Background: Mirocha’s complaint concerned a series of news articles published in September and October 1981 regarding tests conducted in his labs. The first story, appearing on September 28, was copyrighted by the paper and appeared on page one under the large banner headline, “U professor made secret tests for biological warfare agents.”

The article stated that highly guarded government-sponsored analyses of suspected biological warfare agents had been underway at the University for two months under Mirocha’s direction without the knowledge of University officials, and was undertaken despite University policies prohibiting classified or secret research. The story said that Mirocha’s work had been so guarded that employees in his lab were unaware until recently that they were analyzing plant samples collected by the intelligence community from sites in Southeast Asia, where the government suspected Vietnamese troops waged chemical warfare. The leaf and stem samples were analyzed for microtoxin, a natural chemical poison that the U.S. government suspected the Soviet Union of developing into a potential biological warfare agent.

Mirocha complained about the article’s assertion that the news drew “immediate criticism” from some University officials, including Stan Kegler, Vice President of Institutional Affairs, who said that he was “totally unaware” of the project and that he, as well as the chairman of Mirocha’s department and the dean of the college, should have been informed of it.

Mirocha submitted to the Council a memo from Kegler to University President C. Peter Magrath in which Kegler said he told the newspaper reporter that he was “not surprised at all not to be informed” about Mirocha’s analyses, not that he “should have been informed,” as the September 28 article stated. Further, Mirocha said he did not inform higher University officials about the project because he himself had been unaware of the purpose of the tests until very recently. He said he received two leaf and stem samples late in July from a Philadelphia pharmacologist who told him only that the samples were to be analyzed for microtoxin and who later sent the results of the tests on to the State Department. The State Department said that the secrecy was necessary to ensure unbiased test results and that much of the information would remain classified until the time was right to make it public.

Mirocha’s lab had found unusually high levels of three types of microtoxins (all of which can be harmful to human beings) on the samples. This finding prompted Secretary of State Alexander Haig to claim in a recent speech that he had “positive proof” that chemical warfare was being waged in Southeast Asia. The scientific community reacted with skepticism to Haig’s announcement (which some claimed was mostly designed to stress the Soviet threat to world security and encourage support for a U.S. military build-up). The State Department later toned down Haig’s claim by calling the evidence “preliminary.”

The following day, the paper published another front-page article by the same reporter entitled “U Regents want policy on secret research,” in which the reporter stated that, as a result of “disclosures that highly guarded work for the U.S. government on suspected biological warfare agents had been conducted at the University’s St. Paul campus,” some University regents said that University policy on classified or secret research might have to be “tightened up” and planned to ask University administrators to prepare a report on the matter. The article contained comments from various regents, as well as Mirocha’s explanation of how he became involved. The report also indicated that attempts by the paper during the past two weeks to learn more about the details of the tests had been “put off” by the State Department and employees in Mirocha’s laboratory.

The next day, September 30, the paper published a story by the same writer, “UM scientists at odds on evidence against Russ,” concerning the debate among University scientists over whether the results of Mirocha’s analyses proved biological warfare was indeed being conducted in Southeast Asia. The same day, the paper published an editorial under the headline “Nothing sinister about U testing.” It claimed that there was no evidence that analyses of a possible communist biological warfare agent by a University of Minnesota plant pathologist violated the institution’s rules against secret research and that apparently the only secret was the source of the material tested. The opinion piece said it was logical that the State Department would have sent the samples to Minnesota, since the University is well known for its ability to test for microtoxins in food or livestock feed. It added that it was also logical that Mirocha would perform the tests without probing into the origin of the material, since it was, to him, a routine procedure. “While the State Department’s behind-the-scenes approach may have bruised some feelings in Minnesota there was nothing sinister afoot,” stated the editorial.

Several weeks later, on October 16, in a front-page article, “U research policies, prof, given vote of confidence,” the original reporter wrote that the Education Policy Committee of the University’s Board of Regents officially sanctioned its existing research policies and Mirocha. Administrators at the University told the committee that because Mirocha’s work fell into the category of “outside services,” it was perfectly within the University’s guidelines. Although the State Department still refused to release many details about the project, Mirocha said in the article that he intended to publish the full results.

Mirocha complained that the newspaper reporter did not “conduct herself in a professional manner” and upset the operation of his lab while gathering information for the article. Despite the fact that the department chair had given the reporter the “correct, unbiased facts” about the situation, the reporter persisted in creating “a story out of fantasy,” Mirocha said.

