Background: The majority of the members of the Hennepin County Board began having a series of weekly breakfast meetings, and the station broadcast a report about one such meeting on its 5:30 p.m. news show August 21. The newscast referred to the meeting as being “shrouded in secrecy” and “at the crack of dawn,” and said that notice of the meeting had not been sent to the news media. The station said it had learned of the meeting from unnamed government center sources. One of the minority members of the board was quoted as having said the meeting may have been “outright illegal.”

Johnson, one of those attending the meeting, complained to the station that notice had been placed in Finance and Commerce, a daily publication that is the county’s official newspaper of record, in accordance with Minnesota’s Open Meeting Law. He felt the station had given the impression that he and the other commissioners had violated the law.

The station broadcast a second, longer report on August 25, which included a short interview with Johnson. The notice in Finance and Commerce was mentioned during the broadcast interview and in the reporter’s comments leading into it.

Johnson was still not satisfied with the station’s treatment of the meetings, feeling it had not dispelled the idea that the breakfast meetings were in violation of the Open Meeting Law. He demanded a retraction and an apology on the air, which was denied.

He complained that both broadcasts were inaccurate and unfair and that he was not given an adequate chance to respond to the implications of violation of the law. He told the Council that the purpose of these meetings was to “exchange information.” In his opinion, the meetings may not even have fallen within the Open Meeting Law, but he had placed the ad in the newspaper anyway, he said.

Response of the news organization: The station responded to the Council that both broadcasts were accurate and fair. It contended that the thrust of the two broadcasts was not that the commissioners had broken the Open Meeting Law, but that there were some “rather unusual circumstances” surrounding the meeting, including the early hour of the meeting, the small size of the meeting room and the limited publicity the commissioners sought. The station told the Council it knew about the notice in Finance and Commerce before the original newscast and said the notice’s existence was “implicit” in the story. If it hadn’t existed, the meeting would have been characterized as “secret” rather than “shrouded in secrecy,” the station said.

Determination of the Council: To say that the breakfast meeting of a majority of county commissioners was just “information trading” is to ignore the ease with which a board majority may discuss issues, negotiate positions, and rehearse for the full board meetings – without ever taking a vote. A consensus over coffee is not consistent with open government, particularly if the officials involved each represent more than 100,000 people and control a significant public budget.

It is no doubt true that the station could have characterized the meeting as something less potent than “shrouded in secrecy,” but the Council recognizes that it is the role of television news to take complex issues and pare them to understandable size and simplicity. It is also the role of the news media to aggressively report the actions of elected officials.

The lack of notice outside the minimum required by law, the small size of the meeting room, the lack of a printed agenda, and the hour of the meeting all contributed to the station’s decision to characterize the meeting as it did. These factors do suggest that the commissioners did not intend to have their meetings widely publicized or attended.

The Council finds that the station acted responsibly and professionally in the reporting of this story and commends the station for its determination to cover the actions of an important and powerful public body.

As to the matter of unnamed sources, the Council has said in the past that a news organization, when protecting the name of a source, should inform its audience that it is doing so, so the public can be alerted to any inaccuracies or biases that may be present in the story. In this case, the station chose not to name a source who could have injected his own biases into the information given. The Council feels it is best to name sources whenever possible.

The complaint against the television station is not upheld.

Concurring: Fairbanks, Foley, Froyd, Fushan, Hedberg, Hickman, Myers, Peterson, Rodriguez, Ryan, Shaw, and Whiting

Concurring Opinion: Peterson I suggest that the views of our dissenting colleagues warrant thoughtful consideration by the news media. It is not without significance that our dissenting colleagues constitute almost half of the Council’s participating public members, who to some extent reflect public perceptions of responsible news reporting.

Quite apart from the determination of the grievance itself, I know all members of the Council concur in commending the station for its complete cooperation in assuring a full and fair hearing of the grievance. It has demonstrated leadership among major broadcasters in this method of building bridges of understanding between it and the public it is committed to serve.

