Determination 85: WAMM & Women/Work/Welfare v. KARE-TV
In February 1990, KARE-TV, Channel 11 ran a three-part series depicting abuses in the state welfare system by welfare recipients. At the time, certain remedial legislation was being proposed in the legislature. The general thrust of the series was that large sums of welfare funds were being lost because of fraudulent claims by recipients and that the public authorities were devoting insufficient resources and personnel to investigate the fraud. Women Against Military Madness (WAMM) filed a complaint with the Council, claiming that the program contained factual inaccuracies. As the basis for its complaint, WAMM relied on a two-page fact sheet prepared by the Department of Human Services entitled “Corrections to False or Misleading Statements in KARE 11 Welfare Fraud Series.”A Question of Standing: On occasion, the Council may sponsor a forum to discuss a media topic; in this setting, the question of standing does not arise. When, however, the Council hears a particular charge against a particular newspaper or television station, the Council generally requires that the complaining party have standing, i.e., some immediate, direct personal interest which is adversely affected by the news story. The requirement of standing gives some assurance that both sides of the dispute will be adequately presented and represented; that the issues will be well-defined; and that due process is accorded the party against whom the complaint is made.
WAMM is primarily devoted to peace issues, although it points out that it considers this to include a concern for governmental programs, especially those affecting women and including the administration of the AFDC and food stamp programs. On the other hand, the real party of interest would seem to be the Department of Human Services. The Department administers and supervises the welfare system discussed in the televised series, and the Department, in this case, prepared a “fact sheet” disputing matters shown in the television program. The Department, however, has declined to file a grievance.
The chairperson of a group known as the Women, Work and Welfare Committee (WWW) was also interviewed in the KARE series. The chairperson attended the hearing and stated her group wished to join in the grievance. Being so advised, the Council, by a divided vote (6 to 4), decided to entertain the grievance.
By letter, KARE stated it did not believe the (original) grievant had proper standing to bring the complaint. The August 29 hearing (which considered the matter of standing) was adjourned until October 18, 1990, at which time KARE representatives appeared. The Women, Work, and Welfare Committee filed its written joinder in the grievance, and its chairperson was also in attendance. The issues were limited to those raised in WAMM’s letter of August 7, 1990.
Background: WAMM does not object to KARE’s decision to focus its series on welfare fraud abuse. It claims, however, that there were distorting, factual inaccuracies:
- The program stated that 1,500 to 2,000 persons on general assistance in Minneapolis often receive their money at the post office as general delivery. The Department of Human Services says no general assistance checks are ever sent to a general delivery address. While aware of Hennepin County’s policy, KARE interviewed on camera a postal employee who stated he had been handing out checks at his window, and the reporter obtained confirmation of this from some recipients who came to the window.
- The reporter stated that “the opportunity for free cash and extraordinary medical benefits is a great draw” for people to come to Minnesota from other states. The Department cites two surveys indicating that most recipients who come to Minnesota do so to look for work or to be near relatives or for other reasons unrelated to welfare benefits. KARE counters that its statement is supported by its own interviewing and research.
- KARE reported that the welfare program was “operating in the red.” Actually, it appears that the public assistance program’s expenditures exceeded estimated budgets, which is not the same as operating at a deficit. (We think the term “operating in the red,” while not precisely accurate, was being used here in a loose, colloquial sense to convey a sense of the increasing cost of the government’s program.)
- The program incorrectly indicated that a recipient going to school on school loans would lose AFDC benefits. In fact, since 1988, school loans and grants do not affect the state’s public assistance grants, but it is true that food stamps are lost. The television program’s interview with the aid recipient attending schools shows her stating correctly, “And they will take away our food stamps when we get a school loan.” In other words, KARE correctly reported the situation and was not saying that AFDC benefits would be lost. Incidentally, the Department advises that food stamp eligibility is governed and controlled by federal law.
The grievant’s final objection, posed as a question, is “Why did the series emphasize fraud of AFDC mothers when their allocations are such a small proportion of the entire public assistance budget?” It is undisputed some welfare recipient fraud exists; indeed, the program so documents. The question is whether the abuse is as serious as KARE seems to suggest.
Decision of the News Council: The Council concludes that the complaint of factual inaccuracies with respect to the foregoing four statements should be denied.
KARE correctly reported that Minnesota’s total public assistance budget for the fiscal year of 1989 was $1.87 billion. It appears, however, that 71.8% ($1.34 billion) of the budget goes for medical assistance. The medical assistance program has problems with fraud too, but with provider, not recipient fraud. KARE’s program focused on recipient fraud, which occurs in the AFDC program (Aid to Families with Dependent Children) and general assistance. These two programs account for 19.5% ($360 million) of the total welfare budget. The remaining 8.7% of the budget ($170 million) is for food stamps and state supplemental aid for the aged, blind, and disabled. KARE’s program did not give a breakdown of the total welfare budget so that its presentation on recipient fraud was not as clear as it might have been.
KARE did report estimates of recipient fraud as high as 10% in the AFDC and general assistance programs. The Department believes the incidence of fraud is much less. While the amount of recipient fraud is difficult to determine and, relative to that total amount of funds being administered, may not be quite as serious a problem as the television program suggests, it cannot be said that the actual sums involved are not significant or that the subject was not deserving of public attention. Arguably, the television program might have also reported on the great majority of aid recipients who do not abuse the system and the good that is being accomplished by the system. The focus of the series, however, was on one aspect of the aid program, and it was within the editorial discretion of the television station not to dilute the focus.
Concurring: Falkman, Graham, Hanley, Orwoll, Pennock, Simonett, Swain
Abstaining: Stauffer
Dissenting: Ashmore, Tanick, Warder
Special Abstention: Dornfeld, Parrish - We dissent from the Council’s decision to accept this grievance. In accepting this, the Council ignored its own procedures and rules requiring:
- That the grievant be a party that was involved in the story as either a subject or a source; and
- That the grievant first lodge his or her complaint with the news organization involved and exhaust all possible remedies for redress.
In this case, members of WAMM were neither the subject nor the source of the KARE-TV stories, nor did they lodge any specific complaint with the station or seek redress.
The chairperson of Women, Work and Welfare, who later joined in the complaint, was quoted in at least one of the stories. But she did not allege that she was quoted inaccurately or unfairly and did not go to the station with any complaint.
In accepting this case for hearing, the Council sets a dangerous precedent - one that any interest group could use to lodge a complaint against any news organization about any story. It runs the risk of turning the Minnesota News Council into a forum for political debate rather than a vehicle for airing legitimate complaints that cannot be resolved between the parties.
Tags: KARE-TV