Determination 71: Nancy Barsness v. Pope County Tribune
Grievant Nancy Barsness complains that the Pope County Tribune failed to give fair and adequate coverage of a sex discrimination claim against Watkins Aircraft Support Products, Inc. (Watkins or WASP), a light manufacturing firm located in Glenwood, Minnesota.
In attendance at the hearing were Nancy Barsness, the grievant, and John R. Stone, publisher of the Pope County Tribune.
Background: In 1985, the City of Glenwood received a grant from the Minnesota Small Cities Development program. The city loaned these grant funds to Watkins for expansion of its operations. The Glenwood Development Corporation was designated by the city to make reports, to handle repayment of the loan, and to reinvest the funds in other worthy development projects.
On April 6, 1987, the Minnesota Department of Energy and Economic Development (DEED) wrote a letter to the mayor stating it had received a letter from an employee of Watkins “alleging that the company is discriminating against women in both hiring and employment practices,” which, if true, would violate the grant. The city was asked to inquire into the matter. On April 10, 1987, the mayor wrote the Department that “[w]e could find no discrimination.” In early June, Barsness met with Gene Wenstrom, who was working part time for the Development Corporation, and with a director of the Development Corporation to discuss the sex discrimination charges and the then pending investigation by the Department of Human Rights.
About 2 months later, on August 4, 1987, grievant Nancy Barsness appeared at the meeting of the Glenwood City Commission, at which time she presented a two-page statement mentioning the complaints of sex discrimination at Watkins, questioning the administration of the grant funds, and claiming lack of oversight of the project by the city. Barsness explained that “several female employees” had brought the matter to her attention the previous March. in her capacity as an outreach consultant for the Minnesota Women’s Fund. Also, on August 4, Barsness gave John Stone, who was reporting the commission meeting for his newspaper, a two-page “news release” setting out in detail the discrimination complaints involving the West Central plant operated by Watkins, and identifying the two women complainants by name.
Stone reported these events in the Pope County Tribune for August 10, 1987, in two stories, both under his byline. In the same issue, Stone wrote an editorial, “It should have been handled better,” in which the newspaper was critical of the Barsness news release and generally defended the Watkins operation as beneficial to the community’s economy. The next issue of the newspaper contained a letter to the editor from Barsness claiming the previous week’s coverage of the Watkins story was biased. The editor appended an editor’s note to this letter, setting out a long verbatim quote from the Barsness statement given to the city commission.
On September 11, the Department of Human Rights announced that it had found probable cause that unfair discriminatory practices had been committed by Watkins. This news was fully and fairly reported by the newspaper in its issue of September 21. On September 28, the newspaper published an editorial, “Good intentions apparently not enough,” which was sympathetic to Watkins. Another editorial entitled “Good news” appeared in the paper on October 5, commenting on a study about why some small towns survive while others fail, and noting, among other factors, that successful communities did not have “entrenched leadership” unwilling to accept change but “[n]ew-comers were welcomed into leadership roles.” Barsness responded to this editorial with a letter to the editor in the October 19 issue pointing out that the study had specifically mentioned “acceptance of women in leadership roles,” and citing the editorial’s failure to mention this as “once again demonstrat[ing] how biased this newspaper can be ….” The editor appended a note to this letter denying the charge of bias.
Finally, an editorial on October 13, 1986, commenting on several pending election contests, stated, “Nancy Barsness has been pecking at County Auditor Bill Boyle ….” Barsness objects to the word “pecking,” claiming it implies “hen-pecking,” a subtle form of sexism.
Discussion: Delay in coverage: The first claim is that the newspaper should not have waited until August 10, 1987, to report on the sex discrimination story, but should have printed a story in April when the mayor received the letter from DEED, or at least in early June after Barsness had met with Wenstrom.
The April 6 letter from DEED was vague, not specifying what the alleged discrimination might be. It was within the newspaper’s discretion not to treat the letter as a news story, at least not until further developments. The mayor’s response, finding no discrimination at Watkins, made within only a few days after DEED’s letter, suggests the city’s investigation may have been perfunctory. On the other hand, it appears that the Department of Human Rights was making its own confidential investigation and the parties concerned were waiting for its report. We find no evidence of a “cover-up,” either by the city or the newspaper. Indeed, Barsness, in her statement to the city commission, stated she would give the benefit of the doubt to the city in its cursory investigation because it “did not know what specifically to look for when they visited WASP.” While Barsness had met with Wenstrom in early June, neither Barsness nor Wenstrom reported their discussions to the Development Corporation or the newspaper. Stone was told the discrimination matter was being worked on, apparently satisfactorily. The Development Corporation did not meet in July.
