Determination 26: MN Soft Drink Association v. Minneapolis Tribune
Dave Locey, lobbyist for the Minnesota Soft Drink Association, complained that the newspaper deliberately slanted its coverage of a litter tax bill and mandatory deposit bill under consideration by the state legislature in its 1977 session.
Background: Locey charged that the paper’s coverage, including inaccuracies and omissions as well as poorly timed and inadequately presented corrections, reflected an editorial policy deliberately designed to support the paper’s corporate goals. (As a litter-producing organization, the paper would be taxed under the litter tax provision.)
The complaint focused specifically on: a misleading headline and lead paragraph on a Minnesota Poll story that inaccurately indicates most Minnesotans favored a mandatory deposit on beverage containers; inaccuracies and omissions in an editorial supporting the deposit, including failure to mention the paper’s financial stake in the outcome of the controversy; inaccuracies in news story and headline; and inadequacy of corrections printed. Some corrections did not appear until several weeks after the error; some corrections were made, not directly through a specific announcement of error, but obliquely through different information in an editorial.
Locey complained in general about what he considered the ill-defined role of the news media as advocates of legislation, and recommended such regulatory action as registration of editorialists as lobbyists, to curb the advocacy power of the media.
Determination of the Council: Evidence verified the factual errors alleged by Locey; the newspaper in part admitted its errors. Locey’s complaint that the inaccuracies and errors of omission were inadequately corrected with respect to timing and presentation is accepted. The correction and clarification procedures in practice by the paper at that time were tardy, nonsystematic and generally inadequate.To this extent, the complaint against the newspaper is upheld.
There was no evidence to support Locey’s complaint that editorial pressure or corporate conflicts of interest affected the integrity of the paper’s coverage of the bills in question. The Council rejects any form of government regulation of the press, and defends a newspaper’s constitutional right and responsibility to impartially and accurately report the news, and without restraint to state its opinions in editorials. The Council strongly opposes Locey’s proposal that editorial writers be required to register as lobbyists.
Therefore, the complaint is accepted in part, rejected in part.
Tags: Minneapolis Tribune