On the same day that Time recognizes journalist Jamal Khashoggi and other guardians of truth as its People of the Year, the Rapid City Journal reports that a right-wingnut who struggles with literacy and legality wants to pop reporters—and taxpayers—in the nose:
A member of a local public board who is angry about coverage by the Rapid City Journal proposed allocating $100,000 of taxpayer funds Tuesday night to sue the newspaper.
The motion was defeated 6-3, but a follow-up motion to draft a letter to the Journal requesting a retraction of allegedly inaccurate reporting was approved 6-3.
The motion to allocate money for a lawsuit was made by Nathan Gjovik, one of nine directors on the board of the West Dakota Water Development District.
“When you’ve got a bully on the beach, sometimes you’ve got to go pop them on the nose before you get things squared away, and that’s kind of how I look at the Rapid City Journal situation,” Gjovik said during the meeting [Seth Tupper, “Elected Official Wanted $100,000 of Taxpayer Money to Sue Newspaper,” Rapid City Journal, 2018.12.13].
At about the 74-minute mark in this audio/screen-cap recording of the second chunk of the West Dakota Water Development District’s long Tuesday meeting, Gjovik complained that in an October 17, 2017, article by Seth Tupper, “the Rapid City Journal referred to our board as ultra conservative quote unquote. This is a term that was designed to defame the board.”
Actually, Tupper never called the board “ultra-conservative”:
As the debate raged during the past few months, some board members and others who work with the board went public with allegations that the elected body has been overtaken, through elections and midterm appointments, by members of ultra-conservative local political groups who are using the board to take a broader ideological stand against taxes and government spending [Seth Tupper, “Funding for Black Hills Stream Gauges Dies on Fourth Vote Since May,” Rapid City Journal, 2017.10.17].
Gjovik complained further that “the article included a quote from an individual suggesting we were trying to deny people of quote cold clear water. I actually received threatening emails using that same terminology I didn’t appreciate that, didn’t appreciate the quote. Inclusion of this quote is designed to defame the board again, suggesting we are somehow trying to deny or compromise the availability of quote cold clear water by looking for better ways of measuring streamflow.”
Tupper did not “design” any quote; he factually reported an opinion expressed on the record at a public meeting:
Although the district is only in Pennington County, audience member David Hanna said Tuesday that he calculated, based on population data, that approximately 10 percent of all South Dakotans rely on “cold, clear water” from the Rapid Creek drainage system for some of their drinking water.
“And you’re going to take away funding for a measuring device that tells whether or not there is cold, clear water?” Hanna said. “That is so unbelievably ridiculous” [Tupper, 2017.10.17].
Gjovik then attacked an RCJ editorial column from November 1, 2018, for its unflattering headline: “This was basically a hit job targeting three of our board members here. It was titled waterboard dumps down drain for private fight quote unquote… It was published in your papers sir, yep, just before the election timing was impeccable. This was published in your paper just before the election…. This title alone is designed to defame the board.”
O.K., let’s drop the baloney. One cannot “defame” a public board. Let’s review the definition of “libel” in our defamation chapter:
Libel is a false and unprivileged publication by writing, printing, picture, effigy, or other fixed representation to the eye which exposes any person to hatred, contempt, ridicule, or obloquy, or which causes him to be shunned or avoided, or which has a tendency to injure him in his occupation [SDCL 20-11-3].
We expose public boards to hatred, contempt, ridicule, and obloquy all the time… and a lot of the time—as in this case, where an elected official suggests using tax dollars to sue a newspaper for making him unhappy with its coverage of his board—those boards deserve it.
Gjovik could try suing the Rapid City Journal himself, but the press, like all members of the public, has broad privilege to criticize public officials. Gjovik would have to prove that Tupper and RCJ knowingly and maliciously published false information about him personally… and all he seems to have is that the press used the term “ultra-conservative.” While I invite Gjovik to argue that “ultra-conservative” is an insult as loudly and frequently as he wants, as that might help us soil the Republican brand, I’m confident no judge is going to brand that political label as some sort of fighting word.
Once again, we see the real snowflakes in political discourse are ultra-conservatives like Gjovik, who just can’t stand having their bad policies challenged publicly. They seem to want everyone to act like Fox News, bubblingly and blindly affirming their failing worldview without critical analysis and honest accounting of facts.
