Background: The newspaper feature about Sternberg and his role in Minnesota professional boxing reported that he controlled most of the pro boxing action in the state. It also contained charges of impropriety and racism leveled against Sternberg by rival boxing promoters and by two local minority fighters.

The article included Sternberg’s denials of all the charges and printed favorable comments about him from several people in Minnesota boxing.

Sternberg complained to the paper’s reader’s representative, who subsequently wrote a column about the matter. The paper also printed a letter to the editor critical of the article and a correction of a factual inaccuracy in the story.

Sternberg claimed the article underplayed his denials and explanations of many of the charges. In addition, he said many reputable people in Minnesota boxing had talked to the reporter and given him favorable information about Sternberg but had not been mentioned or quoted in the article. He also complained that the paper had only printed one of several letters to the editor that were critical of the article.

Response of the news organization: The paper responded that the article was balanced and the reporting thorough. The charges of racism were not made through innuendo but in direct quotes, said the paper, and Sternberg’s denials of all charges were included in the article. The paper also said some comments made about Sternberg added nothing to the article in the reporter’s judgment and were not used for that reason. The paper defended a reporter’s right to decide what material to include in a story.

Determination of the Council: The newspaper did create a negative impression of Ben Sternberg through the use of sensationalism, innuendo and unbalanced reporting. The style and structure of the article were designed to create a dramatic effect and to play upon the public’s general willingness to assume the worst about the professional boxing world. The article highlighted the charges of racism and impropriety against Sternberg while playing down his denials.

The article did contain both favorable and unfavorable information about Sternberg, but the order in which it was presented tended to emphasize the unfavorable. In addition, sensational headlines and a photograph of Sternberg at ringside wearing dark glasses created the impression that he was some sort of a sinister “Mafia figure.” Where the paper attempted to present Sternberg’s side of the story, the way in which the material was presented tended to add credence to the charges against Sternberg.

While the right of a news organization to decide which facts and quotes to use in a story and the need for provocative leads and illustration are recognized, a news story, particularly one which involves charges affecting a person’s reputation, should be fair, balanced and thorough. The newspaper failed to meet those standards in this case.

The complaint against the newspaper is upheld.

Concurring: Anderson, Fairbanks, Foley, Forsythe, Froyd, Fushan, Hedberg, Hetland, Hickman, Howell, Miles, Myers, Peterson, Provost, Rodriguez, Ryan, Selby, Shaw, Spielman, Stevens, Whiting

Dissenting Opinion: Staples Ben Sternberg seems to be a public figure about whom there is controversy. I think the newspaper addressed that controversy by presenting Sternberg as a person of substantial influence in boxing about whom there were conflicting opinions. From the printed article, I did not feel that Sternberg came across as a racist. I also feel that the paper went out of its way to deal with Sternberg’s complaint.

Background: On May 10, 1979, the newspaper published a Thursday Food section story on Mother’s Day chocolates. The reporter assembled “eight of the most serious chocolate lovers” – all unnamed – for a “blind tasting” of chocolate products from six Twin Cities candy stores, including Regina’s. The tasters rated one-pound candy assortments and solid chocolates on a numerical scale for “taste, freshness, texture and overall appearance.” Regina’s candies were ranked fifth by the tasters, in part because they criticized the company’s chocolates for being waxy.

Calling the rating system unscientific, Regina’s complained that the paper failed to identify the tasters or their qualifications, or to explain adequately the tasting method. The test results were skewed, Regina’s claimed, because the tasting of solid chocolates was based on a commercial coating the company buys for resale but does not use in its manufactured assortments. Criticism of the chocolate as “waxy” was also misleading, Regina’s said, since wax is not used in chocolates and Regina’s does not use compounds or stretchers. Lastly, Regina’s complained that the article was unfair to the candy industry as a whole because it contained several unsupported statements that indicated a general decline in the quality of American candy.

Regina’s contacted the paper’s reader’s representative and asked that a correction or clarification of the article be printed. The paper did not feel that such a response was warranted.