Dissenting Opinion: Anderson, Hetland, Provost, Selby and Staples – We agree that the station is to be commended for covering the county board. However, the station should have said on its August 21 broadcast that notice of the commissioners’ meeting had been published. The lack of customary notice, which usually includes phone calls from the county public affairs office, does not, in our opinion, warrant the secrecy language the station used. Johnson and the other majority members of the board were given a disproportionately brief period of air time in which to state their side of the story.

Background: The newspaper reported that the Coalition had sent a fundraising appeal on behalf of then-State Senator George Perpich to “traditionally conservative business interests” and corporate political action committees (PACs) in Washington, D.C. The paper also reported it had been received “within the last 10 days.” Perpich had recently considered running against the incumbent DFL congressman for the party’s endorsement for the 8th District U.S. House seat. The paper reported that it had obtained copies of the appeal from an unnamed “company representative.”

The fundraising appeal consisted of two letters, one from the state chairperson for the Coalition, Tom Peek, and one from Perpich. The Coalition for a Progressive DFL is an organization of DFL party loyalists formed to work against the influence of special-interest and conservative groups within the party. Perpich’s letter outlined his background and his stands on issues. The paper said that Peek’s letter asked for contributions to Perpich of $100,000 to $200,000. The article also included comments from Perpich indicating his surprise at the appeal being sent to business executives and PACs.

Peek complained to the paper about the article, which he felt contained many misleading statements and factual errors. He outlined these for the paper, which printed another article in response to his complaints. Peek felt that this second article perpetuated the misconceptions of the first. Peek told the Council the first article created the impression that the Coalition had violated its charter, which prohibits its members from contributing to or working for a candidate running against a DFL-endorsed candidate. The incumbent DFL congressman was endorsed a week before the paper had said the appeals were received in Washington. Peek told the Council the fundraising appeal had been sent out over two weeks before the endorsing convention, and had only been sent to individual Coalition members.The Coalition does not allow organizational memberships and has no one on its mailing list with a Washington address, Peek said.

Peek also maintained that while his letter did begin, “Do you know it now costs between $100,000 and $200,000 to run for Congress?” it went on to ask each member to give up a movie, a dinner out, or an evening on the town and contribute that money to Perpich’s campaign. The letter also specifically mentioned contributions in the $2 to $100 range, he said. Peek also complained that he was not contacted for comment, even though the paper used his name and quoted his letter in the story.

Peek said it was possible that someone who wanted to discredit the Coalition and Perpich had sent the letters to Washington in the hope that they would be publicized. He complained that the paper had not adequately presented the Coalition’s side of the story and had relied on unnamed sources for too much of its information. While the paper did explain that the Coalition would have been in violation of its charter by sending out the appeal after the convention, the second article also stated that the appeal had nonetheless been received in Washington after the convention, Peek said. It also perpetuated the idea that the appeal had asked for $100,000 to $200,000, and no attempt had been made to find out if the source for the original story was a valid one, Peek complained.

He also was not pleased with the placement of the two stories. While the first article ran on page 2 with other news stories, the second article was placed on page 8, was much shorter, had a smaller headline, and was next to the obituaries.

Response of the News Organization: The newspaper responded that its sources were “unimpeachable” and that it had seen more than one copy of the letter from more than one source. The paper said it had not been able to find out if the letter had been received directly from the Coalition or from other sources, though it said it had tried. The paper also asserted that the opening sentence of Peek’s letter could have been interpreted as a request for $100,000 to $200,000 by a PAC.

Determination of the Council: It is understandable that the newspaper could have concluded that the Coalition had sent the fundraising appeal to Washington, but it should have checked further into the origins of the letter before publishing the first article. It is one thing to say that something “appears” to be the case; it is another to have the facts to prove it.

After Perpich expressed surprise that business interests had received the Coalition’s fundraising appeal on his behalf, the paper should have gone to the Coalition for a statement. If it had, it would at least have learned of the charter’s prohibition against working for unendorsed candidates. Also, the Council feels the letter clearly requested $2 to $100 from each member, not $100,000 to $200,000 as the paper claimed.

