Determination 96: Pam Coyle v. Austin Daily Herald
During this hearing, Coyle brought up complaints on two issues. First, that an item under the headline “Police Report” inaccurately stated that her job status had been discussed at a city/county Law Enforcement Commission meeting, when it had not. Second, that the paper treated her unfairly by running 10 items in its editorial-page feature “Anonymous Comments,” criticizing her and calling for her dismissal from her job.
Background: In the fall of 1991, Pam Coyle turned herself in and was convicted of misdemeanor shoplifting in Rochester, Minn. When she voluntarily reported that fact to her supervisors during a Law Enforcement Committee meeting, the newspaper, acting on a tip, reported that her job status had come up for discussion at a public meeting in a December 5 Police Report column, which read in part:
“The status of a Law Enforcement Center dispatcher’s job was discussed Tuesday afternoon at a joint city/county Law Enforcement Commission meeting.
“Pam Coyle, the supervisor of dispatchers, was recently charged with a petty misdemeanor for shoplifting in Olmsted County District Court.”
No reporter was present at the meeting. That column generally includes items picked up from the police department: accidents, break-ins, anything found on a crime report.
Over a period of six days, a spate of anonymous phoned-in comments appeared in the paper criticizing her and calling for her dismissal. Coyle believes they were all the work of one disgruntled former employee, but has no evidence of that. There is no mechanism at the paper to determine if all the comments came from one person. Coyle says that friends and coworkers called and wrote in support of her but that those comments were not published.
Coyle contends that Herald policy on anonymous comments at the time of her complaint could allow an individual to carry on a personal vendetta. She contacted the publisher, Larry Antony, and he assured her that no more comments would appear unless a new issue was raised, but on September 25, 1992, another anonymous comment appeared in the paper. She then contacted the Minnesota News Council.
Media outlet response: The newspaper contends that it checked the veracity of the anonymous tip on the news item and found that Coyle had indeed been convicted of misdemeanor shoplifting. Further, the editor believed that, given her position as a government employee, it was newsworthy.
NOTE: the newspaper has now changed its policy on the number of comments that may appear about one particular item or issue, in part in response to Coyle’s complaint. The paper encourages people to leave their name and phone number so it can verify authenticity, but most do not and the paper will publish the comments regardless. Negen said they received no letters or calls supporting Coyle that it did not published.
Discussion and Determination Complaint 1: Police Report - While the information about Coyle’s misdemeanor charge was true, some Council members felt it was unfair to include it in a local crime report when it was not a local crime. While the newspaper justified its coverage by saying she was a government employee and should be held accountable, Council member Kostouros pointed out that she is a low-level supervisor, not an elected official. The lead paragraph was judged by the Council, on a 7-6 vote, to be inaccurate and misleading and the grievance is upheld.
Concurring: Hilger, Orwoll, Parrish, Dornfeld, Kostouros, Hoben, Peterson
Dissenting: Larson, Parker, Smith, Simonett, Handberg, Pennock
Complaint 2: Anonymous Comments - Anonymous comment columns are one of the fastest-growing features in American newspapers. Council member Donald Smith, editor and publisher of the Monticello Times, said that some editors think the feature is the best thing that has happened to papers, increasing reader interest and community activism, and drawing out opinions from those who normally would not speak out.
Others, Smith said, believe it amounts to yellow journalism when editors fail to verify allegations made in comments. If newspapers refuse to run unsigned letters in their Letters to the Editor column, why would they run anonymous phoned-in comments? He said that newspapers that do not verify facts run the risk of losing credibility. Negen said that most comments regarded not fact, but opinion.
Andy Hilger, radio station owner in St. Cloud, said that while his station does take anonymous calls, it realizes that it has an obligation to get responses from parties who are attacked. He asked if Coyle was invited to respond and Negen said she was not. Council members noted that there appeared to be few or no criteria for publishing anonymous comments and that this feature could easily be used to manipulate and damage others. Council member Ron Handberg, a former TV news director and general manger, suggested that rules needed to be applied: in particular, the newspaper should consider not allowing personal comments about private citizens. While the newspaper reports that it has instituted a policy of not allowing more than one comment on an issue, which would avoid repeating this type of complaint, Council members do not see this as a useful rule. How do you show a groundswell of opinion if you limit comments to only one?
The Council voted 9 to 4 to uphold the complaint that Coyle was treated unfairly in the Anonymous Comments column.
Concurring: Peterson, Hoben, Smith, Handberg, Pennock, Parrish, Dornfeld, Kostouros, Simonett
Dissenting: Parker, Hilger, Larson, Orwoll
Tags: Austin Daily Herald