• That Lao Family, Inc., is dominated by persons associated with General Vang Pao, who heads a resistance movement in Laos known as the Neo Hom; 
• That Lao Family, Inc., is being used by its leaders for political purposes in a manner inconsistent with the social service mission of the organization; and
• That elections in Lao Family, Inc., are not free and open.

In addition, grievant contends that the article violates proper journalistic practices because:

• The article highlighted passages in the article unfavorable to Lao Family, Inc., by putting these passages in bold print inserts on each page of the article;
• The article relied on anonymous sources; and
• The good social work of Lao Family, Inc., was downplayed and the problems of branches in other cities were stressed.

Discussion: The article relates in detail facts and circumstances suggesting a connection between the persons active in Lao Family, Inc., and persons involved in the Neo Hom resistance movement. At one point, however, the article states, “To put matters in perspective . . . a link with Neo Hom could probably be established for any number of institutions that have Hmong employees.” The article also quotes the Refugee and Immigrant Assistance Division as stating that “LFC of Minnesota has a good record both for social service provision and financial management.” After the Twin Cities Reader received complaints about its story, it invited complainant to respond with a letter to the editor. Such a letter from “The Yangs and the Vangs” was then published. The letter is largely devoted to a defense of General Vang Pao, “whom we look upon as our father.”

We have carefully reviewed the article and find that it sets out facts and circumstances supportive of its point of view. While that point of view is critical of Lao Family, Inc., we cannot say that the criticism reflects unfair distortion or bias. The grievance as to unfair bias is denied.

The claims of improper journalistic practices are also denied. The article highlights selected portions of the text to emphasize the article’s point of view, but we cannot say that this was not within the editorial discretion of the newspaper.

It appears Hammond, the writer of the article, had conducted extensive research. She states she was compelled to use anonymous sources for some of the statements in the article because her sources, concerned about threats of harassment and to their personal safety, insisted on remaining anonymous. While statements attributable to identified sources are preferable, we cannot say that under the unusual circumstances here the use of anonymous sources was abused.

The grievance is denied.

Concurring: Ashmore, Falkman, Hanley, Parrish, Pennock, Simonett, Stauffer, Sundin, Swain, Warder

Abstaining: Graham, Orwoll, Tanick