Determination 112: Northwest Airlines v. WCCO-TV
Attending the hearing at the Lutheran Brotherhood Auditorium, representing Northwest Airlines were Jon Austin, Director, Corporate Communications; Ruthie McKee, Sr. Vice President, Customer Service and Line Maintenance; Dr. Clayton Foushee, Vice President, Flight Operations, and Christopher Clouser, Sr. Vice President, Administration. Representing WCCO-TV were Jacquee Petchel, Senior Producer; Don Shelby, Anchor and Reporter; John Culliton, former General Manager; and Ted Canova, News Director.
A number of members recused themselves from participating in the proceedings due to conflicts of interest. In order to attain a full board, several former board members participated in their stead. These included John Finnegan (media), Bob Shaw (media), Mary Ziegenhagen (media) and Ron Graham (public).
About 300 people attended the hearing, which was widely covered by both print and broadcast media, including “60 Minutes” and theWall Street Journal.
Background: On April 29 and 30, 1996, WCCO-TV ran a two-part investigative series about alleged shortcomings in safety at Northwest Airlines. After receiving a strong negative response from Northwest Airlines, the machinists union and members of the public, WCCO produced and aired a third piece on May 22. Northwest Airlines first heard from WCCO on April 19, 16 hours before promotional spots for the series began running. The airline was holding its annual stockholders meeting in New York. Staff members flew back to prepare answers to WCCO’s questions and met with reporters on April 26. Northwest Airlines was concerned about the series and asked that a spokesperson appear on the newscast to be interviewed after each part was broadcast. WCCO declined. Northwest Airlines filed a complaint after the first two parts aired.
Northwest also complained about promotional spots, an element the News Council had not previously considered. The parties disagreed about whether the Council should hear that issue. The Council chose to consider, first, whether promotional spots for news should be held to the same standards as news. If the Council affirmed that promos should be held to the same standards, then it would hear the complaint that these specific promotions gave a distorted and untruthful picture of the airline.
Complaint: Northwest Airlines (NWA) contended that WCCO-TV failed to deliver on the premise of its story and that its series violated the standards of journalism. It complained about both the stories and the promos, contending that:
I. “WCCO-TV painted a distorted, untruthful picture of Northwest Airlines and the men and women who work there through its choice of images, words and narrative, its improper juxtaposition of unrelated facts and events, its failure to provide any appropriate context and its failure to present any comment from the regulators or from independent third-party experts.” More specifically, Northwest claimed the series:
a) Used poor sources
- It relied on the testimony of persons who were suing the airline;
- It raised the unrelated claims of two women working in other departments suing for sexual harassment and extended the women’s contention that an atmosphere of intimidation existed at the company to suggest that such intimidation affected mechanics as well;
- It allowed four anonymous sources who had no specific allegations to make unsubstantiated or vague observations with no context;
- It misstated the qualifications of the “whistleblower,” Tony Digatono, by identifying him as a mechanic when he was actuallya welder and therefore unqualified to give opinions about safety. Further, the “secret tapes” used to suggest a lack of regard for safety take on a new meaning when seen in the light of Digatono’s actual duties.
b) Lacked context
- It failed to provide quantitative information so that viewers could make comparisons, such as accident/incident rates, number of departures, number of Enforcement Investigative Reports (EIRs) lodged against NWA in comparison with other airlines, the size of FAA consent orders against other air carriers;
- It failed to include comment from the FAA or from independent safety consultants, such as the Star Tribune did on April 28 and the St. Paul Pioneer Press did on May 1;
- It ran highly magnified words across the screen - “catastrophic failure,” “investigation,” “careless,” and “endangered lives” - with no context.
c) Mischaracterized documents
- It misstated the nature of the government’s oversight of NWA and of the consent order and, further, made no effort to explain the importance or significance of the nine incidents cited;
- It misstated the NWA filing with the Department of Transportation in which NWA tried to convince the DOT not to change reporting procedures to include mechanical difficulties in its calculation of on-time flights.
d) Presented the series in a sensational manner using audio and visual elements to suggest to viewers that ominous, sinister and life-threatening misdeeds were rampant at NWA.
