Background: Specifically, Shely complained that the paper:

1. Failed to cover a march by the local freeze group because the paper’s publisher is opposed to the freeze movement;
2. Unfairly associated freeze proponents with radical leftists in an editorial;
3. Unfairly denied pro-freeze letter writers access to its letters column to respond to the editorial, and unfairly attached editor’s notes to the two pro-freeze letters it did publish;
4. Distorted news about the Stillwater City Council’s consideration of a nuclear freeze resolution.

Determination of the Council: 1. Finding on the paper’s decision not to cover the march. Shely alleges that the paper did not cover the march because, when he went to inform the paper that the march would be taking place, the editor told him he did not believe in the freeze movement and would not devote news space to the march. When Shely later protested by phone that this was unfair, the editor dismissed him by saying the paper belonged to him and that he had no further time for Shely. However, the paper did publish a notice on the front page of the paper that the march was going to take place. And, in a news story on the Stillwater City Council’s decision not to vote on a freeze resolution, which appeared 10 days after the march, the paper also briefly mentioned that the march had taken place.

Clippings submitted to the Council showed that before and after the march the paper published a variety of stories and letters to the editor on disarma-ment issues, including the freeze. The newspaper also addressed the freeze issue in it own editorial columns and notes attached to letters to the editor. It decided not to publish a story on the march itself because it felt the march was staged simply to dramatize the freeze movement, added nothing to the public understanding of the issues involved, and was therefore not newsworthy, according to the newspaper editor, who said he attended the march.

Countless special interest groups seek to popularize issues by staging events for the benefit of television cameras and the print media. These groups are clearly entitled to seek media attention, but they cannot always expect it as a matter of right. At the same time, news media editors must have wide discretion to determine what stories to report on and how to report them, provided, their decisions are unbiased and made in good faith. In this case, although the publisher’s remarks to Shely before the march tend to bring into question the editor’s subsequent claim that he simply found the march not to be newsworthy, the paper did cover the nuclear freeze issue before and after the march. The Council can find no clear showing of editorial bias in the paper’s decision not to cover this one event.

This part of the complaint against the newspaper is not upheld.

Concurring: Brommer, Brooks, Graven, McCollough, Pearce, Simonett, Staples

Dissenting Opinion: Allen, Early, Fairbanks, Gilson, Peek, Ziegenhagen – We are cognizant of the problem staged events can present to the media. Manipulation by both sides – media and demonstrators – is always possible. In this case, however, both parties to the dispute agree that such a march was an unusual event for Stillwater and that nothing like it had taken place in that city for at least five years.

The Washington County Commissioners and Stillwater City Council members were about to vote on a nuclear freeze resolution. Approximately 500 local people had signed a petition of support, the St. Croix Valley Ministerial Association had held a number of weekly meetings on the issue, and between 75 and 100 persons did turn out to demonstrate in the streets of downtown Stillwater. The newspaper itself considered the freeze issue important enough to cover and speak out on in its editorial columns, and with notes attached to letters to the editor. Clearly, this was a matter of significant local interest. Two other area newspapers thought so and covered the march.

Given all the circumstances, we believe the paper exercised poor news judgment in failing to cover the march. With the current debate over the freeze issue, at the national and local levels, the paper would have done well to cover the march and let its readers decide the merits of it themselves. We are also concerned with the appearance of bias engendered by the editor in his initial confrontation with Shely. Readers have a right to expect newspaper news pages to be as accurate as professional journalists can make them. When news judgment appears to be influenced by the personal bias of a publisher, the credibility of the paper, and of the news media in general, is undermined.

Finding on the paper’s March 7, 1983 editorial The Council finds the March 7 editorial on the freeze movement to be well within the bounds of acceptable editorial opinion. The newspaper is entitled to express whatever opinions it likes in editorials, as long as those opinions are anchored in facts. In this case, the paper did not go beyond the facts. This part of the complaint is not upheld.

