Determination 52: Spectrum v. Star Tribune
Bruce Brisbine, Vice President and General Manager of Spectrum subscription television, complained that an error damaging to Spectrum, which appeared in a popular local sports column, should have been corrected in or near the column. Brisbine also alleged a conflict of interest on the part of the column writer, who is also employed by a Spectrum business competitor.
Background: On January 17, 1984, in the Sid Hartman sports column of the Minneapolis Star Tribune, there appeared an item about the Minnesota Twins’ payroll, which included the statement: “Of the $1.8 million the Twins lost last year, about $600,000 was for legal expenses, including a lawsuit against Spectrum, the cable television enterprise.”
The statement was incorrect. The lawsuit, which was well-publicized, was in fact brought by Midwest Radio and Communications, Inc., against the Minnesota Twins and the North Stars, and Spectrum was brought into the suit as an additional party. Spectrum protested the error and the next day the paper published a correction, phrased precisely as requested by Brisbine, stating that the $600,000 legal expenses incurred by the Twins included “costs to defend the team and Spectrum, a broadcast pay television company, in a lawsuit brought by Midwest Radio and Communications.”
Spectrum’s complaint concerned the placement of the correction. The paper put the correction in its Corrections space on page 3 of Section A; Spectrum contends it should have appeared in the sports section, either in or near the Hartman column, because of the wide readership of the column. Spectrum contended that many of those who read the erroneous statement in the January 17 column would not have seen the correction of the error the next day in a different section of the paper.
Response of the News Organization: The newspaper agreed that a fair correction policy requires that they be placed to catch the attention of the readers. The paper believes this policy is best served by having corrections appear as a standard feature in the same location in the paper each issue. For the past eight years, the paper has allotted the Correction space on page 3A for this purpose, and it always appears, whether or not on a particular day there are any corrections to be made. The newspaper believed this procedure was a fair and adequate means to inform its readership of corrections.
While conceding that the Hartman column is a popular column with a devoted readership, the newspaper justified its requiring column errors to also appear on page 3A in order to further consistency in its corrections policy. The requirement also reflects the paper’s philosophy that when an error occurs, it is the newspaper’s error, for which the paper assumes responsibility.
Determination of the Council: The Council appreciates that the standard corrections feature that the newspaper has carefully thought out has valid policy reasons to support it. In this instance, considering the nature of the Spectrum error and the circumstances, this Council believes that placement of the Spectrum correction was appropriate and adequate. The complaint against the newspaper is not upheld.
Having said this, the Council believes further comment is warranted. Generally speaking, corrections should be phrased within a meaningful context and be placed to come to the attention of the media’s readers or listeners. With respect to the newspaper’s corrections policy, it seems that there may be occasions when correction on page 3A of an error that appeared in a popular column will not be adequate. Exceptional situations may require exceptions, and the Sid Hartman column is an exceptional column. The stubborn fact is that a large, specialized audience reads the column and that many (it seems safe to assume) do not read or are unlikely to read page 3A. Moreover, while readers who are looking for a correction may turn to page 3A, a reader who has read an erroneous statement not knowing it to be erroneous has no reason to turn to page 3A. We encourage the paper to consider the advisability, when an error occurs in a popular column, of including the correction in or near the column itself, as well as on page 3A.
In this particular case, however, we note that the reference to Spectrum litigation was only peripheral to the subject matter being discussed, that the error caused no demonstrable harm to Spectrum, and that the error apparently was unintentional and made in good faith. In this connection, the grievant points out that Hartman is also employed by WCCO Radio, which is owned by Spectrum’s competitor, Midwest Radio and Communications, Inc. This relationship, we observe, is open and well-known, and it is not seriously claimed that this relationship in any way prompted the error in the Hartman column. It was stated by the newspaper that under the guild contract Hartman is permitted to work for a radio station as well as for the newspaper. There is nothing in the evidence to suggest that Hartman’s column of January 17 posed any conflict of interest.
The grievant’s complaint in this respect is not upheld.
Concurring: Bednar, Brooks, Casey, Forsythe, Gilson, Graven, Higgins, Myers, Persons, Ryan, Selby, Simonett, Staples, Ziegenhagen
Concurring in Part, Dissenting in Part: Chucker, Pearce I agree with the majority decision to deny the complaint on both points; however, I disagree with some of the language of the determination. The newspaper is attempting to adhere to a consistent corrections policy. This policy is commendable. It is a mistake to recommend exceptions. I do not know how to define “exceptional situations” as a loophole to that policy, nor do I know by what standards a column’s popularity is judged.
Concurring in Part, Dissenting in Part: Ashmore, Brommer The determination seems inconsistent because it denies the complaint but then affirms, at least in part, the principle upon which the complaint is based. It gives the paper a confusing message. Whether or not the mention of Spectrum was peripheral, caused Spectrum injury, or was an intentional error, the readers of Hartman’s column were misled. Having established in the determination that the paper should consider placing corrections concerning individual writers’ columns within those columns, the importance, injurious nature, or malice of the particular error might be very difficult to prove. The determining factor should be whether or not an error was made within such a column. In this case, it is universally agreed such an error was made. The newspaper should have printed the correction in Hartman’s column, not to soothe Spectrum’s possible injury, but to properly inform its readers. Hartman’s long-standing relationship with the other party to the lawsuit does not indicate a conflict of interest, but should make the paper all the more eager to correction any misconceptions caused by the error.
Tags: Star Tribune