• That Hoese’s political advertisements were consistently placed in the three newspapers in poor locations, indicating a bias against Hoese;
• That a letter to the editor on behalf of Hoese was improperly edited and that a news story misquoted a Hoese supporter;
• That an editorial in the November 1, 1984, issue of the newspapers criticized a Hoese campaign brochure without giving the Hoese supporters an opportunity to reply to the criticism; and
• The newspapers refused to print a letter to the editor on behalf of Hoese which rebutted a claim made by the McDonald campaign committee in its advertising.

District 35B is so laid out that, according to the parties, the only cost-effective local political advertising is in a newspaper. Four newspapers serve the district. Three of them, the three involved here, are owned by James D. Berreth, the publisher, who resides in Watertown. Each of the three newspapers has its own editor. The Carver County News is located at Watertown; the Waconia Patriot at Waconia; and the Norwood Times at Norwood.

Present for the grievant were Marcy Waritz, Chairperson of the DFL Committee, Henry Helgen, and Barb Hoese. Present on behalf of the three newspapers was Rod S. Shilkrot, who was editor of the Waconia Patriot at the time of the events involved here.

1. Ad placement: The Hoese committee claims that its ads were consistently placed in disadvantageous locations in these newspapers, suggestive of a bias against Hoese. Specifically, the grievant claims that McDonald’s ads were usually placed close to the front pages of the newspapers, while the Hoese ads were relegated to the back pages.

The three editors have made a careful review of the issues of their newspapers involved and have compiled a summary of the McDonald and Hoese ads that were published and the location of each ad. It appears, first of all, that the McDonald campaign did considerably more advertising than the Hoese campaign. In some issues of the newspapers there were no Hoese ads. Whether forward placement of ads is better than placement in the back pages, as Hoese argues, is uncertain.

Assuming that forward placement is better for readership purposes – and research is inconclusive on this – a careful review of the record shows that there were a total of 19 issues of the three newspapers in which ads were published for both candidates. In nine of these issues, the Hoese ads were placed before the McDonald ads; in eight issues, the McDonald ads were placed before the Hoese ads; and in two issues the ads of both candidates were in the middle of the newspapers. We do note that the McDonald ads appear to have received more forward placement in the Carver County News. The News Council, however, can find no bias favoring the McDonald campaign in the placement of the ads, nor can it be said there is any consistent pattern of ad placement favorable to either candidate.

We might add that the Hoese ads were usually submitted to the Carver County Herald at Chaska (not a paper owned by Berreth) and prepared there. These ads would then be given to Berreth’s three newspapers under a shared-exchange arrangement. While, for example, the Waconia Patriot would receive notice of the ad insertions and the sizes of the ads, this information did not always arrive in a timely manner and, in some instances, depending on the weekly page composition schedule at the Waconia office, might unintentionally affect placement of the ads. McDonald ads, on the other hand, were submitted in Watertown and prepared in Waconia at the Patriot.

The grievance of biased ad placement is denied.

2. Improperly edited letter: Joel Kamerud submitted a four-paragraph letter to the editor on behalf of Hoese, referring to the candidate’s effective skills as a communicator, which was printed in several papers. The Carver County News published a one-paragraph letter from Joel Kamerud which was simply a generalized endorsement of Hoese. The two letters are completely different and clearly the one-paragraph letter cannot be an “edited” version of the first letter; indeed, one wonders if Joel Kamerud, who did not submit testimony, may have written two different letters or if some mix-up in letters occurred. The newspapers state they did no editing.In any event, the News Council lacks sufficient information to make a judgment on this grievance.

Grievant claims that the chairperson of the Hoese Campaign Committee was misquoted in a news article about the campaign. The writer of the news article testified the quote used was as written in his notes and that he believes it fairly reflects what was said. Here again, the News Council, on this record, declines to make a judgment.

The News Council declines to resolve the factual disputes on the Joel Kamerud letter and the alleged misquote, and these grievances are dismissed.

Editorial: Before the election campaign started, the Berreth newspapers were concerned about their “vulnerability” to any claims of bias because of a longtime friendship between the publisher Berreth, and candidate McDonald. Consequently, the publisher and editors established a policy that the three newspapers would not endorse a candidate for the District 35B seat.