Concurring: Allen, Brommer, Brooks, Early, Fairbanks, Gilson, Graven, McCollough, Pearce, Peek, Simonett, Staples, Ziegenhagen

Finding on the paper’s handling of letters to the editor: The Council finds the paper’s handling of the letters to the editor to be a reasonable exercise of editorial discretion. In this case the newspaper did not overstep the proper bounds of professionalism, either in the number of letters it published in response to the March 7 editorial, or in the editor’s notes it attached to the letters. Whether an editor chooses to respond to letters with editor’s notes, editorials, or signed opinion pieces is up to the individual taste and judgment of the editor. This part of the complaint is also not upheld.

Concurring: Fairbanks, Gilson, Graven, McCollough, Pearce, Peek, Simonett

Dissenting Opinion: Allen, Brommer, Brooks, Early, Staples, Ziegenhagen – It is not possible to determine whether the paper had handled letters to the editor fairly or professionally because the Council was given no specific figures on the number of letters received and no indication of the letters’ content. Three letters published by the paper were submitted as evidence. The first, published on March 4, the day before the rally, asked the Washington County Board and Stillwater City Council to support the freeze. The second, published on March 10, criticized the March 7 editorial and supported a freeze. The third, published on March 15, opposed the freeze. Thus just one of the three dealt with the editorial.

It was testified at the hearing that a “flood” of letters was sent to the paper on the subject of the editorial. Publication of one letter hardly seems representative of a “flood.” It is, of course, the editor’s privilege to publish as many or as few letters as he wishes. But professionalism dictates that a balance be struck among letters on various issues.

The letter of March 10 was accompanied by an editor’s note of unnecessary length and editorial quality. It would have been more professional for the editor to point out, briefly, that the readers have misinterpreted the editorial. It is unprofessional for editors to chide readers or to lecture them in such a format as a note appended to readers’ letters.

Finding on the paper’s March 16, 1983 news story: Finally, the Council finds that the paper’s March 16 news story on the city council’s consideration of the freeze resolution to be judgmental and inaccurate. While the complainant took objection to the headline, the Council finds that it is not objectionable since it can be easily understood in the context of what the city council did, and in fact, the city council took no action on the resolution. But the lead paragraph is misleading. It was and is clear that the nuclear freeze movement is not dead in Stillwater. The refusal of the city council to act on the resolution is only one small phase in the active freeze movement. This may have been clear in the context of the rest of the story, but the article’s implication that somehow the city council’s lack of action was a death-dealing blow to the nuclear freeze movement would seem to be going beyond the facts. To this extent, the Council finds this complaint to be unwarranted.

Concurring: Fairbanks, Gilson, Graven, McCollough, Pearce, Simonett, Staples

Concurring in part, dissenting in part: Allen Brommer, Brooks, Early, Peek, Ziegenhagen – I concur with the determination on the March 16 news story, but I think the headline is also misleading. The city council did not let the nuclear freeze die. It let the nuclear freeze resolution die.

Background: In February 1983, Rubin was prosecuting a fortune teller operating in the Duluth and Virginia area for theft by swindle, the complaint alleging the defendant had swindled at least 11 people of some $220,000. The evening of February 2, the Brooklyn Center witness was called by a newspaper reporter who was writing a story on the criminal case. The witness unsuccessfully pleaded with the reporter not to use her name in the article. The witness then called Rubin, who in turn made several calls to the reporter’s supervisors, but was told it was the newspaper’s policy to publish names of crime victims in cases such as this. On February 21, under the headline “Fortune teller faces 11 swindling counts,” the newspaper published an article about the case, naming the Brooklyn Center woman as one of the victims and also naming two women from the Duluth area. In May 1983 the criminal proceedings were concluded with a guilty plea.

The grievants contended it was improper journalistic practice to publish the names of the three victims, and in particular that of the Brooklyn Center victim. These names, or course, were a matter of public record. Rubin argues, however, that their publication discouraged victims from cooperating with prosecuting authorities and would prejudice prosecution of other cases in the future. He further argued that, in this instance, publication of the Brooklyn Center victim’s name was unnecessary to the newspaper story and needlessly caused great embarrassment, humiliation and mental anguish to the victim, although he did concede that the physical health of the witness was not endangered by publication.

