned him. For informational purposes, the relevant portions of the 2004 article are set forth below:

Welser-Möst speaks out

Some of Welser-Möst’s comments in current Swiss magazines have raised eyebrows.

In Weltwoche, under the headline, “Many Rich Widows,” he discusses private funding for culture in the United States, deeming it necessary to find “rich widows” and that “charm certainly is no disadvantage when you want the ladies to understand you well.”

Welser-Möst refers to the Friday-matinee audiences in Cleveland that are filled with “ ‘Blue Hair Ladies’ because of the coloring of their hair” and states that these “so-called ‘Blue Hair Audiences’ ” largely comprise retirees who are too tired to attend performances at night.

Asked what the ladies must donate to meet Welser-Möst personally, he answers: “For $500, you don’t get a handshake from the music director.”

And for $5,000? “No, it has to be a little more than that. A few years ago, an enthusiastic middle-age fan, in this case a man, moved a check across the table for $10 million. With such a person, of course, you go to dinner.”

How do you like Cleveland? “Cleveland is an island. Here we have a world-class orchestra in what I call an inflated farmer’s village. For me, who loves the country, it is wonderful to live there among the green. Recently in the street in front of my home, I found a huge turtle. It had not escaped from the zoo. It was just walking in the street.”

Why I didn’t like Donald Rosenberg’s lawsuit against the Plain Dealer and Cleveland Orchestra.

I want to expand a bit on why I don’t believe a lawsuit of the sort Donald Rosenberg brought is a useful way of enforcing journalistic integrity. My opinion, of course, is grounded in the belief I’ve had since I first heard of the lawsuit that there was little if any legal merit in it.

First, our legal system is intended to remedy individual harm. It does so by limiting the power of courts to decide individual cases brought be people with a genuine stake in the controversies they sue over. Courts do not have the power to decide hypothetical questions. They do not have the power to decide concrete questions if they parties who sue aren’t the parties who have actually suffered direct harm resulting from the alleged wrong. And our legal system is overwhelmed. People wait years for justice in cases where the harm is serious and direct. To allow lawsuits to proceed merely because they involve behavior we don’t like, therefore, is to do plenty of harm.

Some have suggested that, regardless of the merits of Rosenberg’s lawsuit, the discovery forced by the litigation serves a useful function in disclosing information about behavior they didn’t like. Discovery is a powerful mechanism for forcing people to disclose information. And so it is a dangerous game. When you seek discovery, discovery is sought from you as well, and it’s tough to put a limit on things. So, if you sue, be ready to open up your own life to the public. And if you are sued, don’t believe for a minute that you won’t have to open up your life.  Litigation is a dangerous game.

Paradoxically, while discovery discloses a lot, we should understand too that it doesn’t disclose everything. Parties to a lawsuit seek discovery about the matters they care about and deem it worth their while and their money to go after. They disclose to the court and the public only portions of the information they seek and obtain. So what the public actually receives is never the entire picture. It is as selected, shaped, and manipulated as is any other set of facts.

It’s plain that those rooting for Rosenberg in his lawsuit were convinced of the soundness of his critical writings regarding the Cleveland Orchestra. But I’m not exactly sure whether they want courts and juries to start engaging in the kind of aesthetic and critical evaluation that would be required to distinguish Rosenberg’s legal claims from those brought by some hack they would consider the Cleveland Orchestra to be entirely right to complain about. To do so would require the court to determine which reviews the Orchestra had a legitimate beef about and which reviews the Orchestra did not have a legitimate beef about. I can’t believe that anyone would be happy with that going on.

And the only other answer to that problem would be to forbid the Cleveland Orchestra or any other journalistic subject to opine about the quality of the coverage afforded them. Besides the obvious First Amendment problems, that alternative is plainly unworkable.

Has the Plain Dealer’s credibility been damaged? I think so, though to be honest I’m not sure that Rosenberg’s lawsuit caused that damage. Rather, the decision to reassign Rosenberg and the ensuing hue and cry from the musical and critical worlds did that. If anything, I suspect that having lost the lawsuit, Rosenberg may have revived some of the Plain Dealer’s lost reputation.

Finally, I hate the fact that Rosenberg likely paid good money for what plainly to me seemed a losing set of claims. And if, as I hope, his lawyer was representing him on a contingency basis, I’d be pretty pissed off if I were his lawyer’s partner or employee.

Addendum: I’ve been asked why, given that Rosenberg’s age discrimination arises under Title VII, which is federal law, the case was heard in state court. Federal courts do not have exclusive “jurisdiction” (that is, judicial power) over Title VII claims. State courts are courts of “general jurisdiction” and therefore can exercise judicial power over any claims, though Congress can restrict jurisdiction over federal claims to federal courts. In 1990, the Supreme Court ruled that Congress had not done so (explicitly or implicitly) in Title VII.

Jury rules against Donald Rosenberg

A jury found for the Plain Dealer and the Cleveland Orchestra’s governing body yesterday, rejecting all of reporter Donald Rosenberg’s legal claims arising out of the decision by the Plain Dealer to relieve him of his duties as the Orchestra’s reviewer and reassign him.

As anyone who has followed my speculations on this lawsuit knows, I have always been skeptical of the legal merits of Rosenberg’s claims. As the NY Times article linked to above explains, the lawsuit “became a cause célèbre among music critics, who charged that The Plain Dealer had caved in to complaints from a subject of its reviews, touching a raw nerve among those who review arts for a living.”

Nevertheless, I could not discern any contractual right Rosenberg had to the job reviewing the Orchestra, so the reassignment didn’t seem to constitute any breach of contract. The Orchestra’s representatives have every right to complain about negative reviews to the Plain Dealer’s management as long as they didn’t lie about him in expressing those complaints. And the addition of an age discrimination claim simply didn’t fit the gist of the complaint — how could it be that the Plain Dealer’s reassignment of Rosenberg under pressure from the Orchestra constituted age discrimination?

If I were Rosenberg’s lawyer, I’d advise him not to appeal. The Los Angeles Times reports, however, that he hasn’t ruled out that possibility. It’s not that I don’t care if the Plain Dealer did cave into pressure from the Orchestra (certainly not the only quarter from which complaints about Rosenberg were heard). It’s that I don’t think a lawsuit by an individual who is reassigned as a result of that kind of pressure is the means of ensuring journalistic integrity.