- It used inflammatory rhetoric;
- It used old video clips of accidents although two of the incidents were not related to the consent order or to alleged FAA enforcement actions;
- It photographed an airplane still airborne, with objects in the foreground, thereby creating the erroneous impression that the plane was dangerously close to the ground;
- It photographed a 747 at an unusual angle that created the impression that the aircraft was about to crash;
- It associated the unsolved murder of Su Taraskiewicz, a Boston-based baggage handler, with the sexual harassment claims, intimating that “troublemakers end up dead;”
- It taped maintenance crews at night, creating a sinister mood, and interviewed all company representatives and on-the-record sources using dim or no background lighting. Only Digatono was shot in daylight.
e) Factual errors
- It represented the FAA allegations as being “uncovered,” “exposed” for the “first time.” In fact, the consent order had already been made public in aStar Tribune article;
- In the introduction to parts I and II, it said NWA had “endangered the lives of passengers,” an assertion that seems to have come from a 1993 incident on a ferry flight between Boston and Minneapolis. A ferry flight carries only cargo, no passengers;
- It quoted an FAA statement about an individual airplane and a single incident as if it applied to the airline as a whole;
- It characterized a letter from the FAA to Digatono as a “thank you” letter, when it was a letter acknowledging receipt of information;
- It said Julie Lewis was Northwest’s highest-ranking personnel officer; she is not;
- It stated that Northwest carries 90 percent of the passengers in and out of the Twin Cities; in fact, Northwest carries approximately 70 percent.
II. WCCO-TV’s promos painted a distorted, untruthful picture of Northwest Airlines.
Response of the News Outlet: The Northwest Airlines complaint takes WCCO-TV and its stories to task for many things. And yet, few of the allegations, if any, deal with the most critical question of all: were the core assertions in WCCO-TV’s reports true? The station said its reports focused on three important issues:
- Northwest was fined $725,000 for violations of FAA safety regulations over a period of years, violations which included a significant number of maintenance failures that compromised passenger safety;
- Employees said they felt pressure to get planes out “on time” and believed this pressure caused them and other employees to make inadequate repairs in some cases;
- Employees said they feared retaliation for reporting maintenance problems.
WCCO said, “We stand by our reporting on each of these issues and we submit that Northwest’s complaint provides no evidence that we were incorrect. Northwest Airlines does not claim that WCCO was wrong in its underlying contention that mechanics, from time to time, are put into a position of conducting work in violation of safety standards. And Northwest’s contentions that employees did not believe pressure caused maintenance errors and that they did not fear retaliation for reporting problems fly in the face of the evidence.
“WCCO-TV stated Northwest Airlines was one of the safest airlines in the country, despite the fact that other investigations had found otherwise. The Council must understand that the airline industry does not have one standard by which safety is judged. But WCCO reported what it believed to be the truth, that Northwest Airlines is one of the safest airlines in the country.”
However, “Northwest had violated aviation regulations on dozens of occasions and paid fines amounting to $725,000 for those violations. Northwest asserts that the FAA consent decree contained only ‘unproved violations,’ yet Northwest itself does admit it paid the penalty and proceeded to implement changes suggested by the FAA. In courthouse jargon it is simply a case of saying, ‘We have done nothing wrong, and we promise never to do it again.’ Despite Northwest’s assertions to the contrary, FAA officials told us the fines were substantial and among the highest levied.”
Addressing specific complaints: Irrelevance of sources (I a 1): “We had a sizable base of sources, both former and present employees, both confidential and not confidential, from whom we received credible evidence, evidence that has been further corroborated by the National Transportation Safety Board’s findings. In our stories, we explicitly stated which of our identified sources had filed lawsuits against Northwest.”