Response of the news organization: The paper said the article was clearly labeled as a blind tasting, distinguishing it from a scientific survey. The newspaper likened the article to a traditional restaurant or wine review, with the tasters acting as reviewers. The paper also said that use of the term “waxy” did not mean Regina’s chocolate contained wax, but was like wax in that it did not melt quickly. Although the paper acknowledged that its reporter had purchased a non-Regina’s product for the tasting of solid chocolates, it said the mix-up occurred because of poor package labeling. Finally, the paper said its overall coverage of the candy industry was balanced inasmuch as it had published other articles favorable to Regina’s and the local candy industry.

Determination of the Council: The article appeared to be based on a scientific survey; the paper should have clarified the tasting methodology to its readers and identified the tasters and their qualifications. The reader’s representative himself, in a column published May 27 in the paper, said: “The failure of the judging method was that it masqueraded as science. It lumped the subjective judgments of unnamed people with unknown qualifications into an ostensibly objective number measurement of an unregulated mixture of ill-defined characteristics.”

The newspaper should have published a clarification when Regina’s informed it that its reporter had purchased the wrong product for the tasting of solid chocolates. Additional clarification was in order because characterizing Regina’s chocolate as “waxy” may have misled readers to believe that the company adds compounds or stretchers to its chocolate coating.

On the whole, the article should be characterized as consumer reporting rather than as a restaurant or wine review. In those types of reviews, the reviewer is identified and his or her qualifications are generally known to the reader; also, a numerical rating system is not used.

Finally, the paper’s overall coverage of the candy industry cannot be regarded as fair in view of the other articles it cites. Previous or concurrent coverage that may balance the overall coverage does not obviate the responsibility to be accurate and thorough in each article.

The complaint against the newspaper is upheld.

Background: On March 2, 1979, the paper published on its religion page two articles on the occult. At the top of the page was an account of the published diary of a teenager’s purported experiences with a satanic group. At the bottom of the page was a news story about the occult that quoted both ex-occultist Lee Nystrom and Conlith Christensen, who was manager of Gnostica Bookstore and a member of a witchcraft religion called the Church of Wicca. The articles were accompanied by a picture of Christensen and artwork depicting demons torturing a man.

When Burtrand complained to the paper about the articles and layout, he was informed he could write a letter to the editor, subject to normal editing procedures. He declined because he felt the letter might not run as he wrote it and would not have the same effect as an apology. Burtrand complained that the paper should have attempted to verify questionable information in the diary, and that the account of it should have been clearly labeled as a book review. The news story, Burtrand said, contained derogatory statements Nystrom made about the occult that should have been substantiated. The news story also misquoted Christensen and was unfair because it gave her age and marital status but not Nystrom’s (Christensen is divorced). Regarding the page as a whole, Burtrand alleges that the artwork and articles perpetuated negative and erroneous stereotypes about the occult that were strengthened by their placement on the religion page. He said that witchcraft, and specifically Wicca, were incorrectly linked to satanism.

Determination of the Council: A letter might have helped Burtrand to achieve his goal of educating the public about the occult. Newspapers do, however, have the right to edit letters for such things as length and style.

Regarding Burtrand’s objections to the articles, the paper should not have been expected to investigate every fact disputed by Burtrand. Readers are better served if a newspaper devotes its limited time and resources to its regular news columns. There is no evidence to support the contention that Christensen was misquoted, and hence that matter is indeterminable.

With respect to the page taken as a whole, the articles and accompanying illustrations do not seem to perpetuate negative and erroneous stereotypes about the occult, nor does their placement on the religion page unfairly strengthen such alleged impressions. The first article was clearly an account of a book describing satanic activities, and the artwork clearly illustrates the activities described in the book, and not all occult activities. The news story balances derogatory statements about the occult by Nystrom with several quotes from Christensen. To this extent, the complaint against the paper is not upheld.

However, the placement of the photograph of Christensen was unfair and misleading. The layout appears to associate her with the book account and the satanic activities described in it. The casual reader may not read through to the end of the news story, where Christensen is quoted as dissociating herself from the satanic activities depicted and described on the rest of the page. Also, the paper should not have characterized only Christensen by age and marital status, and it is encouraging that the paper acknowledges this.

