Determination 111: Dr. L. David Mech v. Star Tribune
Dr. L. David Mech identified 28 specific points of contention in an article printed by the Star Tribune. The News Council grouped these points under four general complaints. Mech complained that the story: Carried a prejudicial headline that implied he was guilty of ethical violations. Further, the framing strongly implied serious wrongdoing and set a false stage for all that followed. Second, the Star Tribune used inflammatory and prejudicial language to support unsubstantiated attacks on his character and behavior. Third, the article was based upon information from sources who were anonymous, biased or lacked the authority to judge his behavior, which made it difficult for readers to judge their reliability. Finally, the piece leveled charges against him without providing substantiation or context that would have provided balance.
Attending the hearing was the complainant, Dr. L. David Mech, a biologist specializing in wolf research with the National Biological Survey. Accompanying Mech were Walter Medwid, director of the International Wolf Center (IWC), and Nancy Gibson, an associate of Mech’s at the IWC. Representing the Star Tribune were Pam Fine, managing editor, Tom Meersman, reporter, and Marilyn Hoegemeyer, story editor.
Background: The Star Tribune said the story originated when the paper received information that Mech and the International Wolf Center had been sued by a former IWC employee. Meersman interviewed more than two dozen people and interviewed Mech twice. On July 23, 1995, the Star Tribune published a copyrighted article on page one, above the fold, with the headline, “Is wolf expert above the rules? Incidents raise ethics questions.”
Mech complained to the Star Tribune, asking for almost two dozen corrections; the paper made two. Mech also asked for rebuttal space on the Commentary page with a front-page referral; the paper gave him 36 inches with no front-page referral. Mech remained unsatisfied with the Star Tribune’s response because he felt the paper had not taken responsibility for what he considered irresponsible journalism. Also, Mech said the original article was circulating on the Internet and had spawned articles in other publications that repeated and distorted its charges. Therefore, Mech asked the Minnesota News Council to review his complaint.
Response of the news organization: The Star Tribune defended the story as fully documented, fair and balanced. It said the article followed standard journalistic practices and raised legitimate questions about the activities of a well-known scientist. Further, the paper said it had provided readers ample opportunity to learn Mech’s views both within the story and in the lengthy Commentary piece written by freelance journalist Dave Anderson at Mech’s request and published on December 10, 1995. More specifically, the paper responded that:
1. The headline reflected legitimate questions posed by numerous people interviewed for the story.
2. The passages to which Mech objected were summaries at the beginning of the story; the assertions they contained were explained in greater detail later. Also, a summary statement by Mech, in his defense, ran near the beginning of the story with further explanation later.
3. The article contained 16 named sources, all of whom were chosen either because of their scientific expertise, their direct experience working with or for Mech, or their knowledge of rules and regulations pertaining to wolves. It also included several people who spoke on condition on anonymity because they said they feared retaliation by Mech. Those sources were used primarily to support what named sources said in the story.
4. The article provided substantiation for its major points both in statements from qualified sources and documents that pertained to the issues raised.
Discussion: Mech claimed that the article’s presentation implied serious wrongdoing when, in his opinion, the worst thing the article had accused him of was accidentally killing a wolf while tranquilizing it in the presence of a British film crew. However, he said, even that charge lacked context – that he had drugged wolves thousands of times without incident. He argued that the article did not merit being marked copyrighted and placed on the front page next to a story about Susan Smith, a woman convicted of murdering her two young sons. Mech expressed concern that many people don’t read beyond the headlines and that it wasn’t until 34 lines into the story that he was quoted. Further, Mech calculated that the statements in his defense totaled less than 10 percent of the article. He questioned the fairness of the paper’s being able to control which of his comments it published and how they were presented.
Carol Pine, a public member, asked Mech if he considered himself a public figure; he replied he did not. Pine then posed the same question to the paper; Pam Fine, managing editor, answered that it did consider Mech a public figure because he works for the University of Minnesota and receives public funding. Pine then asked what the paper’s standards are for news coverage of public figures. Fine said that many factors influence how a story about a public figure is played, among them importance, interest and the effect on the community.
Media member Trish Van Pilsum asked the paper how large a factor exclusivity of a story is in determining its placement. Fine answered that generally speaking, when a newspaper has exclusive stories, it plays them prominently.
Public member Ann Barkelew asked the paper to explain what standards it uses to judge a story as fair. Fine answered that the paper considers balance and accuracy fundamental to fairness. She said the paper asks itself if its stories present the right picture, if it’s right to hold a person up to questioning, and if the story is clear and makes sense.