At the Council hearing, the paper’s managing editor stated it was the newspaper’s long-standing policy to publish the names of victims and witnesses, assuming there was no overriding reason weighing against publication. He said the newspaper does not publish the names of rape victims nor the name of witnesses whom law enforcement officials can demon-strate are in clear danger of bodily harm or property damage. In this case, he stated, none of the exceptions to the general rule to publish names applied.

The grievants conceded that not every case of embarrassment justifies non-publication, but they contended that this case was unique because the victims were truly victims, many of them elderly, vulnerable and susceptible to suggestion by someone unscrupulous; they turned over their money not in any “get-rich-quick” scheme, but to have their money “cleansed of evil.” The circumstances were highly unusual and humiliating to those duped. The lead paragraph of the newspaper article accurately describes the case:

The complaints read like mystical, magical folk tales, replete with accounts of snakes popping out of eggs, the face of Satan lurking in a tomato, tea leaves, palm readings and tarot cards.

Determination of the Council: In this bizarre situation, the grievants contend that it is cruel, unfair and unnecessary to have published the names. They point out that the Duluth News Tribune, published in the area where the 10 other victims lived, chose not to identify any victims. It might be added that the Minneapolis Star and Tribune in a subsequent news reports on the case, did not again use the names. Rubin argues that the swindle victims should be treated no differently from victims of sex offenses whose names are not published.

With respect to sex offenses, it is important from the standpoint of public policy that these crimes be reported and prosecuted, and he says publication of names of victims would seriously deter that policy. In addition, there is concern for the personal torment to which rape victims would be put if they were to be publicly identified in the news. If there is concern for the embarrassment and mental sufferings of the rape victim, it can be argued that the same concern should apply, in appropriate cases, to victims of other kinds of crimes.

On the other hand, the newspaper is the recorder of public events. If it yields to every request not to publish a name already part of the public record because it would be embarrassing to the person involved, the newspaper, particularly a large metropolitan daily as here, would not be fulfilling its expected role to keep the public informed. To report the news with the persons involved remaining anonymous leaves the news incomplete, lacking concreteness and, at times, raises questions about the credibility of the news report. In this case, considering all the circumstances, we do not find the analogy to the rape-victim cases sufficiently compelling. Here the victim’s subjective embarrassment, though real and painful, does not attain that kind or degree where it can be said the newspaper exceeded a proper exercise of its discretion in electing to publish the victim’s name. The prosecution of the fortune teller proceeded to a successful conclusion. The newspaper, following its established procedures, carefully considered the request not to publish and reasonably concluded that grievant had not shown that an exception should be made to the general rule to publish.

The complaint against the newspaper is not upheld.

Concurring: Earley, Forsythe, Graven, Higgins, Kramer, McCollough, Simonett, Staples, Ziegenhagen

Concurring in Part 1, Dissenting in Part: Peek - I agree with the majority with the exception that I feel if any names of victims were to be used, all names should have been used. Women, especially elderly women, are already victims in our society, even without their being targets of a swindle. These women should not have been victimized further by being singled out of a group of a dozen people for comment.

Dissenting Opinion: Fairbanks, Gilson, Ryan, Selby Although we are not suggesting impropriety on the part of the newspaper, we are not ready to let the paper off the hook in this particular case. Although we do believe that the newspaper followed its guidelines, we also believe that a greater degree of sensitivity and consideration could have been used in dealing with a victim’s personal request. We feel that this older victim was embarrassed unnecessarily by the publication of her name. Considering that she specifically requested on several occasions and to several people that her name not be used, we are concerned that the unusual nature of the story may have taken precedence over judgment and taste, based on the fact that the use of names would have made it a better story.

We do not agree that, in this particular case, the publication of names of victims added a degree of authenticity to this story. We do feel, however, that publication of names added a “local slant,” in this case at the emotional expense of the victim and of no particular gain to the newspaper. We believe the newspaper could exercise wider latitude in sensitivity and consideration when dealing with the request of victims, on a case-by-case basis. In this particular case, the victim had already suffered unnecessary loss of dignity and privacy. Publication of her name added to this suffering.

A general media practice has been to withhold names of rape victims. We suggest that consideration be given to the victims of non-sexual crimes, i.e., that the media reappraise their long-standing policies regarding specific cases that, one can argue, parallel rape.

