Determination 121: MN DNR v. KSTP-TV
Participants for the DNR included Rod Sando, Commissioner; Ron Nargang, Deputy Commissioner; Marcy Dowse, communications manager, and Scott Pengelly, information officer. KSTP declined to participate in the hearing, but forwarded to the Council a copy of its response to the DNR.
A dozen people observed the proceedings, including Don Davis, Commissioner of Public Safety, Cathy Clark from the Department of Public Safety, Bob Borhardt and Tonya Kozick from the Governor’s office, Rob Drieslen, Outdoor News, William Babcock, director of the Silha Center for the Study of Media Ethics & Law, University of Minnesota, and Rachel Taylor from Brill’s Content.
Background: The DNR complained about a story that ran in slightly differing forms on July 22 and 23, 1998. The story conveyed the station’s conclusion that the DNR was wasting taxpayers’ money by spending lavishly for employee meetings at Minnesota resorts. Shortly after the broadcast, Marcy Dowse was quoted in an AP story as saying that the story amounted to “a verbal drive-by shooting.” KSTP News Director Scott Libin called her to talk about the stories, but she did not return his calls, saying she was too busy.
The DNR filed its complaint with the News Council in October and, to comply with News Council procedures, the DNR staff met on November 17 with Libin; Gary Hill, head of KSTP’s investigative unit; Deborah Fountain, producer, and Jay Kolls, reporter. The DNR then revised its complaint to focus on what the Department called “a few critical tricks of the trade.”
Complaint: In its complaint the DNR wrote, “It is our belief that the stories about the Department of Natural Resources … failed on all accounts to meet the station’s own journalism standards… Were the stories fair and accurate? In the meeting, KSTP representatives maintained that because the scripts for the stories included no factual errors, the stories met their standards. The DNR pointed out misleading video, and lack of evidence and context. KSTP maintained there was nothing to apologize for if there were no factual errors in the script. The DNR believes that position sets a dangerous standard that does not meet KSTP’s own mission statement.”
Following are the DNR’s concerns:
VIDEO DECEPTION: ”The words used in a story cannot be artificially separated from the video footage that is designed to support those words…. KSTP used footage of non-DNR employees at resorts in the summer while discussing DNR meetings held at those resorts in the winter. That juxtaposition is at best misleading and at worst erroneous.
“KSTP used video footage of tennis players and sunbathers at Arrowwood in Alexandria as a Jay Kolls voice-over says, ‘Arrowwood Resort in Alexandria; first stop on the DNR meeting train.’ The clear message to viewers: DNR employees are having summer fun at taxpayers’ expense. In reality, those pictured having summer fun were not DNR employees and the meeting in question was held during a snowstorm in early December.
“…Based on critical comments made by taxpayers directly to DNR staff, and by newspaper editorialists… the KSTP juxtaposition clearly misled viewers. Almost all the DNR ‘resort’ meetings were off-season early December meetings at sites selected by low bid.”
FAILURE TO PROVIDE CONTEXT: ”The KSTP reports clearly purport that the DNR meetings were exceptionally costly and unusual for a state agency. By what standards? Compared to what other agencies? According to what experts? … These are serious charges and as such deserve the thorough investigation and comparisons that KSTP staff admitted they did not undertake. Viewers and taxpayers deserve some substantiation if the credibility of the DNR, its employees and its commissioner are questioned.”
NEWS OR COMMENTARY? ”… The July 23 report opens with the statement: ‘It’s a big state agency with a huge appetite for classy conference centers.’ Huge in comparison to what? Classy as opposed to Club Med or the No Tell Motel? Without context to define terms such as these, they become editorial opinion. Repeated adjectives such as ‘pricey’ reinforce the bias in the opening statement without a context for viewers to judge the information…. In such circumstances, what’s a viewer to believe? The victims of these stories aren’t limited to DNR staff; media credibility is damaged and ultimately the public is disserved.”
The News Council condensed the complaint and voted on the following questions:
- Was the story misleading in its use of footage that portrayed vacationers (not DNR employees) at a different time of year?
- Did KSTP reach conclusions about DNR spending that were not justified by the evidence the station presented?
