A Pioneer Press reporter contacted Peek about the story. She was not enthusiastic about being quoted in such a story, but she was assured that she would not be emphasized in the story and that she was being contacted mainly because of her familiarity with the political scene and her ability to suggest other sources, not because of her earlier involvement with pro-abortion activities.

A second Pioneer Press reporter, assigned to write the story, interviewed Peek. During the interview Peek stressed her concern that the story focus on the political effects of the abortion issue rather than on the philosophical issue of abortion itself. Peek provided the reporter with names of other politically involved people to contact, and again stressed her concern that she not be highlighted in the article. The reporter assured her she would not be the focus of the story, and told her the story would appear in several months.

A short time later an editorial column in the Pioneer Press discussing the new weekend edition carried a miniature mock-up of the new feature headed “Pro/Con: The Politics of Abortion.” Using a magnifying glass, Peek determined that only she and one other person (the head of the abortion rights lobbying group) were mentioned on the “Pro” side; names on the “Con” side were obscured in the mock-up. She complained to the reporter that the article appeared to be an inflammatory piece about feminists pushing abortion, and she felt she had been “set up” since he had told her several other sources would be contacted. The reporter assured Peek the story was not as she pictured it, and promised to send her a copy of the story so she could read it. Peek did not receive the copy and later left on a vacation.

Returning to the city several weeks later, Peek saw billboards posted around the city carrying the same mock-up, with the names on the “Con” side obscured and only the two names shown on the “Pro” side – one of the names being her own.

Determination of the Council: A newspaper engaged in its own promotional advertising has a status no different from that of other advertisers, and has the same obligation to seek and secure the consent of persons whose names or pictures will be used in advertising and promotional activities. Using the name and interview of Mary Peek in an unpublished story for promotional purposes without securing Peek’s consent departed from the accepted standards of responsible, professional journalistic conduct.

It is true that a reporter has no obligation to permit the subject of a news story to read the story before publication. Further, there is no obligation to change the story in the event the interviewee did read it and expressed dissatisfaction. However, once a newspaper reporter or other news organization representative promises the subject of a news story that he or she may see the article before publication, there is a moral obligation to follow through on the promise or to advise the person if and why the promise will not be kept. Failure to do so by the newspapers constituted unacceptable journalistic conduct.

There is no support for the notion that the newspaper tried to “set up” Peek regarding the content or format of the story. But the paper failed to communicate adequately with Peek regarding the story as it was to be finally presented. The newspaper led Peek to believe that she would not be a primary focus in the story, or at least that other interviewees would be contacted. This failure to follow through on commitments made to the interviewee was unprofessional and improper.

The complaint against the newspapers is upheld.