1. Failed to adequately cover several incidents concerning incumbent Sheriff Wayne Goodnature’s record in office which reflected negatively on the incumbent’s competence;
2. Unfairly demanded changes in several of the committee’s political advertisements and refused to publish one ad;
3. Unfairly denied Bartlett supporters access to the newspaper’s letters-to-the-editor column; and
4. Failed to give proper coverage to the election results.

Background: During the fall 1982 campaign, Bartlett repeatedly challenged the competency and integrity of the incumbent sheriff. Contrary to the grievant’s position, it appears the paper did report about the various challenges in its news stories. While the paper might have reported the incidents in more detail, the Council cannot say that the extent of the news coverage of these items was not within reasonable editorial discretion.

One of the challenges raised by Bartlett concerned the sheriff’s approval of “on-call” pay for one of his deputies, which was subsequently struck down by the county board, which ruled the deputy was not entitled to the supplemental pay. The Bartlett committee claimed it submitted a political advertisement to the paper in which it referred to the “on-call” payments to the deputy as “illegal” payments. After consulting with the county auditor, the newspaper refused to print the ad unless the word “illegal” was changed to “unauthorized.” Other papers did publish the ad, and the committee refused to make the change requested by the Herald. The News Council finds that it was not unreasonable for the newspaper to refuse to publish the political ad without the requested change.

More troublesome is the grievant’s claim that the paper refused to publish other political ads because the advertisements, in referring to Bartlett, used the words “tall,” “trustworthy,” and “honest.” He claimed the ads were rejected because these phrases would reflect adversely on Bartlett’s opponent. The newspaper editor denied any such ads were refused and said they would have been accepted. To refuse to publish such ads for the reasons alleged would be wrong, but since copies of the rejected ads were not furnished to the Council, it does not have sufficient evidence to make any judgment on the newspaper’s conduct and finds the charge not proven. Also troublesome is the claim of lack of fair access to the letters-to-the-editor column. On September 30, people from the Bartlett committee submitted a letter protesting the destruction of their lawn signs by Goodnature supporters. Because the editorial page had already been “made up” for the day, the newspaper published the protest as a front page news story. Two days later the paper published a front page denial and countercharge on the lawn sign issue by Goodnature. This, in turn, prompted a flurry of letters to the editor. On October 4, Janet Marsden, a Bartlett supporter, submitted a letter, sworn before a notary, stating she had witnessed Goodnature “willfully” destroying Bartlett signs at the county fair. The editor refused to print the letter on the advice of counsel, saying that this was a legal matter for the county attorney. At the Council meeting, the editor explained that he did not want a “trial by newspaper.”

Under the circumstances, the Council believes it was not unreasonable for the paper to refuse to publish this letter. During the remainder of October, the newspaper did publish other letters commenting on the lawn sign issue, mostly from Goodnature supporters. Bartlett asserts that other letters from Bartlett supporters were rejected by the paper. The newspaper says this is not so, that it did publish whatever was submitted.

It may well be that these other pro-Bartlett letters, if submitted, should have been published. Again, the Council is unable to resolve this dispute of fact without examining the rejected letters. The editor says these letters, if not like the Marsden letter, would have been printed. If such letters had been submitted, the Council believes, under the circumstances, that it would have been unfair not to have published them. On this record, however, the Council finds this complaint of lack of access to the paper not proven.

Finally, Bartlett complains that in a front page story the day after the election, the paper reported a separate tally of the city vote in the sheriff’s race but not a separate tally of the rural vote. This was important to the Bartlett people because their candidate carried the rural vote. The paper points out, however, that it did report a complete detailed breakdown of the sheriff vote, in box score forms, on page two. In other words, the full story on the voting patterns was reported and it was not improper for the paper, in its editorial discretion, to place the story on its pages as it did.

As a closing observation, the Council questions whether the newspaper’s coverage of the Goodnature-Bartlett dispute was as complete as it might have been. It appears that the neighboring Rochester Post-Bulletin, as well as the more distant Minneapolis Tribune, provided more comprehensive coverage.

The complaint against the newspaper is not upheld.

Concurring: Brommer, Brooks, Forsythe, Gilson, Graven, Higgins, Kramer, McCollough, Pearce, Ryan, Selby, Simonett, Ziegenhagen.

