Next, after stating that the police chief had ordered an immediate investigation, the station said:

“In an unrelated case, [name omitted] is currently serving a twenty-day suspension and demotion for his handling of an undercover sting operation. That operation turned into a beer-drinking party involving several officers and two female strippers. [Name omitted] was in charge of the undercover sting in which officers’ behavior was described by police officials as immoral and disgusting. Now with an exclusive report on the latest allegations…”

The balance of the four-minute broadcast was devoted to the new allegations. One of the prostitutes involved was interviewed on camera and repeated the recantation of her original statement to the police. Also interviewed on camera were the police chief and counsel for the well-known Minneapolis attorney. The officer was quoted by the reporter as saying the coercion charges by the women were “bull” and that they had given their statements freely.

The grievant’s complaint concerns the quotation set out above. He claims that putting this unrelated prior episode at the beginning of the broadcast “poisoned” the entire report that followed, prejudicing viewers against him so that a fair evaluation of the new charges by the viewers would be impossible. KARE, on the other hand, says the prior episode helped identify the police officer and was relevant information.

Decision of the News Council: The News Council believes the information about the officer’s suspension, although unrelated to the charges then under investigation, was not improper. The officer suggests the suspension story should have appeared later in the broadcast, not at the beginning, but we think this was a matter of editorial discretion and, in any event, we doubt if a different placement would have made any significant difference.

The Council does, however, think the manner in which the unrelated suspension story was described went too far. The story did more than identify the officer and give the essential facts of his suspension; it went on to say his conduct had involved “immoral and disgusting behavior.” This had the effect of inviting viewers to pre-judge the new charges by giving credence to the prostitutes’ stories that the officer had coerced them into making false statements. It would have been better, we think, if this inflammatory characterization had not been interjected into an already very messy matter.

To the extent noted, we sustain the grievance.

We should add that the police investigators subsequently cleared the officer, concluding that he was “the victim of a pack of lies,” and that KARE 11 News so reported in a follow-up story in June 1990, with appropriate prominence.

Concurring: Flemming, Gilson, Graham, Hilger, Larson, Oliver, Parrish, Pennock

Dissenting: Parker, Simonett, Stanley

Abstaining: Orwoll