Determination 13: Sen. Mel Hansen v. Minneapolis Tribune
Senator Mel Hansen complained that the newspaper treated him unfairly when it edited and deleted portions of his letter to the editor without discussing the changes with him before publication. The letter had been solicited by the paper as a means of satisfying a complaint Hansen had over a previous story.
Background: A story in the newspaper erroneously stated that a committee calling itself “Invest in Minnesota” was an effort of the state GOP Central Committee to raise money for the Republican Party. Hansen, co-chairman of Invest in Minnesota, discussed the inaccuracies of the story with the paper’s reader’s representative, who agreed the newspaper would print a correction and a clarifying letter to the editor from Hansen.
A brief correction was printed. Hansen’s letter then appeared in the letters column with its last two paragraphs deleted. Hansen said the newspaper’s spokesman had assured him the letter would be printed in its entirety if kept to one page in length. The brief correction and the shortened letter were inadequate correction of the original inaccuracy, Hansen said. The paper’s spokesman said he gave no assurance the letter would appear unedited. He further claimed Hansen had told him the last two paragraphs of the letter could be cut if space limitations required it.
Response of the News Organization: The newspaper’s managing editor said that no promise can ever be made in advance that a letter will be published in full, and that all letters are subject to editing and trimming. The paper admitted, however, that solicited letters require special handling and that Hansen should have been consulted before the deletion was made.
Determination of the Council: The dispute arose because of a misunderstanding between two parties. Although the paper did not make its letters policy clear to Hansen, it acted fairly in its efforts to correct its errors. While Senator Hansen felt it was improper for the paper to edit his letter in the absence of an agreement with him, the paper does have the right-and it is so expressed in its letters policy. Newspapers should make clear to the public their policies on letters to the editor. Periodic reiteration of such policies in print is the best means of clarifying them to readers.
The complaint against the newspaper is not accepted.
Tribune Policy
As a result of the dispute, the Minneapolis Tribune adopted a new procedure for handling letters solicited by the newspaper from aggrieved sources to ensure that writers of such letters will be fully aware of the newspaper’s letters policy and will be informed that editing and trimming may be required. Wallace Allen, Tribune managing editor, told this to the News Council on November 7, 1974:
The reader’s representative, acting on behalf of the editor of the Tribune, will work out the form of such a letter in consultation with the managing editor and editor.
The reader’s representative should make sure in his negotiations with an aggrieved party that any understanding about possible trims in a letter is recorded in writing-preferably signed by the complaining party.
The reader’s representative must make sure that the letter is published as finally submitted. In other words, such letters, when delivered to the editorial page editor by either the managing editor or reader’s representative, will be published without further editing.
If any problem arises in the editorial department over a possible trim, no trim should be made until and unless it is approved by the editor, managing editor or reader’s representative.
Tags: Minneapolis Tribune