Determination 50: Federal Land Co. & Councilman Thomas Egan v. Star Tribune
The newspaper in two separate complaints was accused of deliberately creating a false impression of the Eagan City Council’s handling of major land development issues in Eagan since 1975. The complainants were Eagan City Councilman Thomas Egan, Eagan Mayor Bea Blomquist, and Martin Colon, representing the Federal Land Company.
Background: Egan and Blomquist felt that they in particular had been implicated in the story, which was published in one of the newspaper’s community sections on December 2, 1982, with the headline “Brothers find Eagan climate favorable.” The newspaper, which later published two minor corrections, maintained that the article was accurate and balanced.
The article reviews at length events surrounding approval by the city and implementation by the Federal Land Company, owned by Martin and Vernon Colon, of a 10-year-old plan to develop land in Eagan. The article also describes the less successful efforts of other developers to secure from the city council and the city advisory planning commission, approval and financing for other proposed developments in the city.
The complainants identified 20 instances of what they contended were inaccurate or misleading statements that portrayed Blomquist and Egan as consistently favoring Federal over other developers.
Determination of the Council: The Council believes that the main journalistic issue presented by the case is not whether the description of events is accurate or inaccurate, but rather whether these events were properly reported by the newspaper. We conclude that they were not. Through a combination of unclear, incomplete and judgmental reporting, uncritical acceptance of conclusions from participants in the controversy and, in at least one important instance, the use of innuendo, the article creates an unfair and misleading impression of the complainants. This can be seen in the development of two of the article’s major themes.
The first asserts that the city, over a four-year period, consistently approved projects presented by Federal and opposed projects presented by other developers that constituted potential competition for Federal.
In response to that contention the complainants identified nine city approved projects in which Federal Land had no interest. Three of these projects actually competed directly with Federal projects or with tenants of Federal’s shopping center.
Further strengthening the article’s clear implication of favoritism to Federal in city development decisions is the absence of any information that would enable the reader to judge the merits of the respective proposals from the city’s point of view.
The second major theme of the article involves the roles of Blomquist, Egan and Martin Colon and the motives of the two city officials in supporting Federal projects and opposing those of potential competitors. The article’s only direct reference to Blomquist’s and Egan’s motives in allegedly favoring Federal is given in an obscure paragraph that creates an impression that the two were influenced by political contributions from the Colons:
Over the past year, their success in Eagan has come while the Colons have helped finance the re-election of both Blomquist and Egan. In 1981, the Colons contributed $200 each to two city officials. In addition, the Colons contributed $200 to Blomquist in her unsuccessful bid this fall to become a state legislator from House District 38B. There have been no suggestions that the contributions were improper.
The Council is not persuaded by the managing editor’s suggestion that inclusion of this statement could have been intended to dispel the notion that political contributions were involved because the amounts were so small.
The newspaper created an impression of the performance of the two city officials and a principal owner of Federal Land Company that was both biased and unfair. This impression was created not by literal misstatements of fact – although these may or may not have existed – but through implication, innuendo and omission of important facts.
As we said in the Sternberg against the Minneapolis Tribune case, the News Council recognizes the right of a newspaper or broadcast station to decide what facts, quotes and the like to include in news reports and features. Clearly not all of the material obtained for a story need or can be included. But when inferences are drawn from circumstantial evidence, it is not enough to select only those circumstances that support the inference. Furthermore, the Council recognizes the need for provocative leads and illustration. However, the Council also believes that news stories, particularly when they concern serious charges affecting a person’s reputation, should be fair, balanced and thorough. These requirements apply with no less force to stories that characterize the actions of public officials than to others. It is the Council’s belief that in this instance the newspaper failed to meet that standard.
The complaint against the newspaper is upheld.
Concurring: Brommer, Brooks, Earley, Egert, Forsythe, Gilson, Graven, Hedberg, Higgins, Pearce, Peek, Ryan, Selby, Simonett, Ziegenhagen.
Tags: Star Tribune