On August 4, Barsness formally presented her complaint about the city’s handling of the Watkins matter at the city commission meeting, thus making the matter public. The newspaper promptly reported her charges. We do not believe it was improper for the Pope County Tribune not to have reported on the Watkins discrimination matter sooner. Small, out-state communities are concerned with economic development needed for survival and the need to encourage businesses which create jobs; at the same time, they are concerned with the important social issues of equality in today’s society. The local newspaper tries to balance these concerns, and, in a case such as we have here, unless it has the considerable resources needed for investigative reporting, may wait until unsubstantiated rumors and vague allegations gain some substance before publishing a story which may otherwise be inaccurate, unfair, or premature. Barsness, quite properly, created a news story by utilizing the public forum of a city commission meeting to present her claims formally and specifically. At this point, quite properly, the newspaper reported that news story.
This first grievance is denied.
Inaccurate, unfair coverage: The second claim is that the coverage of the discrimination story in the August 10 issue was inaccurate and unfair, and that, in reporting the story, Stone should have made a “disclaimer,” disclosing he was a vice president of the Development Corporation.
The News Council has carefully reviewed the articles in the August 10 issue. While there are some inaccuracies, they are minor and the Council finds that the complaints of the women employees and the position of their employer were fairly and adequately reported. One of the articles says that Barsness thought the DEED inquiry made in April had been “fairly investigated” because the city had not then known what to look for. We agree with Barsness that this was inaccurate, and editor Stone now agrees. Barsness’ position, rather, was that the city’s failure to investigate more fully was excusable under the circumstances. While Barsness objects to the article stating that two women had brought the matter to Barsness’ attention rather than “several,” the news release did refer to two women. Also, we do not think it was necessary for the news articles to contain a disclaimer by Stone. In editorials expressing a point of view, it may be appropriate to have a disclaimer; in Stone’s editorial involved here, we believe Stone should have noted his connection to the Development Corporation.
This second grievance is denied as to inaccuracy or unfairness but sustained as to the failure of the editorial to note Stone’s connection to the Development Corporation.
Letters to the editor: The third claim deals with the newspaper’s treatment of Barsness’ three letters to the editor. In each instance, the editor appended an editor’s note responding to what was said in the letter.
As a general rule, we think it best not to append an editor’s note to a letter to the editor, unless a note is needed to correct a statement of fact or to identify the letter writer, or perhaps to present the letter in its proper setting. An editor should avoid using an editor’s note to argue with the letter writer. To do so is to give the editor the “last word,” which will be perceived as unfair and which ordinarily is unfair. If the editor wishes to respond, he or she should do so in a separate personal column or in an editorial.
Here, with respect to the letters appearing in the issues of October 19 and October 26, the editor’s notes undertook to argue with the positions taken by Barsness in her letters and were, therefore, inappropriate. The editor’s note to the letter in the August 17 issue simply set out a quotation from Barsness’ earlier statement, but it might have been construed as arguing with the writer.
The third grievance is sustained.
Sexist terminology: Finally, grievant claims the October 1986 editorial reference to her “pecking” at a county official was a sexist term.
The Council finds no merit to this complaint. In an editorial, the writer has considerable liberty to express a personal point of view. Beyond that, we do not think in the context of the editorial that “pecking” is to be equated with “hen-pecking.” The latter term was not used, nor do we think it was implied.
The fourth grievance is denied.
A further comment might be appropriate here. From our observations of Barsness and Stone and their testimony, we were impressed with their good faith, professionalism, and willingness to communicate with each other. In an editor’s note to one of Barsness’ letters, Stone wrote, “While we wouldn’t [be] so naive as to assume that no discrimination exists, we would challenge the assertion that there is a conscious conspiracy [in the community] to keep women ‘in their place’ and would suggest that even unconscious discrimination is rapidly fading.” Barsness quite properly objected that she had not said anything about a “conscious conspiracy” or keeping women “in their place,” although she would, we are sure, point out there is much need to raise the consciousness of people about women’s rights. Thus, in her letter, Barsness argued there was evidence to “strongly suggest that reforms are needed in both attitudes of the local power structure ….” We mention this exchange only to illustrate that the newspaper does publish exchanges of views on such important matters. Any vital community needs a public forum for the expression of viewpoints on issues affecting the community, and it also needs people willing to use that forum. As the above quotations and the history of this case indicate, the Pope County Tribune and Nancy Barsness both realize this and both are committed to the well-being of the community they both serve.
Concurring, with some exceptions: Ashmore, Beaulieu, Bednar, Casey, Chucker, Falkman, King, Larson, Parrish, Persons, Ryan, Simonett, Warder
Dissenting on the first claim: Chucker
Dissenting in part on the second claim: Parrish, Larson, Beaulieu
Dissenting on the fourth claim: Beaulieu
Further concurrence: Ashmore - It is unfortunate the Council has missed this opportunity to guide publishers whose interest in community economic development might conflict with the public’s right to know.
Tags: Pope County Tribune