Response: KSTP declined to appear at the hearing but gave the News Council permission to use its letter of response to the DNR’s complaint, to wit:
VIDEO DECEPTION: … “The video we used accurately depicted the location of the DNR meetings. Some of those meetings took place during the summer and some during the winter. We produced our report during the summer, using the only video available. That is consistent with all stories we produced during the summer, with the exception of follow-up reports using file footage from our archives. No such footage was available of DNR’s winter meetings. We feel safe in assuming that most Minnesotans know scenery changes with the season.
“We made reference only to the budget year [not the season] in each of our examples to keep the story as clear as possible to our viewers. Perhaps most important, we neither stated nor implied that DNR employees were goofing off at any of these meetings. In fact, our reports featured footage and sound of the only actual meeting we were able to record.”
FAILURE TO PROVIDE CONTEXT: …”(w)e did provide context, examining one specific alternative site for a quarterly DNR management seminar. [C]ontext means more than comparing agencies and states, which sometimes operate under very different conditions.
“Our reports provided further context by referring to the undisputed fact that snowmobile registration, fishing licenses, and camping fees had gone up during the time period our reports covered. As we reported additionally, a commissioned legislative study criticized the DNR for not spending enough money on wildlife preservation or law enforcement staff. Finally, we cited a DNR memo that pointed out a regional administration budget shortfall of $150,000 at the time Department money was going toward these management meetings and seminars. These are … facts in which those who pay taxes and fees have a legitimate interest. They provide a most relevant form of context.”
NEWS STORY OR COMMENTARY? ”… your answer to this rhetorical question is largely a restatement of your claim that context was absent from our reports. Having responded to that charge… I won’t repeat them here.
“We … appreciate your acknowledgment from the start that our reports were factual and accurate. We have acknowledged from the start that our work is imperfect, that it is subject to legitimate scrutiny, and that in hindsight any story could have been even better. We remain committed to independent, responsible coverage of public policy matters and we remain confident in the accuracy and fairness of our work.”
Discussion: “Hold us accountable,” said Commissioner Sando, “I’ve seen many times when the service of the media has helped government departments improve, but be fair.”
Dowse said it was unfair to use inaccurate video, and she asked why the station didn’t just shoot the signs of the conference facilities or at least say when the meetings took place. She said most of the meetings took place in the winter [DNR documentation showed that 20 meetings were held from 1996 through 1998, of which 5 were held in the summer, 9 in the winter, 2 in the spring and 4 in the fall].
Council media member Lee Canning asked if the Department had ever met at Arrowwood resort in the summer. Sando said yes, but not during the time in question.
Dowse also questioned the value of the context that KSTP said it provided. Dowse said the reporting of higher registration and licensing fees during this period did not contribute context because the money from fees is dedicated to programs that are supported by those fees, not used for administration. Furthermore, the story’s reference to a $150,000 budget shortfall did not put it in the context of the Department’s budget of $2.5 million. “Managing a shortfall of this size is regular business,” Dowse said. “It is not a crisis.”
What would have provided relevant context, Dowse said, was a comparison of meeting costs with those of other agencies - did the DNR pay the lowest prices? - and an explanation of the purposes and results of the meetings. (The DNR was involved in a multi-year change process at the request of the governor.)
For example, the story questioned the $800 price tag of a dinner trip on the St. Croix River without mentioning the number of employees (about 40) or the purpose of the trip: to point out violations of land usage along the waterway.
In another part of the story KSTP suggested the DNR could have saved money by holding its quarterly management meetings at state park facilities, in this case Afton State Park. Dowse said the Department has used state park facilities on occasion, but this is not always an appropriate choice. They usually lack the number of break-out rooms needed for small group meetings, they don’t have housing and catering capability, and it makes the building unavailable for its intended use: to serve the public. Dowse believed KSTP did not consider the purpose of the meeting or the needs of meeting participants.
Nargang complained that KSTP allowed State Representative Kevin Knight, who appeared in the story, to make the charge that DNR actions bordered on criminal. He said that the station did not interview any legislators with direct oversight of the Department.
Media member Craig Gemoules asked the DNR if it had had an opportunity to respond to Knight’s allegation. Sando said he had no opportunity.
Media member Nancy Conner asked Dowse why she didn’t call the station to rebut the statement after seeing the story on the 6 p.m. news. Dowse said that while she was concerned about it she felt helpless to change the situation because of the nature of conversations with the station before the broadcast: “It seemed they had reached conclusions before they spoke with us.”