Public member Laurisa Sellers said that while the stated purpose of the article was to raise legitimate questions, it seemed to go beyond that and, in effect, pointed readers in the direction of answers. She asked the paper if giving readers direction fit its journalistic standards. Meersman responded that his findings were substantiated by numerous people.
Media member Maureen Reeder said she thought the story was an example of solid journalism. “As a journalist, often you end up reporting what your gut tells you. That’s an important part of journalistic practice,” she said.
“Along with respecting the gut feeling of the reporter, we must respect the gut feeling of the interviewee,” added public member Terry Thompson.
Many members were troubled by the placement and tone of the article. “This was a story with a point of view,” media member Ron Handberg said. “I’d be far more comfortable if the paper had neglected the copyright and instead labeled it analysis.” Barkelew agreed. “The headline carries a powerful punch. If I read no more, I would think this is a bad guy.”
Mech also questioned the fairness of the Star Tribune’s corrections policy. Included in the original article was the statement: “Mech serves on various boards that directly or indirectly control much of the funding for wolf research projects.” A correction ran in the Corrections column on page two on November 19, 1995, stating: “An article on Page 4A July 23 incorrectly stated that Phil Sauer was executive director of the International Wolf Center in Ely, Minn. He was interim administrator. The article also said L. David Mech serves on various boards that directly or indirectly control much of the funding for wolf research projects. Mech serves on one board and one scientific panel, neither of which controls funding.” Mech asked how that correction compared to the front-page presentation of the original accusation.
Rabbi Barry Cytron, a public member, said the story did more than raise questions. He called the story prejudicial and challenged the practice of making an assertion on the front page while placing the correction on page two. Fine responded that most newspapers anchor corrections in a set place so that readers don’t have to search for them. She added that if an error reaches the level where it seems unfair to put it inside, papers may elect to put it outside.
Sellers asked the Star Tribune if, when it ran the correction, it considered also noting that the story was based, in part, on anonymous sources who feared retaliation. Fine answered that the paper did not consider doing so because its policy is to keep corrections narrowly focused on facts. Sellers pressed the issue, saying that the fundamental reason for granting these sources anonymity was undercut by the correction. Meersman defended the use of the anonymous sources, saying that the correction did not say that Mech does not influence funding, but that he does not sit on boards. Fine explained that the paper allows the use of anonymous sources when it has multiple sources speaking to the same point, when they’re highly credible and their credibility is unimpugnable. In this case, she said, anonymous sources were used as secondary sources to support named sources.
Mech challenged the paper’s use of sources he deemed non-authoritative, specifically 1) photographer Jim Brandenburg, who commented on the scientific validity of Mech’s research, and 2) an IWC student volunteer who said Mech misused government vehicles. Mech questioned why these people were quoted rather than wolf researchers or, in the case of use of vehicles, his supervisor. He quoted the syndicated columnist William Raspberry who said, “But for the most part, we’d rather report the scandal we suspect than the service that we know.”
Fine said that Meersman asked Mech whom he should talk to and then interviewed them. Meersman said he tried to interview Mech’s supervisor, but found that Mech had faxed the supervisor and told him not to talk to Meersman, but to refer Meersman to the IWC lawyer. Fine said Brandenburg and the student volunteers were used as sources because they were eyewitnesses, not experts.
Determination 1: The Council upheld the complaint that the headline was prejudicial and that the framing set an unfair tone for the information that followed.
Concurring: Amaris, Barkelew, Cytron, Denny, Peterson, Pine, Pumarlo, Sellers, Seltzer, Thompson
Dissenting: Conner, Handberg, Hoben, Reeder, Smith, Van Pilsum
Abstaining: Anderson
Determination 2: The Council upheld the complaint that the article used inflammatory and prejudicial language.
Concurring: Amaris, Barkelew, Cytron, Denny, Hoben, Peterson, Pine, Pumarlo, Sellers, Seltzer
Dissenting: Conner, Handberg, Reeder, Smith, Thompson, Van Pilsum
Abstaining: Anderson
Determination 3: The Council denied the complaint that the article was based upon comments from sources who were anonymous, biased or lacked authority to judge his behavior.
Concurring: Barkelew, Conner, Cytron, Denny, Handberg, Hoben, Peterson, Pine, Pumarlo, Reeder, Smith, Thompson, Van Pilsum
Dissenting: Amaris, Sellers, Seltzer
Abstaining: Anderson
Determination 4: The Council denied the complaint that the article leveled charges against Mech without providing substantiation or context.
Concurring: Amaris, Conner, Cytron, Denny, Handberg, Hoben, Peterson, Pine, Pumarlo, Reeder, Sellers, Smith, Thompson, Van Pilsum
Dissenting: Barkelew, Seltzer
Abstaining: Anderson
Tags: Star Tribune