The World was not amused, especially since they had the facts on their side.
How do we know? We know because Bates admitted as much when the World dropped its libel suit against Bates last week and Bates signed a letter "to set the record straight."
Here are a few more highlights from the Bates letter of February 10:
My suggestion that Tulsa World circulation was 20% higher in 2005 than in 2006 was incorrect.In his response to the libel action, Bates originally defended his research on his Batesline blog. Indeed, he seemed prepared to fight the defamation charges. (That post has since been removed.)
Accordingly, the suggestion that Tulsa World circulation was "inflated" is incorrect. There is absolutely no evidence to support this claim.
Upon being presented with the Tulsa World's information, I now realize the extreme action that they took in suing me and Urban Tulsa Weekly for defamation and disparagement and do not disagree with the Tulsa World's need to set the record straight. My research was flawed and information in my story was false and inaccurate, and I retract those incorrect statements.
UTW backed away from the story quickly, leaving Bates in an extremely awkward position. Last week, Bates signed the letter quoted above acknowledging "numerous errors."
Whatever else the Bates letter may represent, it certainly reads like a complete humiliation of Bates in his war on the Tulsa World.