Determination 11: Elizabeth Guthrie v. Minneapolis Tribune
Elizabeth S. Guthrie of Orono complained that the paper’s aggressive reporting about a local kidnapping endangered the life of the victim when it assigned a reporter to follow the course of ransom-drop attempts. She claimed that the paper acted illegally when it monitored and reported on police-band radio broadcasts about the kidnapping because a federal statute prohibits such reporting without permission from the Federal Bureau of Investigation.
Background: Guthrie is a neighbor of Mrs. H.C. Piper, Jr., who in 1972 was kidnapped and held for ransom. The conduct of the media at that time had worried Guthrie, and it concerned her again when she saw this conduct repeated following the March 1974 kidnapping of Eunice Kronholm.
Following the Kronholm kidnapping, the newspaper informed the FBI that many citizens’ radios were picking up police broadcasts about the case; the paper received no request from any official to withhold the information being broadcast by the police. The paper dispatched a reporter in an automobile and conveyed to him the ransom-drop instructions given in the police broadcasts. The reporter followed the course of several unsuccessful ransom drops and the story was published the following day.
The presence of the Tribune reporter – and of many other media persons – caused the FBI and police to take two extraordinary measures: first, no police or FBI surveillance took place for the last of the planned ransom drops; second, a primary suspect was arrested before Kronholm was released. After the suspect was arrested, the media broadcast the news and Kronholm successfully convinced her captors to release her.
Response of the News Organization: The newspaper indicated at the hearing that while the method of acquiring the news story may have been questionable, the published story was sufficiently vague that it could not have caused further jeopardy. Following the kidnapping, the Tribune adopted new policies designed to ensure that the paper’s reporters would not endanger human life by their newsgathering activities and would not disseminate information picked up from police-radio broadcasts.
Determination of the Council: The ransom drop in a kidnap case involves a time of substantial tension; interference can further imperil a victim. The newspaper did not exercise proper journalistic responsibility in the manner in which it gathered the news of the Kronholm kidnapping ransom drop by monitoring police radios and relaying the information to a reporter attempting on-the-scene coverage. Further, the newspaper did not act responsibly in publishing its story about the unsuccessful ransom drops. The paper’s newly adopted policy advising reporters to let “common sense and human compassion temper our decisions” is commended. (The newspaper’s stated policy follows this summary.)
The complaint against the newspaper is upheld.
On March 22, 1974, the Minneapolis Tribune adopted Staff Memo No. 151:
Coverage of a kidnapping is a tricky thing. We need to talk about it, in view of some media activities in the Kronholm ransom drop. All staff members should learn two lessons from our experience:
Tribune staff members cannot and must not become involved in any activities that could cause a person’s injury or death. We are here to cover the news, not to make it.
There are times when the mere methods of coverage can affect the news. Several hard-to-answer questions are involved: Does a newspaper withhold news of a kidnapping if it is believed release of the news will endanger the life of the victim? Does a newspaper try for a scoop – either in story or in pictures – if there is danger to the victim? In the Kronholm case, should a newspaper – or radio or television station – have become involved in attempting to follow a ransom drop?
The answers aren’t easy because they involve the conflicts of aggressive pursuit of the news and our responsibility to a society and its individuals.
But one thing is clear: We should engage in no news activity that is likely to bring injury or death to a person because of our methods or actions. We need to get the news – swiftly and fully – but not irresponsibly. No news story is worth a human life. You have only to imagine what would have happened had Mrs. Kronholm been killed, with the media sharing part of the blame.
So let’s be sure common sense and human compassion temper our decisions.
The Tribune should not disseminate material picked up from police-radio broadcasts. We have the right to monitor the broadcasts and take action on them; it is against the law to print the matter which is broadcast.
Use of the contents of monitored broadcasts is prohibited by Section 605 of the Federal Communications Act. What do we do instead? We monitor such broadcasts and then talk to the police sources involved. We tell them we have heard the broadcasts and we ask for authorization to use the material. If the police say no, we ask the questions necessary to get our story.
At the time of the grievance hearing, Charles Bailey, editor of the Tribune, said that on May 18, 1974, he had distributed an additional policy to all members of the Tribune staff to be followed where a person’s safety may be in jeopardy. The policy read as follows:
The Tribune does not always need to be first with a story. We should never let other media set our standards.
It is always possible, though by no means automatic, to delay publication of a particular item of sensitive information if requested to do so by a law-enforcement official in charge of a case. I might note at this point that so far as I am aware we received no request relating to any phase of our news coverage of the Kronholm case from any FBI official.
We should, in such situations, avoid highly visible reporting activities.
In dealing with subjects that raise the possibility of injury to persons involved in the story, reporters must seek direction from their supervisors, and those supervisors must consult the editor of the Tribune or, in his absence, the managing editor.
Tags: Minneapolis Tribune