The newspapers state they made every effort to report the election campaign fairly, and it is significant that, with the exception of the one alleged misquote, there is no claim by the Hoese committee that the news coverage was not fair. However, in the November 1, 1984 issue of the newspapers, the last issue before the election, an editorial appeared criticizing a promotional brochure that had just been distributed by the Hoese supporters. The brochure quoted from an editor’s column critical of McDonald that had appeared in the Waconia Patriot four years earlier. It was, of course, unfair for the Hoese committee to use a four-year-old quote of a former editor to suggest that such was the position of the newspapers in 1984. The newspapers, quite properly, responded with an editorial to correct this mistaken impression. The editorial, we might add, even while making the correction, did not make an endorsement, but only clarified the newspapers’ own position.

The grievance on the editorial is denied.

Refusal to print letter: On October 25, 1984, the McDonald supporters published an advertisement in which it was stated that McDonald had high ratings from the Farmers Union. The Hoese supporters obtained a letter from Willis Eken of the Farmers Union stating that McDonald, in fact, had a very low rating from the Farmers Union. The Hoese supporters asked that this letter be published in the November 1, 1984, issue of the newspapers as a letter to the editor. This request was refused as an attempt to raise a new issue at the last minute.

It would seem that the Hoese committee could have responded to the statement of Farmers Union support in the McDonald political ad with an ad of its own. It chose, however, to attempt a response in the letters to the editor column. The News Council believes that the Eken letter should have been published. It did not raise a new issue at the last minute but only responded to an issue that the McDonald committee had raised on October 25, and the issue of Farmers Union support was one of substance. We think better practice would have been to publish the Eken letter.

The grievance on the Eken letter is sustained.

Concurring: Ashmore, Casey, Chucker, Earley, Falkman, Graven, King, Persons, Ryan, Selby, Simonett

Partial Dissent: Ziegenhagen joined by Peek and Sundin – We dissent from the majority decision as it relates to the Carver County News. In that newspaper, there appears a clear and consistent pattern of front-of-the-paper placement of ads for K. J. McDonald and the IR party, and a clear pattern of back-of-the-paper placement for Hoese, the DFL candidate. Only on weeks when Hoese bought no ads did McDonald’s ads appear toward the back of the papers.

Most egregious was the favorable placement of K. J. McDonald’s ad along with one for the IR Party on the front page of the voter’s guide, perhaps the most important edition of the newspaper for those running in the election. In that section, Hoese’s ad appeared on page 2 and additional IR and McDonald ads appeared on page 3. Local candidates in districts such as those served by the Carver County News must depend almost entirely on the community newspaper to reach their voters. It is the only mass media available at a cost candidates can afford and still meet the spending limits set by law. For that reason, publishers should enact procedures that give oversight to fairness in not only political campaign reporting but also in readers’ access to the paper and to advertising placement. This extra effort enhances a newspaper’s acceptance in its community as a fair and impartial medium, one vital to the practice of democracy.

Background: Gary Hayer was a candidate for the District 23E House seat in the 1984 General Election, running against incumbent Allen Quist. Quist won the election. Two days later, on November 8, the St. Peter Herald published an editorial entitled “Leave the tricks.” The editorial stated that with freedom of expression comes a responsibility to use that freedom wisely; and that campaigns should stick to the issues and “dirty tricks” should “be left in the sewer.” The editorial went on to illustrate its thesis by referring to two incidents in grievant Gary Hayer’s campaign:

“When House District 23B candidate Gary Hayer stated in his campaign literature that his opponent, Allen Quist, was a psychology professor, Hayer knew he was using a misstatement of fact. Although Quist was a teacher for a number of years, he has been a full-time farmer the past two years ….”"We also found it despicable that a member of a group which had endorsed Hayer’s candidacy chose to use the group’s newsletter to publish an untruth – that Quist had voted to close the St. Peter Hospital.”

Grievant asked the editor, Harry Evanoff, for an opportunity to discuss the matter “over a cup of coffee” but grievant says that the editor refused. Evanoff submitted a written reply to the grievance but was unable to attend the council hearing. In his written response, Evanoff stated he had evidence of other “dirty tricks” but either to protect his sources or because he could not attribute the incidents to the Hayer campaign staff, he did not cite them in his editorial. Further facts will be set out in the discussion which follows.