Irrelevance of sources (I a 2): “While it may be Northwest’s opinion that the case studies were irrelevant to the issues of flight safety, we disagree. Based on the information the women in our report provided, we believe that these women encountered the same atmosphere of hostility and recrimination when they reported the harassment they faced that our mechanic sources told us they faced when they ‘rocked the boat.’”
Irrelevance of sources (I a 3): “Journalistic privilege allows us to keep confidential sources who provide us with critical information. Sources often wish to remain confidential for fear of reprisals, and the Council should not wonder at our sources’ desire not to be identified in this case. Once again, we point out that Northwest mechanics made more anonymous calls than all but one other airline to the FAA complaint hotline.”
Lacked context (I b 1): “Northwest complains that we didn’t compare the Northwest consent order to that of other airlines. We chose to focus on the airline so many of us and most of our viewers fly on a regular basis. These stories were not a comparative survey of the safety records of U.S. airlines, but a series of in-depth reports on maintenance problems at Northwest. Northwest seems to imply that providing detailed comparison is a journalistic standard. It is not. It is an approach to a story. If the story is about violations of procedure and why they occurred, comparison is not necessarily called for.
“Northwest repeatedly refers to reports by other news organizations on the FAA fines. The two most prominent of those stories appeared contemporaneous with the WCCO reports. WCCO finds them lacking in investigative merit. Both stories did report the fines levied; however, neither newspaper reporter chose to ask why the violations occurred.
Lacked context (I b 2): “We talked extensively to the FAA. Officials at the FAA refused to go on camera, and routinely do. We also talked extensively to aviation experts.”
Factual errors (I e 1): This is nothing more than subjective criticism. We did reveal new information to our viewing public.
Factual errors (I e 2) and (3): The following information about safety incidents was received by WCCO from the FAA:
- Northwest installed passenger video systems on 42 jets with defective wiring, creating direct contact and chafing with oxygen masks and direct contact with pilot/static aircraft instrument lines that indicate speed and altitude. The FAA letter stated, “NWA’s accomplishment of check visit reinspection did not occur without constant FAA surveillance and prodding.”
- An NWA takeoff was aborted because of engine trouble, after which it was discovered that the engine had been missing three bolts for two months and had flown 291 flights in what the FAA called an “unairworthy condition.”
- NWA had repeated problems with oxygen masks on 22 Boeing 747s between May 1993 and October 1993, making them unairworthy, according to the FAA.
- NWA repeatedly failed to properly repair directional and radio equipment on a jet that flew in an unairworthy condition on 33 flights for 18 days. On the 18th day, while flying through bad weather, the pilots warned that they were “down to a basic gyro and mag compass.”
- An engine caught fire and nearly fell off while landing at Narita Airport in Japan because parts to hold the engine on the plane had been left off during a maintenance check in Minneapolis 10 days earlier. The plane had flown 14 flights in this condition.
Factual errors (I a 4) and (I e 4): “We clearly identified Digatono as a welder several times in the stories. As a matter of semantics we referred to him as a mechanic several times as well. We talked to many Northwest employees who confirmed that the term mechanic is often used in a generic sense. Regarding the issue of how the FAA responded to Digatono’s complaint, it confirms that Digatono’s concerns were warranted. Further, NWA official John Kern did admit on camera that much of what Digatono complained about to the FAA, indeed, was a problem.”
Factual errors (I e 5): “We said in our script, ‘Hochhalter says she was afraid at first to complain and when she did, it was to the company’s top personnel officer.’ Hochhalter indicated Ms. Lewis was the top officer. Clearly she was the highest ranking authority to deal with the sources in our story.”
Factual errors (I e 6): “WCCO did not say Northwest Airlines carries 90 percent of the traveling public. Don Shelby said ‘… because 90 percent of the time, we fly Northwest Airlines,’ a colloquial expression that refers to the fact that most of us use Northwest more than any other (airline).”
Discussion: Public member Tom Keller asked about the relevance of the Narita incident or of the harassment lawsuits and murder case. If it was present safety concerns, why not present a graphic report comparing them with other airlines?
