Determination 66: George Grant v. Star Tribune
On May 12, 1986, the Minneapolis Star and Tribune published an article about a new county land-bidding policy which repealed the city’s right to bid competitively on tax-forfeited, blighted properties. A city councilman was quoted as displeased with George Grant, the complainant, who had outbid the city on a house the city had wanted to purchase. The article portrayed Grant as a landlord troublesome to the city.
Thereafter, when the newspaper’s reporter contacted Grant for his side of the story, Grant gave an interview which resulted in an article published May 20, 1986, with the headline, “Ex-legislator spurned politics, farming to become controversial city landlord.” Grant claims this article is unfair, biased, and fails to tell his story.
Present at the hearing were George Grant, the complainant; Tim McGuire, managing editor of the Minneapolis Star and Tribune, and Lou Gelfand, readers’ representative for the newspaper.
Background and Discussion: The article reports that complainant was a five-term state legislator from rural Minnesota, but now, 15 years later, has a new life as a rental property owner in south Minneapolis. The article mentions that the city had brought condemnation proceedings against six of Grant’s buildings and that the list of building code violations was long. Grant admits to a long list of complaints against his rental properties but says his troubles with the city housing inspectors are the result of complaints from neighbors who object to his tenants, many of whom are American Indians and Hmong He says he improves his properties, that his tenants are pleased with him as a landlord, and that complaints against him are racially motivated.
Two of Grant’s disputes with city officials were noted in the article. Two neighbors were quoted as dissatisfied with the manner in which Grant maintained his properties. Much of the article, however, was devoted to Grant’s previous legislative career and his current lifestyle.
Among other things, the article described Grant at the interview as unkept, dirty, and dressed in a tattered shirt, and driving a 1969 Rambler. Complainant points out that the article failed to report that at the time he was tearing old floorboards out of the attic of one of his buildings, and understandably his untidy appearance reflected the work he was doing. Complainant felt, too, the reference to the age of his car was unnecessary. It seems to the Council it would have been more appropriate for the article to have explained the circumstances under which complainant’s appearance was observed.
The article mentioned that Grant talked about a kind of spiritual relationship with animals and quoted Grant as saying, among other things, that “I live like an animal.” As Grant explained at the hearing, his philosophy was to live in harmony with nature and nature’s creatures. The Council believes the article’s description of complainant’s philosophy was not inconsistent with Grant’s explanation.
Complainant charges that the article, in effect, portrays him as a slum landlord. Grant says this is untrue and unfair. He states he provides low-cost housing for poor people and that the tenants are satisfied with his housing. At one point in the article, it is stated: “Olson said he is now trying to form a partnership with at least 10 other homeowners in the neighborhood to buy dilapidated housing before Grant and other undesirable landlords buy it.” The newspaper points out the reference to Òundesirable landlords” is attributed to Olson and is not editorializing on the part of the newspaper. Grant contends that more of his side of the housing story should have been given, but the article does quote one of Grant’s tenants who said Grant was a good landlord who fixes things when they need fixing. A city housing inspector is also quoted as saying that Grant “honestly believes he’s helping these people out there.”
Complainant maintains that an independent inspection of his properties would establish that his buildings are not substandard. It was not incumbent, however, on the newspaper to participate in an independent investigation off the properties, regardless of who would pay for the study – and Grant did offer. The newspaper article was not a project in investigative reporting. It was simply reporting on a controversy that was in the news.
The newspaper article was really a profile piece on complainant, who had become newsworthy because of his former public service in the legislature and his now quite different lifestyle. Complainant was described at one point in the article as an “enigma” and another time as an “anomaly” to those who know him.
We might add that the headline which says Grant has spurned politics is inaccurate, except as “spurned politics” could be taken to mean “spurned elected office.” As Grant explained at the hearing, while he no longer seeks political office, he still maintains an active interest in politics.
Decision: The article portrays complainant, as the headline states, as a “controversial landlord,” and contains quotes from many persons, from former legislative colleagues to city officials and neighbors, to tenants, but the newspaper article does not editorialize. Complainant is depicted as a person who, following Thoreau’s dictum, marches to his own drummer. We think the article, taken as a whole, is reasonably fair and balanced.
The grievance is denied.
Concurring: Ashmore, Beaulieu, Bednar, Chucker, Dornfeld, Falkman, Larson, Mundale, Ryan, Simonett, Stone, Sundin, Swain, Tanick, Warder
Special concurrence: Ashmore - Grant’s situation merits continued monitoring by the Star and Tribune news staff. Some effort should be made to determine the veracity of his charge that city officials are using the inspections department to displace Indian tenants. Simply asking one of the inspectors, as the newspaper said the Star and Tribune did, would not reveal this kind of information.
Special concurrence: Dornfeld - The Minneapolis Star and Tribune article on George Grant clearly was intended to be a profile on a colorful public figure, rather than an in-depth investigation of city housing inspection problems.
Nonetheless, since questions were raised about Grant’s track record as a landlord, he should have been given the opportunity to present his side of the story – that his troubles with the housing inspectors are the result of complaints from neighbors who object to his tenants, many of whom are American Indians.
Tags: Star Tribune