Discussion: Hayer’s committee published an elaborate piece of campaign literature outlining the candidate’s views on various issues. Included therein was a reprint of an editorial that had appeared in the October 11 issue of the Mankato Free Press speaking favorably of Hayer’s candidacy. One sentence in the Mankato editorial stated, “Gary Hayer, a St. Peter farmer, is a DFLer who wants the District 23B seat held for the last two years by Independent Republican Allen Quist, a psychology professor.” This piece of campaign literature was distributed in the St. Peter Herald’s shopper to rural routes only.

The facts are that Quist does farm, his farm being only a few miles from the Hayer farm. Quist also had taught psychology at Bethany Lutheran College in Mankato, although apparently not in the most recent two years. In the Legislative Manual, Quist gives his biography as “Professor of psychology, Bethany Lutheran College, farmer.” Also, at various election campaign events, Quist apparently had mentioned his background in psychology.

The critical fact to keep in mind, however, is that Hayer did not himself identify Quist as a psychology professor but that this is the designation given Quist by the Mankato Free Press in its editorial, which Hayer only reprinted. It is clear from the content of the Mankato Free Press editorial that Hayer’s campaign committee chose to reprint it because of the favorable comments in the editorial about Hayer, not because of the fleeting reference to Quist as a psychology professor. Even if Hayer knew that Quist was a full-time farmer – and this is unclear – it is unfair to suggest that Hayer’s failure to edit the reprint was a “dirty trick.”

Frankly, the Council sees nothing wrong with Hayer’s use of the editorial from the Mankato Free Press. We might add that while rural voters in the St. Peter area might wish to know the relative farming experience of the two candidates, we are not prepared to believe that these voters would consider a masters degree in psychology necessarily to be a disadvantage in their state representative. The second “dirty trick” cited in the editorial refers to an AFSCME newsletter to its members in which the union apparently stated, incorrectly, that Quist had voted to close the St. Peter State Hospital. AFSCME had endorsed Hayer’s candidacy. Hayer, however, says neither he nor his campaign committee had anything to do with what was written in the union’s newsletter. The newspaper states that Hayer’s own campaign literature asks, “Why didn’t our present representative immediately and vigorously support, at every opportunity, bills that would most surely benefit St. Peter State Hospital?”

We do not agree with the newspaper that for Hayer to ask this question in his campaign literature is somehow supporting any incorrect or improper statements that AFSCME on its own might be making. The future of the St. Peter State Hospital was evidently a hot issue in the election campaign, and one would expect a challenger to claim that the incumbent could have done more for the hospital while the incumbent, on the other hand, would defend his record. There is nothing before us to suggest any “guilt by association” should attach to Hayer for what AFSCME may or may not have done.

Finally, we regret that the newspaper editor was unable to meet with Hayer. Often, such meetings are helpful to clear up misunderstandings or at least to clarify points of view.

The grievance is sustained.

Concurring: Ashmore, Bednar, Brooks, Casey, Chucker, Earley, Forsythe, Graven, King, Myers, Pearce, Peek, Persons, Ryan, Simonett, Sundin and Warder

Abstaining: Falkman - I feel that, in this case, without the newspaper representative present at the hearing to answer questions, certain pertinent facts may be missing.

Background: Mary Jane Rachner was a candidate for the Fourth District congressional seat in the November, 1984 general election, running against the incumbent, Bruce Vento. She submitted two advertisements to the St. Paul Dispatch and Pioneer Press. Both were rejected. Descriptions of the two ads follow:

For some time the newspaper had been running its own advertising campaign promoting the reading of newspapers and using prominent St. Paul community leaders to explain the importance of newspapers in equipping them to fulfill their responsibilities in the community and as citizens. Rachner submitted an advertisement which was a parody of this concept, using herself as the prominent public figure.The second ad was entitled, “Vote the R-Team,” Reagan for President, Rudy for Senate, Rachner for Congress. The ad displayed a passport photo of Rachner.

Response of the News Organization: Tom Golden, advertising director for the St. Paul Dispatch and Pioneer Press, appeared on behalf of the newspaper. As to the parody ad, he said its acceptance would have prejudiced the substantial investment the newspaper had made in its own promotional program. As to the “R-Team” ad, he stated that Rachner was requested to supply written authorization from the Reagan and Boschwitz Campaign Committees for the appearance of these candidates’ names in the Rachner ad, and that these authorizations were never supplied. Indeed, the newspaper had been advised by the public relations firm handling the Boschwitz account that its candidate’s appearance in campaign ads of others required authorization.