Yet sore loser Mike Mueller, one of three ultra-conservative board members ousted in the November election in favor of local residents who care about clean water more than radical right-wing ideology, supported funding this misguided lawsuit and piled on to Gjovik’s threat against the free press:
Mueller seemed to blame his loss on the newspaper’s reporting.
“Congratulations on the win,” he said in comments directed toward the Journal during Tuesday night’s meeting. “Your judgment day is ahead” [Tupper, 2018.12.13].
Judgment day? Is that a threat, Mr. Mueller?
Fortunately, Mueller and his fellow sore losers were unable to convince a majority of the WDWDD to dump taxpayer dollars down Gjovik’s defamation hole. The board did vote 6–3, however, to ask the Rapid City Journal to retract whatever Gjovik thinks the paper reported incorrectly. I look forward to seeing that letter’s itemized list of Gjovik’s complaints, to which I hope the Rapid City Journal will respond simply by reprinting on page 1 the First Amendment.
I’m pretty sure one doesn’t need to be a lawyer to see the foolishness in wanting to sue in this case. Guys sound like the fool in the kremlin annex. That one has no clew how anything works, including libel laws. Must be a rogue gene that only wingnuts have.
Or maybe they think that threat alone will suffice. Drumpf has threatened to sue every one and their dogs.
Whackadoodles. The board could sue, though, because, as vegetables, they might have standing under South Dakota’s veggie disparagement law.
An incisive piece of journalism reviewing, Cory. With the daily reports of lying, distortions, and unvarnished stupidity in the White House, the yokels take courage from it. Carefully attributed reporting as Seth Tupper did in this case enrages those who detest democracy. He was reporting the facts of what has taken place at meetings on public business, which is precisely the task of the fourth estate, and it had its effect. One dolt was eliminated from messing up the public business. Perhaps the public exposure given to Gjovik will encourage him to resign.
Is Gjovik a fat guy? It’s funny when fat guys act like little kids – waving their arms around, yelling and pointing their fingers at people. You just have to laugh.
It’s also ironic that when the Journal pointed out the water board misusing public water-protection money for a lawsuit that Gjovik proposed wasting 14 times more public water-protection money for another guaranteed-loser lawsuit.
As the old saying goes, don’t pick a fight with anyone who buys ink by the barrel. Gjovik is now learning that lesson the hard way.
Why does that district even still exist anymore? If parts of Meade, Lawrence, or Custer were still in it, I’d see a point. But what’s the value of a water development district that’s just part of one county?
One thing about “ultra conservatives” is that they always want taxpayer money for the ridiculous. This bozo head fits right into the mold of the moldy politics we have in our state.
It is good that some of the antics of the water board are coming to the forefront. Even msn is reporting on this power struggle.
When those who are insaner than most gather in groups of 3 or more, such as in the legislatures, strange things tend to happen.
You out of staters probably don’t realize that Mr. Ferrebee, one of the insanest of them all, is behind all this water boarding. It is good that Rapid City and even my District 1 in the commissions of Pennington have awaken and doused these fellows with some chilly creek water.
Good point, Jerry! But maybe that’s why he accuses RCJ of defaming him by calling him an ultra-conservative. Even though Gjovik is a registered Republican, his request for a subsidy to pay for his lawsuit suggests that he’s really a big-spending liberal dependent on government assistance.
Of course, I don’t shout “LIBEL!” every time someone calls me a liberal, or ultra-liberal, or extreme liberal, or socialist, or communist… because I know I’d never win the case… and I’m not even an elected official.
Ror, I can’t and won’t speak to Nathan Gjovik’s size, but his failure to carefully read both Seth Tupper’s writing and SDCL Chapter 20-11 suggest his attention span and verbal comprehension may not be over-sized. But he is college educated, in public health and civil engineering.
Predictably, he flies the “Don’t Tread on Me” flag on his social media profile.
My goodness: Nathan Gjovik is Ron Swanson! He works as Assistant Public Works Director for Box Elder! Box Elder hired Gjovik in May; local taxpayers pay him $68,036.70 for his government work.