Determination 116: Police Lt. Mike Sauro v. Star Tribune
Attending the hearing was the complainant, Minneapolis Police Lieutenant Mike Sauro. The Star Tribune declined to attend, saying it did not contest the validity of the complaint.
Background: On December 14, 1996, the Star Tribune published an article about the settlement of a police brutality lawsuit, headlined, “Minneapolis City Council approves $25,000 Sauro settlement.” Sauro complained to the News Council, saying he was not called by the paper for this story, resulting in an incompleteness and inaccuracy. Had the paper reached him, Sauro said, it would have learned that he had been dismissed from the lawsuit several weeks prior to the settlement. Thus, the settlement was not a “Sauro settlement.”
When presented with the complaint through the News Council, the Star Tribune wrote to Sauro, offering to run the following clarification:
A story in December 14 editions should have said that former Minneapolis police Lt. Mike Sauro was not a party to a police brutality settlement between the city and Hazem Judah. Mr. Sauro was dismissed from suit last November.
Sauro declined to accept the clarification because he said it did not account for all of the errors the story contained, nor did it tell his side of the story, which should have been included in the original article. The Star Tribune did not publish the clarification.
In another attempt to resolve Sauro’s complaint, the paper offered him space on the editorial page for a commentary telling his side of the story. Sauro declined, saying anything he wrote would appear self-serving and defensive, and that the paper would not be taking responsibility for the errors it made.
Finally, on May 20, 1997, the Star Tribune published the following statement, under the headline “Apology”:
A story and headline December 14 should have made clear Minneapolis police Lt. Mike Sauro was not a party to a police brutality settlement between the city and Hazem Judeh. Sauro was dismissed from the suit last November. The story also should have included either comments from Sauro or a synopsis of his version of the events.
Sauro did not accept the paper’s apology as a resolution to his complaint, saying he wanted his complaint judged by an independent body and made part of the public record.
Complaint: Sauro complained that the Star Tribune’s failure to contact him for a story naming him violated a basic rule of fairness in journalism. He said he has been the subject of many news articles during the past few years, but that this was the first time he was not contacted for a story involving him. Sauro said he understands that mistakes happen, but felt that in this case the Star Tribune demonstrated “total incompetence.” The proposed settlement document the reporter used to write the story contained Sauro’s version of the events leading to the lawsuit, yet the reporter chose not to include that information in the story. Sauro questioned why the editor who reviewed the story was not more critical of its lack of balance.
In addition, Sauro said the paper inaccurately reported the incident leading to the lawsuit. The article reported”
“Judeh claimed that after he was in handcuffs on the floor, he was kicked in the face by Sauro. Judeh’s claim was supported by his wife, who was present at the time, and corroborated by other store employees who saw some of Judeh’s interaction with the police officers.”
Sauro said that several police officers present at the incident testified before a federal grand jury and in sworn depositions that he never kicked or struck Judeh. Further, he said, the two officers who did give Judeh his injuries filed police reports documenting the force they used during Judeh’s arrest, resulting in the injuries he sustained. Sauro also questioned the eyewitness corroboration cited in the paragraph. He said Judeh’s wife was outside during the arrest, and the store employees were lying on the floor, face down, with their heads covered, as is standard police procedure. Thus, they were not able to see the force used by the other officers against Judeh.
Sauro also complained that there was no attribution for the information that was in the story. He assumed that it came from Judeh’s attorney, and said such attribution would help readers judge the reliability of the information.
Response: Editor Tim McGuire submitted the following statement to be read by the executive director at the hearing, “I am pleased the chairman will state the nature of the complaint and detail the apology the Star Tribune published, and that he will then seek a vote to uphold the complaint.”
Discussion: Council member Nedra Wicks asked Sauro why he declined the paper’s offer of space on the editorial page. Sauro reiterated that he believed any commentary he wrote would appear self-serving and readers were less likely to take it seriously. He added that it is not his job to write articles for the newspaper.
Council member Laurisa Sellers asked Sauro what role he played in the paper’s publishing of the apology. Sauro said he did not see it when he read the paper that morning, and found out about it only when a co-worker mentioned it to him. Sauro said that if it had been printed with the same prominence as the story, he might have accepted it as a resolution. He added that it read more like an apology to the readers for confusing them, rather than an apology to him for failing to contact him.
Council member Jim Pumarlo asked Sauro why he complained to the News Council without first complaining directly to the paper. Sauro said he felt his complaint was so serious that it needed to go directly to the News Council. He said every article ever written about him had mistakes, and that he had called the paper to account on some of those, but that this case was a matter of intentional disregard for fairness.
Determination: There was no deliberation on this complaint. The Council voted unanimously to uphold the complaint that the Star Tribune story inaccurately portrayed Sauro’s role in the incident and his status in the lawsuit; failed to name a source for the allegations against him and failed to include his version of the events.
Concurring: Amaris, Conner, Hoben, Kostouros, Peterson, Pumarlo, Sellers, Thompson, Wicks, Wychor
Abstaining: Anderson
Tags: Star Tribune