Discussion: As already stated, the newspaper had a substantial and legitimate investment in its own promotional ads which it could not be expected to prejudice by publishing the parody ad.

The “R-Team” ad is more interesting. One supposes that a candidate might publish an advertisement stating he or she supports the policies of Mondale or Reagan. Neither Mondale nor Reagan could, supposedly, object, and the advertisement’s contents explain to the reader something about the candidate’s position. This, however, is not the gist of the Rachner ad. It refers to Reagan, Boschwitz and Rachner as a “team,” the implication being not only that Rachner supports Reagan and Boschwitz, but that Reagan and Boschwitz support Rachner. In this context, the newspaper was justified in requiring some assurance that the two other candidates named in the Rachner ad had authorized the use of their names. Not receiving this assurance, the newspaper was justified in rejecting the ad.

In the fall of 1983, Rachner had run an ad in the Twin Cities dailies asking for contributions to “Women for Reagan.” The ad listed names of supporters and was signed by Rachner as District 65B I-R Secretary. I-R officials said that the ad was unauthorized by the party, and there were other objections to its message and claims by some signers that use of their names had not been authorized. With this history, the newspaper had added reason to exercise caution with the “R-Team” ad submitted by grievant.

The grievance is denied.

Concurring: Ashmore, Bednar, Brooks, Casey, Earley, Falkman, Forsythe, King, Myers, Pearce, Persons, Ryan, Simonett, Sundin and Warder

Partial Dissent: Graven - I dissent in part from the majority determination. There are two basic complaints by Rachner against the St. Paul Dispatch-Pioneer Press. The first had to do with a parody ad. I agree that the St. Paul paper and its advertising director were certainly within their rights to refuse to publish a parody ad which made fun of an apparently substantial promotional program of the paper. It is certainly a matter of judgment, and Rachner was obviously guilty of lese majeste. There is no reason why conscientious, fair, competent advertising departments and promotional teams need have a sense of humor when their own interests are involved.

As to the R-Team decision, I do dissent. I appreciate the majority’s position and the manner in which it chooses to emphasize the facts. One assumes from the majority that what is involved here is only misleading advertising, and an advertising department does have some obligation to police the precincts. But I don’t think that’s what’s really involved here and I see the majority sustaining what I consider a fairly insidious and dangerous practice in Minnesota. Let me elaborate.

The bald facts here are that Rachner is not and was not the Republican establishment’s favorite. The Republican party chose not to endorse anyone against the obvious and apparent winner, Vento, in the Fourth Congressional District. Rachner chose to run in the Republican primary and won. She was the Republican candidate for Congress. This presented a possible embarrassment to other Republicans, and apparently to Senator Boschwitz who was making a statewide race which was, at least at that point, clearly not in the bag. He probably had not yet even started composing his now-famous memo on how to win elections. But the two-party system means that each party has a broad umbrella or tent, and politics makes strange tentmates.

The fact is the St. Paul Pioneer Press squelched an ad by a legitimate candidate for Congress who had the greatest credential in the world to be running; that is, she had won the primary fair and square. Whether the powers that be wanted her to win or not is another question. She did and she claimed to be a Republican, and she sought to purchase an ad which emphasized certain similarities between her and people that she perceived to be much more popular than she, namely Boschwitz and Reagan. They do have certain similarities. Their first or last names begin with an R (a key political point). Secondly, they were all running on the Republican ticket. Boschwitz’s advertising agency vetoed the ad.

Rachner, for better or worse, claimed to be supporting Boschwitz and Reagan and wanted people to elect her because she was. In the context of most political advertising, her claim that there was a “team,” that is, Republicans duly nominated by their parties by law for high Federal office sharing a common letter of the alphabet and perhaps even common principles seems to me to be not misleading. I think the majority makes too much of the word “team.” It says that Rachner’s claim to be part of the Reagan team implies that Reagan wants her aboard that team. That narrow, crabbed reading might be possible in academic halls, but in the context of robust political debate and hyperbole it is clearly, in my judgment, fair comment by Rachner, who after all wanted to get to Congress to help (as she said) Reagan’s program and Boschwitz’s program. The fact that Reagan didn’t know, and had probably written off Minnesota anyway, is immaterial. Letting Boschwitz’s ad director squelch the ad (the Pioneer Press basically gave them the option to let the ad run or not by asking for their consent to the use of the Boschwitz name) strikes me as being bad policy for a newspaper in this state.

