Determination 94: Dr. Paul Matson v. Mankato Free Press
A Mankato orthopedist complained that the newspaper ran a story, with a display headline and photograph on the front page of the local section, in which a woman who had picketed his office called him a liar, but in which he did not receive an opportunity to reply. He said the Free Press’s display made it a big story in a small town and did not adhere to the least standard of ethical fair play: “It can take years to build up a reputation that can be destroyed (by the press) in seconds.”
Background: The woman, Mary Rosival, had had foot surgery performed by a doctor in St. Paul and, feeling dissatisfied with the result, asked some doctors in southern Minnesota, including Dr. Paul Matson (the complainant) to testify on her behalf in a malpractice suit. When Dr. Matson refused to do so, Rosival picketed his office, holding up a sign calling him a liar.
Response of the News Organization: The Mankato Free Press was represented at the hearing by its editor, Mike Larson, by its night news editor, and by the reporter who covered the story. The newspaper offered this defense:
The reporter tried to reach Dr. Matson for comment at 4:48 p.m. on the day Rosival was photographed outside his clinic, but a clerk told the paper Dr. Matson was away and was not expected back in town until the evening, and that no further comment from the office would be forthcoming.
The paper should not be held to as high a standard as usual in this instance because the story was “spot news,” meaning that someone had seen the picketing - an unusual activity in Mankato - and the paper had dispatched a reporter and photographer to find out what was going on.The reporter volunteered, however, that she had spoken by phone with Rosival a few days before this incident and had photographed her picketing another doctor’s office in Faribault a week earlier.
Discussion: A News Council member, a former news executive, asked the reporter if she had told the doctor’s office that the paper was planning to run a story the next day containing a serious charge against him and that it was important for the paper to reach him for comment. She said she had not.
The doctor said that if he had been given the opportunity to respond to the charge that he had lied to Rosival he would have said he had never promised to back her claim against her surgeon. “I gave her an honest opinion (that her surgeon was not negligent) and referred her to two noted foot surgeons for their opinions because she didn’t like mine.” Dr. Matson also contends that the headline and the photo caption might have led readers to believe that he was the surgeon who had operated on the woman. The editor acknowledged that possibility and said he is troubled by such lapses: “All of us in the (news) business would hope this wouldn’t happen. You’ve hit a nerve.”
Determination of the News Council: The complaint is unanimously upheld. The “spot news” defense is invalid. Further, even in “spot news” coverage, a story based on a serious charge should have sounded an alarm for the reporter and editor, leading them to try as hard as possible to reach Dr. Matson before the midnight deadline. One News Council member, an experienced journalist, told the night news editor that in the news business, seven hours (the time between 4:48 p.m., when the reporter called the doctor’s office, and the deadline) is “an eternity.” The newspaper should have pursued the doctor aggressively or, still lacking a response from him, should have held the story until the doctor’s response could have been included. There was no significant pressure to generate a scoop on the story.
Concurring: Cytron, Graham, Handberg, Hilger, Hoben, Huynh, Kostouros, LeGrand, Orwoll, Parker, Pennock, Peterson, Pine, Smith, Stanley, Swain, Tanick