Determination of the Council: The newspaper falsely implied in its September 28 article that Mirocha knowingly violated the University’s policy prohibiting secret research. The misleading implication, however, was partially due to Mirocha’s own initial reluctance to talk with the paper openly about the matter, as well as the State Department’s refusal to give the full details. The paper adequately corrected the false implication in a March 30 editorial and in subsequent stories on the matter. Its offer to clarify the matter in print was also a proper response to Mirocha’s complaint. Mirocha’s harassment charge against the newspaper reporter is unwarranted. The reporter was persistent in pursuit of the story, but persistence does not necessarily constitute harassment.

The complaint against the newspaper is not upheld.

Concurring: Amdahl, Brooks, Egert, Fushan, Graven, Hawthorne, Ryan, Spielman, Ziegenhagen

Concurring Opinion: Shaw Hindsight is always perfect. But I believe it is unfortunate that the paper did not distinguish between (a) the University’s policy against secret research and (b) its apparent lack of any corresponding policy prohibiting secret testing. I concur that the paper falsely implied that Professor Mirocha knowingly violated the University’s policy prohibiting secret research and I regret that the reporter’s superb work on this important story was flawed by this single error.

Partial Dissent: Early, Fairbanks, Provost Harassment is a difficult thing to define, but we believe Mirocha and his lab assistant when they say they felt harassed by the reporter. We think she overstepped the bounds of good reporting with her constant questioning of the lab assistant and her repeated phone calls. We are particularly opposed to the practice of calling sources very early in the morning and very late at night, unless absolutely necessary.

Partial Dissent: Miles, Selby We do not believe that the beginning of the paper’s September 28 article falsely implied that the complainant breached the University’s secret research policy. The paper’s use of the words “secret” and “highly guarded” were justified under the circumstances. The tests were so, whether Mirocha knew it or not. We also believe that the paper and the reporter should be commended for going after a tremendously important story and raising the issue of whether the University’s “outside services” policy is adequate. Given the fact that Mirocha and the State Department were clearly unwilling to tell her all they knew about the analyses and their implications, she did remarkably well.

Partial Dissent: Brooks The paper was insensitive to Mirocha and his lack of experience with the news media. When the paper first contacted him he was understandably quite concerned about the effect the paper’s reporting might have on career and work at the University. But the paper pinned him to the wall and never let up. By antagonizing him at the start, the paper surrendered to others the task of providing the “facts” of the situation. As a result, certain people at the University (perhaps with their own axe to grind about the University’s research policy or Mirocha himself) created a sinister image of Mirocha’s work in the mind of the reporter. This led to a regrettable “overkill.” Ironically enough it’s this very kind of overkill that causes people to be wary of dealing with the press. In all other respects, all partial dissenting opinions concur with the determination.

Background: Corporate Report is a regional business magazine headquartered in Minneapolis. The article at issue, entitled “A Capital Fight,” was published in its September 1981 issue and portrayed a bitter political struggle underway for control of the investment of Minnesota’s public employee pension funds. The article described the workings of the Minnesota State Investment Board, which managed and invested some $4.3 billion in pension monies, including the pension funds of the Public Employees Retirement Association (PERA), the Teachers Retirement Association, and the Minnesota State Retirement System.

The main thrust of the article was that John Allers, a union leader and a PERA director, was critical of the Investment Board’s performance and was seeking to withdraw PERA’s funds from the Investment Board’s control so that PERA could manage its own pension funds. Also involved in this effort was Michael McLaren, another PERA director and, according to the article, a “point man” for John Allers.

Response of the news organization: While the magazine admitted it had been inaccurate, it claimed its article did not accuse Carlson of collusion or conspiracy, as Carlson had appeared in the article as only a secondary player. Carlson had clearly aligned himself with the pension fund directors in their effort to withdraw funds from the Investment Board, and such errors in the article were technical and minor, said the magazine.

Corporate Report conceded that it failed to promptly correct the errors, but asserted that it had always been willing, and remained so, to print Carlson’s response to its article in a form “both adequate and appropriate.”

Determination of the Council: The Council finds there were factual errors in the magazine’s article relating to Carlson. The article wrongly implied that he worked in concert with others to obtain control of pension money away from the Investment Board for improper motives.

The Council proposes a two-step remedy: that the magazine, at its next opportunity, publish a correction of the errors of fact; and that Carlson take advantage of its offer to use its “Executive Forum” space to respond to those portions of the article offensive to him.

The complaint against the magazine is upheld.

Concurring: Allen, Brooks, Carlson, Egert, Fairbanks, Foley, Forsythe, Fushan, Higgins, Holloran, Kramer, McCollough, Miles, Myers, Peek, Selby, Simonett, Ryan, Ziegenhagen.

Partial Dissent by Earley: While the article contains some factual errors, it does not necessarily imply that Carlson shared the personal motivations of other critics and worked in concert with them to obtain control of the pension money.