If the Ku Klux Klan wanted to come in Minnesota and run an ad in support of Walter Mondale, it seems to me they have a perfect right to do so, even though it might, in fact, embarrass Mondale, or for that matter Joan Growe, and I don’t think the paper should go to Mondale’s ad director to see if Mondale objected to the use of his name. I assume that if the Mad Fascists for Boschwitz had declared their support for Rudy he would have taken great and public delight in repudiating the support. The question of what to do with Rachner’s support – she being viewed as a political loose cannon on the deck – was more dicey, however. After all, she had won a primary and she had some support. The Boschwitz campaign was spared the disagreeable task of facing up to the Rachner issue, because the St. Paul Pioneer Press advertising department decided to give Boschwitz what was, in effect, veto power over what kind of ad Rachner could run. I think this was wrong, and we ought to say so.

The issue is not partisan. Do the Republicans really think the Star and Tribune (to select a paper at total random) ought to check out with Gary Hart or Ted Kennedy’s advertising gurus whether or not some DFL candidate for Congress can run an ad claiming to be a Hart Democrat or a Kennedy Team Player?

Partial Dissent: Chucker - Harold Chucker associates himself with the Graven dissent, particularly with respect to the paper letting Sen. Boschwitz’s ad director squelch the R-team ad, giving the agency, Graven points out, the option to let the ad run or not by asking their consent to use of the Boschwitz name, and sparing the Boschwitz campaign the task of facing up to the Rachner issue.

The incident giving rise to this discussion illustrates a common problem presented to newspapers. Frerichs submitted a letter to the editor to the Dodge County Independent for inclusion in its last issue prior to the November 6, 1984 election. The letter was critical of the voting record of incumbent Jerry Schoenfeld. Schoenfeld happened to be in the newspaper office prior to press time and asked if any letters attacking his record would be in the next issue. He was shown the Frerichs letter. Schoenfeld then asked the editor if he could submit a letter in rebuttal, and this request was granted. Frerichs has no objection to the printing of the Schoenfeld rebuttal, which he says is only fair. His concern, however, is that the “[Rebuttal] letter was four times longer than mine, and raised new points that I had no chance to respond to.”

The Council is not concerned with the factual merits of this specific incident and, indeed, does not have before it the two letters to the editor involved. The Council notes Representative Schoenfeld’s claim that his letter was fair rebuttal. The Council, however, is here concerned with the general problem of handling letters to the editor. The Dodge County Independent has extended its regrets to Frerichs and advises “it has become a policy of our paper not to show any letters to the editor, editorial content or advertisements to anyone prior to publication.”

Discussion: Letters to the editor can be a very effective campaign tool, sometimes more effective than political advertising and campaign literature. Letters to the editor tend to be well read by the newspapers’ readers. Knowing this, political committees organize letter-writing campaigns and jockey for the “last word.” Like anything else, carried too far, letters to the editor are subject to the law of diminishing returns.

Editors seek to obtain balance in the number of letters printed by the opposing sides and on the issues presented. At some point, editorial discretion must cut off the “debate.” Important, too, is the timing of letters to the editor. The problem with “last-minute” political communiquŽs, where new charges are raised without time for a response, is that the voters are deprived of having all the facts on which to make an informed decision.

Editors frequently reserve the right, announced in advance, to limit debate in the letters-to-the-editor column. The length of letters may also be restricted. Whether the editor should give one side an advance look at letters submitted by the opposing side would seem to be a policy decision for the newspaper to make. Some newspapers have a policy of always showing any last-minute letter or political ad to the opposing side, inviting a rebuttal in the same issue. One thing that might be done, and frequently is done, is to announce in advance a cut-off date for submission of letters to the editor, a time after which no more letters will be received for the last issue prior to the election.

