Determination 42: Commissioner Randy Johnson v. WTCN-TV
Hennepin County Commissioner Randy Johnson complained about two reports the station had broadcast regarding a breakfast meeting of the county board that was “shrouded in secrecy.” He contended that the reports were inaccurate, unfair, created a false impression of secrecy, hinted at illegality, and that he was not given an adequate chance to respond.
Background: The majority of the members of the Hennepin County Board began having a series of weekly breakfast meetings, and the station broadcast a report about one such meeting on its 5:30 p.m. news show August 21. The newscast referred to the meeting as being “shrouded in secrecy” and “at the crack of dawn,” and said that notice of the meeting had not been sent to the news media. The station said it had learned of the meeting from unnamed government center sources. One of the minority members of the board was quoted as having said the meeting may have been “outright illegal.”
Johnson, one of those attending the meeting, complained to the station that notice had been placed in Finance and Commerce, a daily publication that is the county’s official newspaper of record, in accordance with Minnesota’s Open Meeting Law. He felt the station had given the impression that he and the other commissioners had violated the law.
The station broadcast a second, longer report on August 25, which included a short interview with Johnson. The notice in Finance and Commerce was mentioned during the broadcast interview and in the reporter’s comments leading into it.
Johnson was still not satisfied with the station’s treatment of the meetings, feeling it had not dispelled the idea that the breakfast meetings were in violation of the Open Meeting Law. He demanded a retraction and an apology on the air, which was denied.
He complained that both broadcasts were inaccurate and unfair and that he was not given an adequate chance to respond to the implications of violation of the law. He told the Council that the purpose of these meetings was to “exchange information.” In his opinion, the meetings may not even have fallen within the Open Meeting Law, but he had placed the ad in the newspaper anyway, he said.
Response of the news organization: The station responded to the Council that both broadcasts were accurate and fair. It contended that the thrust of the two broadcasts was not that the commissioners had broken the Open Meeting Law, but that there were some “rather unusual circumstances” surrounding the meeting, including the early hour of the meeting, the small size of the meeting room and the limited publicity the commissioners sought. The station told the Council it knew about the notice in Finance and Commerce before the original newscast and said the notice’s existence was “implicit” in the story. If it hadn’t existed, the meeting would have been characterized as “secret” rather than “shrouded in secrecy,” the station said.
Determination of the Council: To say that the breakfast meeting of a majority of county commissioners was just “information trading” is to ignore the ease with which a board majority may discuss issues, negotiate positions, and rehearse for the full board meetings – without ever taking a vote. A consensus over coffee is not consistent with open government, particularly if the officials involved each represent more than 100,000 people and control a significant public budget.
It is no doubt true that the station could have characterized the meeting as something less potent than “shrouded in secrecy,” but the Council recognizes that it is the role of television news to take complex issues and pare them to understandable size and simplicity. It is also the role of the news media to aggressively report the actions of elected officials.
The lack of notice outside the minimum required by law, the small size of the meeting room, the lack of a printed agenda, and the hour of the meeting all contributed to the station’s decision to characterize the meeting as it did. These factors do suggest that the commissioners did not intend to have their meetings widely publicized or attended.
The Council finds that the station acted responsibly and professionally in the reporting of this story and commends the station for its determination to cover the actions of an important and powerful public body.
As to the matter of unnamed sources, the Council has said in the past that a news organization, when protecting the name of a source, should inform its audience that it is doing so, so the public can be alerted to any inaccuracies or biases that may be present in the story. In this case, the station chose not to name a source who could have injected his own biases into the information given. The Council feels it is best to name sources whenever possible.
The complaint against the television station is not upheld.
Concurring: Fairbanks, Foley, Froyd, Fushan, Hedberg, Hickman, Myers, Peterson, Rodriguez, Ryan, Shaw, and Whiting
Concurring Opinion: Peterson I suggest that the views of our dissenting colleagues warrant thoughtful consideration by the news media. It is not without significance that our dissenting colleagues constitute almost half of the Council’s participating public members, who to some extent reflect public perceptions of responsible news reporting.
Quite apart from the determination of the grievance itself, I know all members of the Council concur in commending the station for its complete cooperation in assuring a full and fair hearing of the grievance. It has demonstrated leadership among major broadcasters in this method of building bridges of understanding between it and the public it is committed to serve.
Dissenting Opinion: Anderson, Hetland, Provost, Selby and Staples – We agree that the station is to be commended for covering the county board. However, the station should have said on its August 21 broadcast that notice of the commissioners’ meeting had been published. The lack of customary notice, which usually includes phone calls from the county public affairs office, does not, in our opinion, warrant the secrecy language the station used. Johnson and the other majority members of the board were given a disproportionately brief period of air time in which to state their side of the story.
Tags: WTCN-TV