Determination 77: Scott Vreeland & Cedar Riverside Community Group v. Star Tribune
Scott Vreeland presented his grievance and the Star Tribune was represented by Tim McGuire, managing editor; Mike Finney, deputy managing editor; Lou Gelfand, reader representative; and Mike Kaszuba, reporter.
Scott Vreeland, chairman of the board of the Cedar-Riverside Project Area Committee (PAC), a neighborhood governing body of elected, unpaid members, complained that an August 4, 1988, article about the neighborhood in the Star Tribune was “bad journalism.”
Background: The article appeared on page one, with the headline “Cedar Riverside finds itself in a midlife crisis.” Grievant complained that the article did not contact “firsthand sources,” that some sources were described generally as “neighborhood activist” and “key official,” etc., rather than by name, that the article contained untrue statements, that the reporter was “hoodwinked” by factions in a political dispute, that the article was not front-page news, that alleged problems with the article were “covered up” by an inadequate correction of an error in fact and a follow-up article which dealt with only one issue, a lawsuit, and failed to report a significant comment by the judge in dismissing the lawsuit, and finally, that the article was “intellectually sloppy” for use of terms such as “left winger,” “hippies,” “insiders,” etc., and the “midlife crisis” metaphor of the headline.
Discussion: The Council discussed all aspects of the complaint but concentrated primarily on the allegations of factual inaccuracy, attribution of comments as to source, and the suggested “cover-up” of the article’s alleged problems in a correction and a future article. The article stated that “the whole thing is ludicrous to me,’ said Tim Mungavan, a longtime staff person at the Cedar-Riverside PAC, who now serves as a consultant to it. Mungavan, who with his wife lives in a three-bedroom remodeled cooperative unit in Cedar Riverside, is one of the neighborhood leaders who have come under criticism for allegedly altering policies that previously gave the largest living units to large families. He denies he benefited from decisions made by the organization.” A complaint to the newspaper about the reference to just Mungavan and his wife in the three-bedroom unit resulted in the following correction published by the Star Tribune on August 4, 1988:
“An article in Thursday’s edition said Tim Mungavan and his wife (Dorothy) live in a three-bedroom remodeled cooperative unit in Cedar-Riverside. Mungavan, the article said, has been criticized for allegedly altering policies that previously gave the largest living units to large families. The article did not say that Ann Jacobs, daughter of Dorothy, lives with the Mungavans.”
Grievant complained that the correction treated a false implication “like an error in math.” He also said that the policies were never altered and that persons who would know that they were not altered were not contacted by the reporter. The Council recognizes the potential problem of corrections being “out of context,” but believes that the interested reader either makes the proper connection or seeks an explanation. In this instance, the Council believes the correction properly set the record straight as to the number of persons living in the Mungavan unit. Grievant’s several references to the policies not having been changed also lack merit because the newspaper only said that it had been “alleged” that the policies were rewritten and that PAC had been “accused” of rewriting them, which is the case.
The Council noted that the article attributed most quotations to a named source and agreed that a name was not essential in the few instances where the article referred to sources in more general terms. The newspaper used several sources for the article and the Council finds no fault with the newspaper for not using some of the sources complainant would have chosen.
A January 19, 1989, article in the Star Tribune reported that a Hennepin County district judge said that the lawsuit against PAC was not properly before the court because the petitioners had not exhausted their administrative remedies. The judge further said in her order that “plaintiffs are unlikely to prevail on the merits of this case.” Grievant complained to the Star Tribune reader representative that the January 19 story did not report the judge’s comments about the merits of the case. Reader Representative Lou Gelfand wrote in his column of Sunday, January 22, 1989, that the reporter said he agreed the comment should have been in the story, and Gelfand added his opinion that “the judge’s statement that the plaintiffs are unlikely to prevail was almost as significant as her refusal to hear the case. That should have been in the newspaper.” The Council recognizes and appreciates the reader representative’s role of reviewing complaints and sometimes criticizing the newspaper, and believes that the newspaper’s willingness to print the criticism is ample demonstration, along with its earlier correction of the only significant error in the story, that there was no effort to “protect” the first story.
The Council found the original article to be an interesting historical perspective and update on an interesting and sometimes controversial community. The article did not deal only with a lawsuit against PAC but with many changes in the continually developing area. The Council is hesitant to second-guess an editor’s decision about what is or is not a front-page story and we see no reason to challenge the newspaper’s decision of front-page placement in this instance.
Complaint denied.
Concurring: Casey, Chucker, Falkman, Graham, Hanley, King, Orwoll, Parrish, Pennock, Simonett, Stauffer, Stone, Swain
Abstaining: Givens
Dissenting: Larson
Tags: Star Tribune