To this extent, the complaint against the paper is upheld

Dissenting Opinion: Fairbanks, Staples, Craig, Hetland, Spielman The majority is correct in rejecting the allegations about the factual content of the articles. However, the articles and accompanying artwork and photographs are sensationalized and do perpetuate negative and erroneous stereotypes about the occult, apparently due to a lack of understanding of the occult and a failure to ascertain the facts about different parts of the occult before publishing the articles. The total effect of the page is to associate occult activities in general, and witchcraft in particular, with satanism. The words “occult,” “witchcraft,” “Satan” and “demonic” are used interchangeably throughout the page, without regard to the fact that “occult” is a very broad term that encompasses many religions and cults. Christensen’s quoted statements dissociating herself from satanism do not adequately balance the confusing use of these terms interchangeably on the page. 

Background: An editorial in the January 1979 edition of the newspaper alleged misuse of public funds and other improprieties by the MTU. The monthly community newspaper is distributed free to the 10,000 residents of the Whittier neighborhood in south Minneapolis. The MTU is a tenants advocacy group funded by public and private sources.

The editorial alleged, among other things, that the MTU held fundraisers without paying sales taxes or entering the proceeds in its books, allowed another organization to use MTU facilities free of charge, paid two staff members vacation pay while they were in jail, and spent an exorbitant amount on long-distance phone calls. The editorial writer said he based the charges on a conversation he overheard between two staff members of a Twin Cities area adult entertainment magazine. The writer also reported that the MTU director would not respond to the charges.

Following publication of the editorial, the MTU director complained to the paper that the charges were not true, and that the editorial contained more than a dozen inaccuracies. The director requested that a retraction he had prepared be published in the paper’s February issue, but the newspaper offered to run only a revised statement as a letter to the editor, along with an apology. The two parties failed to reach agreement on the matter, and the paper ran instead another editorial by the same writer in which he acknowledged that some of the charges were in error, although he stood by the other charges. The writer also asserted that the paper was not responsible for any of the charges because they were not the paper’s charges originally, but were made by the two staff members of the adult magazine.

The MTU, after unsuccessfully attempting to complain a second time to the paper, complained that the editorial writer had treated the charges as fact without including any supporting evidence, that he misrepresented the MTU’s response to the charges, and that the second editorial did not adequately correct the errors in the first editorial. The MTU also complained that the paper should not be allowed to disavow responsibility for publishing the charges merely by attributing them to others.

Response of the news organization: In response to the complaint, the newspaper asked the Council to take into consideration the special nature of community newspapers. The paper said it had a volunteer staff of only several inexperienced editors, and that it printed whatever was submitted to it provided the material was “credible, understandable, and within its space limitations.” The paper also said it felt its offer to print the MTU’s statement as a letter to the editor along with an apology from the newspaper was reasonable. (At the hearing, the paper said it was not aware of the legal definition of “retraction.”)

Determination of the Council: The emergence of the community press in the Twin Cities can only help to enrich and enhance the public information network so essential to a democratic society. But there should exist some sort of nonlegal mechanism for resolving disputes with the community press. Therefore, the Council believes it is appropriate to include the community press within its purview.

Community newspapers lack the resources of full-time professional newspapers, however, and hence should not be expected to maintain the same quality of reporting and editing. But when a news medium – whether a community newspaper or a national network – publishes unofficial charges damaging to a person or group, that news medium has an obligation to double-check the accuracy and reliability of the allegations to the best of its ability. The cost of doing so is far less than the cost of the damage that can be done to an innocent party.

The paper did not fulfill its responsibility to investigate the charges before publishing them. The two editorials contained inaccuracies and unsupported allegations. Although the MTU director did not respond directly concerning the charges, he did direct the editorial writer to his responses published elsewhere; in the interest of fairness and thoroughness, the editorial writer could easily have included a description of those responses in his editorials. In addition, the paper failed in its obligation to correct the errors promptly and prominently.

Finally, the paper’s assertion that it should be able to disavow responsibility for publishing unofficial charges, simply by attributing them to other sources, cannot be accepted. That the charges were made by others is no excuse. Every news organization must accept responsibility for what it publishes, no matter what the origin.

The complaint against the newspaper is upheld.

Background: MADD was formed in December 1978 after the Metropolitan Sports Facilities Commission gave final approval to build a domed stadium in downtown Minneapolis. MADD contended the papers’ coverage of the issue was inadequate and unfair because it relied excessively on official sources, such as legislators and sports facilities commissioners, and did not adequately cover organized opponents. Potential problems involved in the downtown stadium site were treated as “obstacles,” MADD said. In general, the group charged, the papers published news stories in a manner that promoted the downtown Minneapolis site rather than completely examining alternatives.

