Attending the hearing and representing numerous residents of the city of Worthington who wrote letters to the News Council were Mark Shepherd, an attorney, A. Carol Scott, and Martha Cardenas. The management of the Worthington Daily Globe declined to participate but provided a written response and photocopies of material. Professor Charles Backstrom, from the University of Minnesota, was present to answer questions regarding public opinion polling.

Background: On August 30 and 31, and on September 1, 1993, the Globe ran an editorial feature quoting anonymous respondents to a survey question the paper had asked: “Has Worthington been enhanced by the recent influx of various minority groups?” The first day’s headline said: “81 percent don’t like minorities.” The lead-in to the column said “Area residents’ opinions of minorities have improved – but not by much – during the past year. Our latest Daily Globe survey proves that point. Nearly 250 people took the time to respond to the question….” The story went on to say that when the paper asked the same question the year before, 83 percent of respondents disapproved of minority groups’ influence on the area. The Globe wrote: “Many of this year’s respondents were shocking in their frankness. Still, the majority of the participants were emphatic in their beliefs and presented themselves in a tasteful manner.”

Among the verbatim quotes that followed were these:

“Yes – when we are exposed to people who are different, we are given a chance to learn from them and to broaden our own ideas and thinking.”

“No – only if you enjoy crime and violence.”

“No – this town is crap because of the people from the south.”

“No – do you like cockroaches and garbage?”

“No – they are still just as demanding, gutsy and sneaky as ever.”

“No – when you hear everyone talk not one person wants them here, the Hispanics especially.”

“No – if you want Worthington enhanced, close Monfort Pork, load up all the minorities and give them a shower like Adolf Hitler showered the Jews.”

“Yes – like all of us, they need to be given a chance.”

Letters were printed in response to the survey for a month. The letters criticized urvey respondents. But letters criticizing the paper’s decision to run the survey were not published, and the publisher refused to meet with citizens who complained that the survey created or aggravated a hostile environment for minority citizens.

Response of the news organization: The Globe said it did not portray the survey as being statistically valid. It said it goes out of its way to mention the number of responses.

On the complaint about denying access to writers critical of the paper, the editor wrote that he provided ample space for critical letters in the month that followed. He enclosed a letter criticizing the newspaper for its editorial stand on a national issue as evidence that the paper does publish letters critical of the newspaper’s views. (No published letters were forwarded critical of the newspaper’s decision to run the local feature on racial attitudes.)

The management of the Globe feels it performed a public service by bringing racism in the community to light and that prior to these surveys people claimed there was no bias in Worthington and there was general apathy about inclusion of minorities.

Note: The Daily Globe objected to the News Council hearing on three procedural counts. It claimed that it did not receive notification of the complaints within six months of publication. Telephone records of the News Council showed that the paper was contacted by the News Council three months after publication of the survey. At that time the editor told the Executive Director the paper would not participate.

The Daily Globe objected that none of the complainants was directly mentioned or alluded to in the feature column, in contradiction to News Council procedures. The News Council changed its policy at its annual meeting in early February, 1994, to allow some third-party complaints to be considered at the discretion of the Council when they were of compelling public interest. The Complaints Committee judged this complaint appropriate for the Council to hear. Later in February, after the change in policy, a complaint came to the News Council from La Raza, an organization representing Hispanic citizens. This complaint was then accepted for a hearing and earlier complainants were allowed to join the complaint.

The Daily Globe objected that at no time did the group of people named in the complaint make an effort to resolve the matter directly with the paper. The News Council received copies of numerous letters from individuals and groups that had written to the paper to complain. These do represent attempts to resolve the conflict. When the editor finally did arrange for a group of people to meet with himself and the publisher, the meeting was canceled by the publisher. The hearing was scheduled only after this meeting failed to occur.

Discussion: Council members asked the complainants what affect the survey has had and why no one complained last year when it was first published (as the newspaper asserted). Complainant Carol Scott said that she had indeed complained last year and had submitted a letter to the editor, but that after repeatedly telling her for several weeks that it would be published the editor finally said it would not be published. She resubmitted the same letter in response to the second survey. She said she knew of many other people who had complained.

Martha Cardenas, a long-time resident of Worthington and a Hispanic, said that the column was very hurtful to herself and other minorities in the town and that they believed three or four people were behind the hostility. The complainants all agreed that the feature had undermined trust in the community. In response to the Globe’s claim that it was doing a community service by exposing racism, Scott said “When you take four backward steps for every step forward, you don’t consider that progress. The Globe could have done any number of things to advance the cause of better race relations.”

In response to the Globe’s claim that it did not represent the survey as scientific, council member John Kostouros pointed out that the lead-in paragraphs to the anonymous comments said “area residents’ opinions,” clearly suggesting that it represented a larger group than the respondents alone. Professor Backstrom, a public opinion polling expert, said that because readers are so used to reading opinion polls, they assume that these polls are valid. This kind of polling, allowing writers to send in anonymous comments, is not scientifically valid and cannot realistically be called a “survey” at all.

With regard to lack of access to the letters column Worthington city attorney Mark Shepherd said, “For them to take stands and be critical, and to invite people to write them and then refuse to publish our letters is hiding behind the First Amendment and letting it operate only one way.” He provided copies of numerous letters sent to the paper that were critical of the paper’s decision to run the survey, none of which were published.

Determination 1: On the complaint that the Globe violated reasonable journalistic standards by portraying the anonymous comments from fewer than 250 persons as a reliable survey tool, the Council voted 11-2 to sustain the grievance. Council member Kate Parry, political editor of the St. Paul Pioneer Press, noted that the Globe feature could easily be manipulated “by one hateful person with $180″ (to buy enough copies of the paper to get answer forms to send in). She said most papers have a strong policy against using anonymous sources for that very reason. While Council members affirmed the goal of exposing racism, public member Nedra Wicks of Rochester said “The creation of a field of hate is not a healthy way to improve relations.” Given the unscientific nature of the survey, “it was irresponsible and misleading to say that the survey proved a point,” said media member Trish Van Pilsum. Wicks, in her dissenting remarks, disagreed that the paper had represented its survey as scientific.

Concurring: Covington, Graham, Hilger, Kostouros, LeGrand, Parry, Peterson, Pine, Sellers, Stanley, Van Pilsum

Dissenting: Sorensen, Wicks

Determination #2: On a vote of 12-1, the Council upheld the complaint that the Globe unfairly denied letter writers an opportunity to criticize the survey in its letters column. Media member Kate Stanley, Star Tribune editorial writer, said that her paper’s view is that “one of our first responsibilities is to offer readers the letters column for criticism of the paper’s decision making.” In his dissenting opinion, media member Andy Hilger, St. Cloud radio station owner, pointed out that there may have been letters published but not submitted at the hearing which were critical of the newspaper. He suggested to the complainants that “in a one-paper town you should take advantage of opportunities at other media, for example radio, to criticize the paper.”

Concurring: Covington, Graham, Kostouros, LeGrand, Parry, Peterson, Pine, Sorensen, Sellers, Stanley, Van Pilsum, Wicks

Dissenting: Hilger