Determination 109: Catholic Defense League v. St. Paul Pioneer Press
The Catholic Defense League contends that the St. Paul Pioneer Press news coverage distorted its position on the public schools’ “Out for Equity” program, and the opinion page editor arbitrarily rejected commentary pieces by two League board members seeking to explain the League’s position: one because he didn’t live in St. Paul and one because the editor disputed the writer’s portrayal of the facts. The League believes the denials were based on an unfair standard.
The League says distorted coverage and lack of access to the opinion page served both readers and voters poorly. It also believes that the coverage inflamed some members of the public, who later vandalized the organization’s office and phoned in death threats.
The Catholic Defense League was represented by its Executive Director, Pat Shannon, and its legal adviser, Rosemary Kassekert. Numerous League members were in attendance, including President Peg Cullen. Representing the St. Paul Pioneer Press were its editor, Walker Lundy, and editorial page editor, Ron Clark. Pat Burson, the reporter who covered the controversial school issue, also attended.
Background: In 1994 the St. Paul School Board began to implement the “Out for Equity” program in response to higher school-drop-out and suicide rates for gay/lesbian students. The program provides information about sexuality and sexual identity for gay and straight students, staff training about sexual orientation and homophobia, student support groups, outreach and support to families, resource materials and information about and referrals to community agencies.
The Catholic Defense League believed that a book produced by the Minnesota Department of Education, Alone No More, was being used as a basis for the program because the program’s director, Mary Tinucci, a self-proclaimed lesbian activist, had said so on a radio program. In examining the book they found, according to Kassekert, that “there is no allowance in this program for the Catholic student to avoid the homosexual message which ignores the teaching of the Catholic church on homosexuality.” The League, charging that the program was not a support group for students but an advocacy program, expressed its concerns in a letter to school Superintendent Curman Gaines. The letter went unanswered for many months, and the League finally brought a Freedom of Information lawsuit to get its questions answered. Gaines later said that Alone No More was not being used as curriculum; however the League saw many connections between the program in place at Central High school and the recommendations found in Alone No More.
The League position received press coverage in the Pioneer Press but based on published Letters to the Editor the League believes that many people misunderstood its point. The League wrote, in an August 30 press release, “We wish to make clear - one more time - we do not object to counseling and support groups in schools. We object to a program such as ‘Out for Equity,’ which works to indoctrinate all faculty and students that the genital activity associated with homosexuality is acceptable and normal…. The Catholic teaching insists that homosexual persons must have the same respect and dignity accorded to all human beings. It is only the genital sexual activity which is considered wrong and sinful.”
In responding to the League’s complaint about biased coverage, the paper invited it to submit an editorial commentary piece. The paper then rejected the two pieces the League submitted.
Response of the News Outlet: 1. Lundy denied that the news articles distorted the position of the League. In every story quoting the School Board on the issue, the League’s position also appeared. He pointed out that in December Peg Cullen told Nancy Conner, the reader advocate, that Pat Burson’s coverage of the issue accurately described the League’s position.
Lundy said the paper did not report on the death threat because “people sometimes make such threats to gain media attention and publicity about threats can prompt copycat actions that could put the subjects in greater danger.” Lundy said the paper was prepared to reconsider if the threats persisted.
2. Clark said he rejected an editorial by David Pence, of Mankato, because he believed that a piece by someone living in St. Paul would be stronger. He asked the League to provide one, and it agreed. The second piece, by Richard Murphy, Sr., was based on the thesis that the “Out for Equity” program was using Alone No More as a curriculum. Clark believed this to be false, and the school superintendent, several board members and the “Out for Equity” director insisted it was not being used as curriculum. Clark asked Murphy if he could prove his assertions but received no proof. Clark said, “I believe it to be wrong to knowingly allow our pages to be used to create a straw man just so an organization can knock it down…. Our readers… have an expectation that the material they read on the opinion page has some basis in fact. I see it as my responsibility to reject submissions that appear to blatantly disregard or ignore facts.”
Discussion on #1: Walker Lundy began his presentation by acknowledging that the paper had made a mistake. In October, when it received the League’s letter, it did not respond immediately, and the letter was then lost in the confusion of an organizational restructuring. “Anyone who writes us a letter deserves a response,” he said. Clark agreed: “They deserved better treatment than they got from us.”
When asked how the League’s position had been distorted, Kassekert said the paper gave the impression that the League was against support groups when that was not its position. The League believes “Out for Equity” is an aggressive advocacy program, not a support group: support groups do not employ highly paid program coordinators and “advocates.” When asked to point to specific areas in the coverage that were distorted, however, Kassekert identified only an article on 8/23/95 in which Mary Jane Reagan was quoted, though she is not with, nor was she identified as being with, the League. Council member Sorensen-Craig asked Lundy if a reporter checked the facts being portrayed by the League at the schools in which the program had been implemented. Reporter Pat Burson said she did visit Central High, the only school using the program, and received all material, including Alone No More. She said it clearly wasn’t being used for curriculum.
Council member Don Smith asked Cullen if she had, in fact, complimented the paper on its stories. She said that she had complimented the reporter for her coverage of Archbishop Roach’s press conference.
Determination #1: The Council denied the complaint that the news coverage was distorted and unfair.
