Determination 104: County Commissioner Paul Thiede v. Brainerd Daily Dispatch
Crow Wing County Commissioner Paul Thiede, a former newspaper editor himself, complains that the editor of the Brainerd Daily Dispatch acted unethically when he sent a private letter on newspaper stationery to a select group of people (50 members of a Blandin Foundation leadership program) to solicit letters to the editor that were favorable to the editor’s position in the midst of a bitter debate over the county board’s decision to abolish the county welfare board.
Attending the hearing were Crow Wing County Commissioner Paul Thiede (the complainant) and Roy Miller, editor, and Terry McCollough, publisher, of the Brainerd Daily Dispatch.
Response of the news organization: Editor Roy Miller, though he had originally denied soliciting letters, acknowledged at the hearing that his letter was a solicitation and defended his action, saying he was soliciting any letters on the subject, not simply letters favorable to his opinion. Editor Miller, a former participant in the Blandin Leadership Program, which trains community leaders to solve community problems, said he wrote a private letter to fellow graduates because the Blandin program emphasized off-the-record discussions during its training sessions.
NOTE: The Dispatch provided the Council with background of a longstanding political battle between several county commissioners and the Dispatch, and accused Thiede of carrying on a vendetta against the paper. The Council chose to limit the complaint to the question of the ethical conduct of the editor in writing the private letter. It did not hear information pertaining to political issues.
Discussion: Council members examined what aspects of this solicitation might be considered unethical and how this solicitation differed from other kinds of editorial solicitations a newspaper might use.
Editor Miller told the Council that this was the first time in his 30-year career that he had written such a letter, but that he was so upset with the county board’s actions and with his Blandin colleagues’ silence that he appealed to them to become more involved. Miller’s letters display his expectations of and loyalty to this group. In his response to Thiede’s complaint he wrote that he was “determined on a personal level to let my fellow Blandin alums know I thought they should show other community people that they care. I had several people over the years make fun of the Blandinites… because they never seemed to do anything. I shared that concern.”
He also said he wanted to determine if the Blandinites had been subjected to harassment or feared retaliation if they took a more active stance in the debate.
Council members asked about the private nature of the letter: why Miller didn’t show it to the publisher or make a public call to action in the paper. Miller said he didn’t show it to the publisher because the publisher was not a member of the Blandin group and might not like the strong language he used. He said he didn’t issue a public call to action to the group because he didn’t want to “take them to task in the paper.”
Thiede accused Miller of using the weight of his position as editor to coerce a response and said that this endangered the nature of an open forum because readers would not know whether a published letter was solicited or unsolicited. Public member Ann Barkelew noted that, when applicable, letter writers are identified as having some special interest in the issue (which often has the effect of negating what the letter writer has said). She said this is particularly so in a small community where readers assign a letter more or less credibility because they know the writer. “A lot of people in a small community look at who a letter is from, and if there is no indication that the letter was submitted in response to a request, it’s not fair to the stakeholders of that community.” Council members asked what harm might be done if a solicited letter were published from a writer who believed what he/she was writing. Thiede said the private nature of the solicitation made it impossible for any claim regarding the solicitation or nonsolicitation of a letter to be proven.
Council members were unable to ascertain what actual harm might be done, but there was concern about using a letters column to advance the personal sentiments of the editor. They asked Thiede how he would view different solicitation situations:
- Would it be appropriate to telephone a variety of people to ask for their opinions on a contentious issue? Thiede felt they should be labeled as solicited.
- What if a private citizen solicited people to send letters? Thiede said that’s not a reasonable comparison, because individuals are not in the business of selling opinion.
Thiede said he would have had no problem with Miller writing a personal letter on plain white paper and signing it, Roy Miller, but he had a problem with a signature, Roy Miller, editor. Miller responded that even if he used plain white paper and left out his title, everyone would still know he is the editor of the small town paper and any abuse of office that might be present would still be present.
Council member and Star Tribune editorial writer Kate Stanley said the Star Tribune solicits people to write commentaries expressing points of view that haven’t been seen in the paper and they are not labeled as solicited. Thiede said he would prefer that such pieces were identified as solicited, but that he didn’t have a problem with the Tribune’s procedure.
WCCO-TV reporter and media member Trish Van Pilsum said the difference between the Star Tribune’s solicitation and Miller’s is that Miller was trying to generate a specific opinion and that he was not open about it. While Miller maintained that he was only soliciting letters, not a specific point of view, media member Ron Handberg pointed out that in Miller’s solicitation letter he characterized the county commissioner’s actions as “shocking” and appealed for support. Handberg also noted that Miller said the Blandinite group was very close and he (Miller) believed he knew them and their feelings on the issue.
Media member John Kostouros pointed out that this highlighted the question of what the role of the journalist ought to be in the community. “Many believe it should be only through the pages of the newspaper - let others act, while the paper only observes. Some say that’s too narrow. Miller thought so, so he went an extra step, but he did it after writing an editorial ripping the county board. Trying to get people to write letters to the editor was awkward, but there was nothing wrong with it.”
Public member Carol Pine found Miller’s actions to be an example of poor judgment, but not an ethical breach. Van Pilsum supported the right of the paper to solicit opinions but questioned Miller’s lack of openness. “I ask myself, ‘Am I willing to disclose what I have done and how I am doing it?’ You weren’t, not even to your publisher.”
Determination: The Council found that it was poor journalistic practice for the editor of the Brainerd Daily Dispatch, in his official position, to use a restricted mailing list to privately solicit letters to the editor to support his own position. However, the Council did not find that the editor acted unethically.
Concurring: Denny, Barkelew, Handberg, Hoben, Parker, Pine, Pumarlo, Reeder, Seltzer, Thompson, Van Pilsum, Vargas, Wicks
Dissenting: Kostouros
Abstaining: Anderson, Cytron, LeGrand, Smith, Stanley
Tags: Brainerd Daily Dispatch