Background: The article at issue was an opinion piece entitled “Cheap shots on the air” published in the August 9, 1982, issue of the Minnesota Daily, the student newspaper of the University of Minnesota. It commented on a radio debate between then Attorney General Spannaus and former Governor Rudy Perpich, who were opposing each other in the September Democratic gubernatorial primary election. Spannaus subsequently lost the election to Perpich. In the opinion piece, the writer accused Perpich of taking a “cheap shot” at Spannaus when he claimed during the debate that the attorney general had been “‘harping’ about guns and had spent 12 years in office “talking about guns and polarizing the people of the state.”

Elsewhere in the article the writer stated: “Spannaus, of course, was the driving force behind the state’s current gun control legislation. During his first six years as attorney general, it was his top priority. In the six years since it passed, however, Spannaus has not pushed for more legislation. He is satisfied, he says, that Minnesota has the handgun legislation it needs.”

The group contended that Spannaus had, indeed, pushed for more legislation, pointing out that the attorney general proposed a new firearms measure in 1981. Under a draft of the proposed bill, dated February 10, 1981, anyone injured by a pistol could sue anyone who had transferred the gun in violation of existing state gun laws. “Intervening transfers shall be no defense to the claim,” the bill draft stated. This measure would have extended current liability for illegal gun sales perpetually. It thus amounted to a new firearms measure.

Response of the news organization: The paper maintained that the opinion piece was accurate, contending that what Spannaus proposed in 1981 was crime control, not gun control. It claimed that the average reader probably takes “gun control” to mean putting limitations on who can buy or carry guns, noting that the proposed bill dealt with stiffening penalties. Neither the writer nor the paper was aware of the proposed bill, but even if they had been, they said, the story would not have been written or edited any differently.

The paper believed the gun group’s request for a correction was inappropriate, since this matter involved a difference of opinion, not a question of fact. The paper said that it would still be happy to print a letter from the group, but that a correction was not warranted.

Determination of the Council: This marks the first time the Council has reviewed a complaint against the Minnesota Daily. Although it is a student newspaper, it is a publication of recognized influence in the community. By agreeing to participate in the proceedings, the Daily has shown a desire to be judged by the same standards that the Council applies to general circulation newspapers.

The Council believes that the questions of whether or not Spannaus “pushed” his proposal and whether or not his proposal was “more” gun control legislation or expansion of the existing law are matters of differing interpretation. The Council thus acknowledges the semantic ambiguities in the documents of this case, but it believes these are not central to the case.

The fact is that Spannaus did make a proposal – officially designated as a new law – dealing with penalties for those who transfer handguns that are used to injure persons. It is a matter of record that the proposal was aired in public and put into legislative language even though it was not introduced in the Legislature.

The Council finds that the paper’s failure to mention Spannaus’ activities resulted in an incomplete and therefore inaccurate statement. In the last analysis it is the reader who counts, and in this case the reader did not get the information that would have qualified the paper’s statement.

Furthermore, the paper should have promptly published a correction on the matter when it was brought to their attention.

The complaint against the newspaper is upheld.

Concurring: Allen, Brommer, Fairbanks, Forsythe, Hedberg, Higgins, McCollough, Miles, Peek, Ryan, Selby, Simonett, Ziegenhagen

Dissenting Opinion: Kramer and Staples It is a matter of differing interpretation regarding the question of whether or not Spannaus “pushed” new gun control legislation. We believe that the attorney general could have had powerful authors introduce a bill in the legislature if he had wanted to “push” his proposal…. Thus, while others disagree, we do not believe he “pushed.” The author may not have been aware of Spannaus’ proposal because no bill was introduced. Despite what some people believe should be the case, editorials and opinion articles often lack facts that may be relevant to an issue. We believe the offer by the paper to run a letter to the editor was a fair response. Since the story at issue was an opinion article, the opinion of the Minnesota Gun Owners’ Political Victory Fund would have been shared with readers on the same pages. In our opinion, there was not a misstatement of fact, but there was omission of information the author did not know about because no bill was introduced. Therefore we dissent from the majority opinion.