Shelby said that the Narita incident happened during the time period covered by the FAA reports and that few people knew why it had happened, that it was the result of servicing by an untrained crew normally assigned to the interior. He said the harassment stories were relevant because when mechanics spoke up about safety concerns they were often criticized; the stories of the women represented that same kind of hostile and recriminatory environment. Shelby said that one of the women became so depressed about the harassment that she said she felt as though her situation resembled that of the murder victim, but WCCO never said the airline was involved in the murder.
Austin said that was not how WCCO presented the Taraskiewicz murder. “WCCO said, ‘It reminded us…’ and then cut to the murder scene.” Austin asked why, if they were talking about mechanics being subjected to recrimination, they didn’t talk to mechanics. He complained about lack of context.
Shelby said WCCO provided context by starting every broadcast saying NWA was a safe airline, but…. He said it was his (Shelby’s) decision not to compare airlines because most Minnesotans don’t use other airlines and also because there are many ways to report safety, some that would show NWA as the best, some as the worst, and there is no way to make a direct comparison of fines. Austin said that WCCO didn’t explain that diligent airlines, which report all incidents, show up worse on FAA reports than airlines that are lax about reporting.
Media member Jim Pumarlo asked about how long the reporting took. Culliton said WCCO began collecting records a year ago, and gave NWA a week and a half to respond, which he said was extremely generous in television news. Clouser said 16 hours to respond before the promos aired and four working days to respond to a year’s work on the part of the station was inadequate.
Public member Carol Pine asked why, given the considerable lead time WCCO had in preparing this report, the station used only sources with an ax to grind. Why no FAA representatives, no pilots, no one from operations? Shelby said the FAA wouldn’t speak with the station, but told them the records spoke for themselves. He said that information given by the witnesses wasn’t used unless it could be verified by other sources and that Digatono’s accounts were verified. He said WCCO did speak to pilots, flight attendants and mechanics but none were willing to go on camera.
Media member Don Smith asked NWA how WCCO could have been more fair in its reporting. Clouser said NWA had asked to have a representative at each broadcast to make a live comment after the story. Also, WCCO was running promos for the series before NWA had had an opportunity to respond. Culliton said he offered after the series to hold a town meeting, but Austin had declined. Austin said the stories had already aired, it was too late.
Media member John Finnegan asked when WCCO received the FAA records (NWA asserted that WCCO received the bulk of the records only days before the series and therefore did not have adequate time to examine and understand them). Series producer Jacquee Petchel said the largest batch of records arrived on April 16th and 17th, but some records arrived one year ago.
Public member Laurisa Sellers asked if the tone, the lighting, the flashing lights on the runway, didn’t convey an image of danger. Shelby denied any such image, saying that they filmed it because it was true, lights do flash on the runway. “They said we were devious, shooting the hangar at night, but the mechanic (Digatono) during the day, but we were denied entry to the hangar until the last day.” He explained that the camera couldn’t shoot during the bright daylight into a darkened interior and that was why it had to be shot at night.
Public member Barry Cytron asked why WCCO let Digatono speak and then waited five minutes before telling the viewers who he was. Shelby said what Digatono said spoke for itself; further, “we didn’t have to tell you at all.” Austin said that not everything Digatono said was corroborated and that he wasn’t identified until the second broadcast, but no personal history was ever given; at no time did WCCO report that Digatono was fired for violence on the job.
Media member Ruth Denny asked WCCO why more disgruntled employees were pictured than satisfied employees. Shelby said that was not true, if you counted them you would find fewer disgruntled employees on camera than satisfied ones. He said they included the mechanics because they wanted to be heard.
Public member Nedra Wicks asked WCCO about its code of ethics. Culliton said Shelby had tried to write a code but that what they had now was more an unwritten list. Shelby said that list begins with a story needing to be “absolutely correct.” He said fairness, accuracy and balance are the three elements that most closely approximate objectivity for journalists. Yet even when reaching for these standards, Shelby admitted, “We’ve been unable to be fair in all situations.” In this case, however, even given the differing reports in the newspaper, the news staff all felt the story was justified.