The biased coverage was caused, in part, by a conflict of interests on the part of the newspapers’ publisher, MADD claimed. The group called for a thorough examination of the Star’s and Tribune’s stadium coverage in 1978 and 1979 during which the newspapers’ publisher was active in promoting a downtown stadium and invested in the site. This sponsorship of the downtown stadium operated in a subtle – not open – manner to inhibit aggressive and fair coverage of the stadium issue by the Star and Tribune reporters and editors, according to MADD.

In response to the complaint, the Star and Tribune submitted all their coverage of the issue – hundreds of articles from 1970 through March 1979 – and urged that the entire coverage be examined. The newspapers denied MADD’s allegations. After filing its original complaint, MADD filed a supplemental complaint against the Star because the newspaper failed to publish a letter to the editor from MADD. The letter responded to excerpts the Star had published of its response to MADD’s complaint. The Star objected to certain portions of the letter that addressed the stadium issue rather than the Star’s published response. The newspaper said it felt MADD had been given ample space to present its views on the stadium issue in an opinion piece that the Star had published. The Star told MADD it would publish the letter only if the portions it objected to were deleted. MADD refused and the letter was not published.

Determination of the Council: Examination of the Star’s and Tribune’s stadium coverage from 1970 through March 1979 indicates that their readers received a reasonably fair, accurate, and balanced reporting of events and issues surrounding the ongoing controversy. No serious distortions, no major omissions, and no clearly discernible pattern of bias could be detected.

Nevertheless, MADD has raised a serious question when it alleges that the newspapers relied excessively on official sources for facts and for interpretations of those facts. While in this case all sides of the matter were found to have been covered adequately, it should be noted that all newspapers must be sensitive to the need to cover all points of view in a debate and to seek out sources that may or may not be as readily available as public officials and professional lobbyists. Without these special efforts, readers would be denied important information with which to make decisions on public policy issues.

No evidence could be found to sustain MADD’s contention that Star and Tribune publisher’s sponsorship of a downtown stadium site influenced, either directly or indirectly, the judgments of the newspapers’ editors and reporters in covering the stadium issue. It cannot be recommended here that the owner of a newspaper should not take part in community affairs, or that a publishing corporation should not become financially involved in community projects.

However, as the National News Council has noted, such a situation can damage a newspaper’s credibility, as it has here. When an owner or publishing corporation places a newspaper in a position where the public may perceive a conflict of interest, the editors should undertake special steps to ensure fair and aggressive news coverage. For example, the editors of the Star and Tribune could have, in this case, established a task force of staff members and the public to monitor coverage and suggest improvements. Such a group could help to improve a newspaper’s credibility and performance in the community.

The complaint against the Minneapolis Star and Minneapolis Tribune is not upheld.

However, the Star should have published the letter to the editor from MADD. It is difficult to see how MADD could have responded to the Star’s rebuttal of the complaint without also addressing the stadium issue. After all, MADD’s complaint – the subject of the Star’s published response – is about the coverage of the stadium issue. The Star’s refusal to publish MADD’s letter effectively denied readers the opportunity to read a different view of the complaint. The Star’s action also deprived the letter writer of the opportunity to respond to statements affecting his reputation.

The supplemental complaint against the Minneapolis Star is upheld.

Dissenting: Shaw, Fairbanks and Rodriguez By proposing a “task force” to “monitor” a newspaper’s performance – certainly an unworkable remedy for conflict of interest – the Council has sidestepped the most important issue involved here: Is it ethical in the first place for publishers to become involved in the same events their newspapers cover as news? I say it is not. They both make it more difficult for news staffs to work, and create a perception of conflict of interest where very little conflict may be present. The image of a newspaper publisher should be one of single-minded devotion to producing a newspaper, the standards and objectivity of which are beyond question. That should not only be the appearance, that should be the fact.

Concurring in Part, Dissenting in Part: Spielman While I cannot agree with the sweeping dictum of (dissenting opinion) Bob Shaw that persons in the news business should be social eunuchs and have no other affiliation or participation in community affairs, I do agree with his dissent that the publisher’s appearance of conflict of interest seriously damaged the credibility of the newspaper. This is particularly true because of the dominant position of the Minneapolis Star and Tribune Company’s newspapers throughout the state.