Concurring: Amaris, Barkelew, Handberg, Hoben, Jones, LeGrand, Peterson, Pine, Pumarlo, Seltzer, Smith, Sorensen Craig, Stanley, Thompson, Van Pilsum, Wicks
Abstaining: Anderson
Discussion on #2: Clark said that the Pioneer Press uses only 5-10% of the guest columns submitted and chooses which to print based on reader interest, diversity of authorship, and balancing points of view. Council members asked if there is a policy limiting the opinion page to writers from St. Paul. Clark said that guest columnists are predominantly from St. Paul and he believed the column would be more effective if it came from someone in St. Paul. The paper has received comments from readers asking “Why are you running that letter from Duluth?”
Clark said editors don’t check every fact, but they do check those they believe to be untrue, which they did in the case of Murphy’s editorial. When they called Murphy to ask him for his evidence, he wasn’t able to provide it. The League points out that Murphy was working at its booth at the state fair, had only a hurried conversation with the editor, and didn’t have any information with him. The League said that it had a lot of information tying the program to Alone No More, but that the paper didn’t ask the League for it. The League acknowledged that it didn’t call the paper to offer it, either.
The paper then asked the League to provide a third piece to use as part of a larger pro-and-con editorial feature, which was to include an article by a lesbian former student. The League referred the editors to a St. Paul schoolteacher, but when the editorial page contacted her, she was not interested in writing. The paper did not contact the League further. In the meantime the paper received a second piece supporting the “Out for Equity” program from a gay man who grew up in Ortonville and now lived in New York. The paper ran the two pieces supporting the program, with no opposing viewpoint.
Media member Syl Jones asked Clark if the paper published pieces based only on fact, or if it also published pieces based on opinion, even when distorted. Clark said the facts were central to Murphy’s argument and differed from what the paper considered the truth. Jones asserted, “But this IS the story, one group believes this fact, one group believes another fact. You’re simply telling that.” Clark disagreed: there should be some relationship between facts and opinion.
Council member Jon Seltzer asked Clark if the only error he found in the editorial was the use of the term curriculum instead of teaching resource. Clark said there was a definite distinction, and several Council members agreed. Seltzer believed that for a lay person that distinction is blurry and Kassekert said the League considered it a matter of semantics.
Council member Carol Pine asked Clark if he had offered to publish Murphy’s piece if Murphy could corroborate his view or revise it. Clark said he couldn’t remember, but that he wished he had taken the initiative to do that. Council member Kate Stanley, an editorial writer for the Star Tribune, said, “We (on the editorial page) depend not only on the kindness of strangers, but also on the persistence of strangers.” She asked Clark if he would have responded favorably to prodding by the League. Clark said he definitely would have, that he didn’t think it was the end of the conversation, but he understood that the League didn’t trust the paper. “They were mistreated by the public schools. I can understand how, in their minds, we became a part of (the problem).”
Council members generally felt that the League had not made enough effort to get its views on the commentary page and that the use of the word “curriculum” instead of “teaching resource” was a significant inaccuracy. While there was concern that the opposing viewpoint never got on the opinion page, most members felt the paper had not used an unfair standard. Jones disagreed, saying that any error could have been corrected by the editor next to the column. Seltzer similarly disagreed, saying that the paper had an absolute responsibility in the four months during which it had rejected pieces to get an opposing viewpoint.
Determination #2: The Council denied the complaint that the paper unfairly denied the Catholic Defense League access to the editorial page.
Concurring: Barkelew, Handberg, Hoben, LeGrand, Peterson, Pine, Pumarlo, Smith, Sorensen Craig, Stanley, Thompson, Van Pilsum, Wicks
Dissenting: Amaris, Jones, Seltzer
Abstaining: Anderson
Dissenting opinion: Syl Jones
The test for “accuracy” in opinion - not news - can become odious when exercised against a minority viewpoint by a media outlet with the power and audience of the St. Paul Pioneer Press. Because the opinion piece written by Richard Murphy, Sr., contained the word “curriculum” and was therefore judged inaccurate, the Pioneer Press did indeed deny the Catholic Defense League access to its op-ed pages using a standard that is highly subjective and therefore unfair. While many may understand the word “curriculum” to mean a prepared teaching outline that is followed verbatim, the general public may infer that all resources used by an educator are, in fact, curricular. This is a legitimate interpretation easily explained by differences in semantics.
Furthermore, by labeling Murphy’s piece “inaccurate,” denying publication, and making no attempt to suggest alterations in the copy that would make the article acceptable, the Pioneer Press truncated the public’s right to know the precise Catholic Defense League stance on this issue, and, in effect, protected the Catholic Defense League from itself. The paper’s concern for so-called accuracy - which is often the very thing in dispute among impassioned commentators - served to mask the Catholic Defense League’s ignorance and distortion of the facts regarding an important public education issue. Had the opinion piece been printed, the readership would have been better served.
The standard for opinion pieces need not be so lofty as to bar the very real prejudices, biases and presumptions of embattled minorities from full public exposure. Once the identity and affiliation of the writer are verified as accurate, the true test for publication should be relevance as determined by the intensity of the public debate, not an editor’s ideas concerning semantics.
Tags: St. Paul Pioneer Press