Sando said, “When you go through an interview you expect some learning to occur, some evolution of understanding. It was very frustrating, that didn’t happen. He [reporter Jay Kolls] was not interested in hearing my opinion or in new facts.” Dowse said Kolls asked the same question four times. When she asked him why, he said he wanted the commissioner to say that the meetings were more important than having more conservation officers.
Dowse also said that she offered Kolls the bid sheets for the meetings so he could see that the DNR accepted the low bid, but he declined and said he didn’t need them, saying “We’ve got enough material.”
Dowse said the DNR’s response to Koll’s questions was eliminated from the 6 p.m. news program and aired only at 10 p.m. [The 6 p.m. broadcast showed viewers "the problem" and said the response would air at 10.]
Deliberation #1: Media member Trish Van Pilsum said the use of summer video and images of vacationers troubled her, particularly since the report never mentioned the meeting dates. “As a best-case scenario, it was something done for convenience, as a worst-case, it was deliberately deceptive.”
Media member Elizabeth Costello agreed: “I saw that report when it aired and I thought that those families and kids were the family and kids of DNR staffers. I thought, ‘This looks pretty damaging.’ I do believe it is a disservice to the subject of the story.”
Media members Monika Bauerlein and Dave Hage were not troubled by the use of the summer footage, seeing it as an accurate depiction of the location.
Conner noted that, in this case, “We are facing the limitations of TV. Its strength is it takes you someplace. It creates an immediate, emotional impression. I would hate to send the message that TV must be exactly at the same place at the same time.” But public member Victoria Amaris asked why KSTP couldn’t have found archive footage of people in business attire attending meetings, images without children.
Determination #1: On the question of whether the series was misleading in its use of footage that portrayed vacationers (not DNR employees) at a different time of year, the Council voted 17-2 to uphold the complaint.
Concurring: Amaris, Bailey, Barkelew, Canning, Conner, Costello, Diaz, Gemoules, Keller, Neddermeyer, Pumarlo, Reeder, Schroeder, Stauffer, Thompson, Tilley, Van Pilsum
Dissenting: Bauerlein, Hage
Recused: Vang
Presiding: Stringer
Deliberation #2: Public member Terry Thompson said he questioned the report’s point of view that government agencies are mired in yesterday and don’t deserve opportunities for training and development.
Media member Jim Pumarlo called the story a “proverbial hatchet job. It was terribly lax on context. It omitted information, like the low bid process, and didn’t contact anyone from the legislature who had oversight of the agency.”
Public member Tom Keller asked, “Why was the report newsworthy? I think the idea of the story was that there was a wasting of public assets. The report was untrue. There was not a wasting of public assets and there was no opportunity for the DNR to present a contrary view.”
Public members Jon Schroeder and Ann Barkelew both said the station missed the real story of what was going on at the meetings. What were the purposes, results and costs?
Gemoules said it was unethical for the station to allow Knight to say the DNR’s actions “bordered on criminal” without allowing the DNR to respond. Gemoules criticized the decision to run the 6 p.m. news without including the DNR’s response. He said the Duluth News-Tribune’s policy calls for publication of a response to a charge as close to the charge as possible, and always on the same page. Van Pilsum said it is common to use a story to tease viewers into tuning in to a later newscast.
Media member Maureen Reeder found it difficult, however, to censure KSTP for using a “strategy used by so many news outlets. It’s a story that’s easy to do, the government records are available. It’s reinforcing stereotypes people already have about the government. This is the state of the business today. We need to ask if we are sending a message to all the media not to do this kind of story.”
Canning said: “This Council has to take a stand. My aspiration is to make a statement to the media that the literal truth, taken out of context, is inadequate. ”
Van Pilsum said she would be concerned if the Council were to demand that TV or print journalists provide complete context: “Do not expect complete context,” she said, “but expect accurate and fair reporting.”
Determination #2: On the question of whether KSTP reached conclusions about DNR spending that were not justified by the evidence the station presented, the Council voted 19-0 touphold the complaint.
Concurring: Amaris, Bailey, Barkelew, Bauerlein, Canning, Conner, Costello, Diaz, Gemoules, Hage, Keller, Neddermeyer, Pumarlo, Reeder, Schroeder, Stauffer, Thompson, Tilley, Van Pilsum
Dissenting: -
Recused: Vang
Presiding: Stringer
Tags: KSTP-TV