Dodge complained that the broadcasts contained factual inaccuracies, presented an unfair view of her working record and misled television viewers about the actual amount of work she did, whether in or out of her office. Dodge alleged that the reports were researched in a sloppy and unethical manner; for example, reporters would telephone her home to see if she was at home during office hours and would immediately hang up if she answered, she said. She complained the reports constituted a personal attack.

At the hearing Dodge presented signed statements from several persons the station claimed to have contacted during research for the reports. These persons stated the research was not carried out as claimed. Dodge also challenged the appropriateness of reporter assignment on the case, charging that the reporter selected might have been biased against her as he had opposed her in a previous primary contest.

Following a Council investigation that revealed discrepancies between the station’s reports and official government attendance records, the station conceded that it inadequately researched its reports and as a result inaccurately reported some facts in the broadcasts. The station earlier offered Dodge an opportunity to refute the reports on the air; Dodge refused, claiming her rebuttal would be less prominent, professional, and effective than the three station reports.

Determination of the Council: The content of the three television reports on Commissioner Dodge contained inaccuracies as a result of inadequate research. Further, news organizations should not make unofficial charges against a person without giving that person a chance to reply; Dodge should have been presented with the specifics of the charges and given an opportunity to respond during the reports.

To this extent, the complaint against the station is upheld. An offer by the station to allow Dodge to come on the air and respond to the reports after they had been broadcast was a reasonable effort to remedy the situation. In addition, although the news broadcasts were inaccurate and unfair, there was no evidence of a personal vendetta against Dodge by the station. Dodge’s assertion that a different reporter should have been assigned to the story is rejected.

Therefore, the complaint is accepted in part, rejected in part.

Concurring Opinion: Shellum, Finnegan, Spielman – The station’s news reports about the performance in office of Commissioner Dodge were misleading because they were seriously imbalanced by the persistent suggestion to viewers that attendance in office and at committee meetings is the sole criterion by which performance of a county commissioner should be judged. The station should have dealt with that imbalance in the broadcasts by indicating any of the many other grounds for judgment of performance. Failure to do this leaves the broadcasts seriously misleading.