Determination #1: Council members focused on concerns over lack of context and inadequacy of sources. There was overwhelming agreement that the lack of comparisons to other airlines was a serious omission and that the harassment issue was irrelevant. Media member John Kostouros said linking sexual harassment to airline safety was “dangerously close to bait and switch.” Most members felt the station hadn’t supported its conclusions.
Media member Maureen Reeder said, “What we’re seeing here is in one sense the best of TV journalism and in another sense the worst of TV journalism. It’s the state of TV journalism today. [This series] may win awards; it has all the elements. It also has a style of reporting that’s losing favor with the public. We’re asking for a kind of context that isn’t possible in the type of journalism being used on TV news today.”
Determination #1: The Council upheld the complaint that WCCO painted a distorted, untruthful picture of Northwest Airlines and the men and women who work there.
Concurring: Barkelew, Conner, Cytron, Denny, Finnegan, Graham, Hoben, Keller, Kostouros, LeGrand, Peterson, Pine, Pumarlo, Reeder, Sellers, Seltzer, Shaw, Smith, Wicks
Dissenting: Thompson, Ziegenhagen
Abstaining: Anderson
Deliberation #2: Should promotional spots for news be held to the same ethical standards as news?
Northwest’s primary complaint about the promotional spots was the use of the shot of an airplane taken at an angle that suggested it was going to crash. Culliton said that the shot was a creative decision by the photographer, not meant to distort reality, but that when Shelby was alerted to the promo by Austin he called for that image to be immediately removed.
Sellers asked Culliton to describe the functional breakdown at the station: who is responsible for the promotional spots? Does the newsroom control them? Culliton said that as the general manager, he has control of the spots but the newsroom has input, and another department actually produces them. Culliton agreed that clearly the promos build into the image of the news, but said they were not news.
Media member Nancy Conner asked Shelby if he personally felt that promos should be held to the same standards as news. Shelby said yes, that just as a headline should be accurate, a promo should be accurate, but it need not be complete.
Reeder said that the news and promos are intertwined, but viewers all know they are advertising, with all the hype and tease that involves. Public member Sandra Peterson didn’t think viewers were so discriminating and she resents the manipulation that such advertising entails.
The Council agreed that promotional spots for the news should be held to the same ethical standards as news.
Concurring: Barkelew, Conner, Cytron, Finnegan, Graham, Hoben, Keller, Kostouros, Peterson, Pine, Pumarlo, Sellers, Shaw, Smith, Wicks
Dissenting: Denny, LeGrand, Reeder, Seltzer, Thompson
Abstaining: Anderson, Ziegenhagen
Determination #3: Did the promotional spots for the NWA series paint a distorted, untruthful picture?
Austin said the promos had the same flaws as the series and more, because they gave no chance for rebuttal. Public member Ann Barkelew asked if a viewer, seeing the promo but not the full news story, would walk away with an accurate picture. Austin said the promos definitely portrayed NWA as unsafe. They showed the Narita incident seven times.
Clouser complained that WCCO began promoting the series on April 24th, two days before the station had even met with NWA officials, before NWA had heard the questions. Shelby responded that the first promos didn’t have content and that WCCO felt confident they knew what NWA’s response would be to them because they already had NWA’s response to the FAA.
Public member Terry Thompson said that inasmuch as the promotions may have contaminated the news environment, they were distorted.
The Council upheld the complaint that WCCO’s promotional spots painted a distorted, untruthful picture of Northwest airlines and the men and women who work there.
Concurring: Barkelew, Conner, Cytron, Denny, Finnegan, Graham, Hoben, Keller, Kostouros, Peterson, Pine, Pumarlo, Reeder, Sellers, Shaw, Smith, Thompson, Wicks
Dissenting: Ziegenhagen
Abstaining: Anderson, LeGrand, Seltzer
Tags: WCCO-TV