As the Council has said in the past, when a newsgathering organization decides to protect the identity of a source, it should make the fact known to its audience so it can be alerted to possible inaccuracies in the story. The paper failed to do this. The Council also is puzzled by the use of anonymous sources for this story. If the Coalition was indeed approaching Minnesota business interests for support for Perpich, why couldn’t the paper have found someone who was willing to state for the record that the letters had indeed been received from the Coalition?

The Council also finds that the second article did not adequately clarify the misconceptions created by the first. It still implied that the Coalition was asking for large donations, and that it had sent its appeal to business interests after the endorsement of the DFL incumbent. At the very least, the second article should have contained a more complete report of the Coalition’s side of the story. The Council feels that follow-ups should receive comparable treatment. In this case, the second article was clearly not given such treatment.

The complaint against the newspaper is upheld.

Background: In late 1979 the DPW proposed its Rule 39, intended to regulate the use of aversive and deprivation therapy in state-licensed and operated facilities. This type of therapy seeks to discourage undesirable behavior through the use of noxious or painful stimuli or through depriving a patient of service or activities to which he or she would otherwise be entitled. According to DPW, this type of therapy had been in use for 20 years without restriction, and the rule was to establish limitations and guidelines for its use for the first time.

The station broadcast two reports calling it “a rule that would legalize bodily punishment,” and stating that it “for the first time spells out punishments for unacceptable behavior.” In a meeting with station officials, DPW representatives pointed out that Rule 39 specifically said that the two therapies were not to be used as punishment and must be part of a comprehensive program of treatment. The rule was designed to stop patient abuse, not to sanction it, DPW said.

DPW also complained that the station listed only the most severe forms of therapy and did not explain that as a result of Rule 39 they would be used only for the most severely and profoundly retarded and mentally ill and only after positive forms of therapy had proven ineffective. DPW said that the station’s report had implied that people in daycare centers, nursing homes, and state hospitals would be “punished” under Rule 39. The rule would protect such people from being subjected to this type of therapy, DPW said. DPW officials also complained that the reporter working on the story did not attempt to contact them when preparing his first two reports. All but one of the taped interviews broadcast were from opponents of aversive and deprivation therapy and Rule 39, DPW said.

Several days after the meeting between the station and DPW, the station aired a new story at 6 and 10 p.m. on the controversy surrounding the rule. DPW complained that the subsequent broadcasts repeated that “for the first time Minnesota would allow harsh treatment of patients in state-licensed programs and hospitals” and again emphasized the most severe forms of therapy that might be used.

Response of the news organization: The station refused to provide DPW or the Council with tapes of the broadcasts in question, although it did provide DPW with scripts of the broadcasts, minus taped interviews. The station also declined to participate in the hearing. However, the station’s attorney did send a letter to the Council stating that the broadcasts were fair and accurate, and that the matter was now moot because DPW had withdrawn the rule. The station also said it did not recognize the Council’s jurisdiction over it.

Determination of the Council: The Council agrees with DPW that the first broadcasts inaccurately and unfairly reported the content and intent of Rule 39. The station should have studied the language of the rule more carefully and also should have tried to speak with proponents as well as opponents of the rule.

But while the inaccuracies of the first newscasts might be excused in part because of the complex language of the rule, the continued misrepresentations of the rule’s intent in the second reports, after DPW officials had explained the rule’s intent and application to the station, are inexcusable.

Furthermore, by presenting a decidedly unbalanced report of the rule, the station failed in a news organization’s duty to fully inform the public so that the public can evaluate for itself the proposals and actions of its government.

The Council also feels that the station was taking credit for the public outcry against the rule, and through its reports was seeking the withdrawal of Rule 39. While editorial opinion has its place in broadcast as well as print media, it should be clearly labeled and separated from news reports.

It is the Council’s opinion that the station was attempting to make the news while reporting the news through the slanted, sensationalized and inflammatory reports it presented.

The complaint against the television station is upheld.