The discussion before the News Council demonstrated that letters to the editor involve, to a large degree, the news judgment and editorial judgment of the editor. As with the making of any judgment, it is important to weigh all the facts and circumstances, keeping in mind that the newspaper is serving the interests of its public, not that of the campaign committee, and that the guiding principle is fairness. Many problems can be avoided if, where feasible, the newspaper announces in advance what its policy will be.

Background: The Citizens Party is one of the nine “minor,” independent political parties that appeared on the election ballot for the November 1984 general election. The Citizens party’s national candidate for the presidency, Sonia Johnson, received 1,200 votes in Minnesota and 75,000 votes nationally. The party’s Fifth District congressional candidate received 6,157 votes. None of the metropolitan television stations reported any vote totals for independent parties.

The Citizens Party was told that this was an “editorial decision.” Apparently, in prior elections one or two television stations have carried returns for the Citizens Party. The 1984 election, of course, involved a presidential race, in which one of the major party candidates was a native son of this state. There was also a US senatorial race of great public interest. While grievant concedes the general public may have been more interested in the candidates for various offices from the two major parties, it questions the complete news boycott of the minor parties. Grievant points out that the presidential race was decided early in the evening and yet television kept repeating the vote totals for only the two top contenders with numbing redundancy.

The Citizens Party also complains about its treatment in the print media. The minor parties were virtually ignored. The day after the election, a metropolitan daily reported Sonia Johnson as receiving 30 votes. This was only an early, partial vote, but the impression was left that this was Johnson’s final vote total. There were other inaccuracies suggesting the minor parties were of minor concern. The Twin Cities Reader left uncorrected an article published prior to the election that stated that the party’s candidate for the Fifth Judicial District, Kathryn Anderson, was running against Richard Frenzel in the Third District.

Grievant points out that although the Citizens Party may be minor in terms of votes garnered, it needs to be remembered that the party had met the stringent ballot-access requirements; that the party offers a point of view on important public issues that deserves at least some recognition; and that the election represents the hard work, enthusiasm, and idealism of its party workers who seek to exercise their rights and privileges as citizens in a democratic society. Grievant claims, in fairness, it deserved something better in news coverage than it got.

Discussion: First of all, election returns of the minor parties can be provided by the League of Women Voters if requested by the media, but the media have chosen not to request or report this information. Grievant agreed, however, that there was no boycott in the sense of any deliberate or concerted effort by the media to deny minor parties access to the reported news. What is involved, in the final analysis, is simply an editorial judgment on what is newsworthy. This judgment must be made under the demanding and hectic circumstances surrounding election night and the days immediately following. The media must make a decision on what is important to the public and how to best marshal limited resources to cover the vote count, an analysis of the vote in terms of candidates, parties, issues and electorate, and to report the reactions of candidates.

For better or worse, a minor party has relatively little impact on the immediate election story and, consequently, its election returns have little newsworthiness. At such time as a minor party increases its impact on the public consciousness, it is entitled to receive, and will receive, media attention commensurate with its impact.

In the days following the election, the media have more time to cover the whole story of the election. At such a time, editorial judgment might include coverage of the part played by the independent parties, or some of them. Much depends on the circumstances. For the media to ignore the independents entirely would, it seems, be to leave incomplete the reporting of the political scene in our democracy. It is also a function of news reporting, at least for the larger print media, to provide a record of official public events. The vote totals of the independent parties should, for the record, be reported accurately, completely, and with reasonable promptness after the election.

Decision: Insofar as the complaint describes a general proposition – a need for full and adequate reporting, particularly of election results in the days following an election – it expresses a valid concern and is upheld. The record-publishing function falls mainly to the print media.

With respect to election-night coverage in the electronic media, the grievance is denied.

Concurring: Bednar, Brooks, Casey, Chucker, Falkman, Forsythe, Graven, Myers, Pearce, Persons, Ryan, Simonett, Sundin, Warder

Partial Dissent: Earley, Peek - I would have favored upholding both parts of the complaint, since I voiced at the hearing my concern that even on election night, the electronic media should provide coverage of vote totals of all parties on the ballot. Since the figures are available to the media and since the electronic media repeat figures many times during election night coverage, even minor parties deserve recognition.

Special Concurrence: Ashmore, King - I do not interpret the majority decision to mean that television stations should not be encouraged to report election results as completely as possible. So-called minor candidates’ totals should be eliminated only if reporting those totals would actually jeopardize the reporting of more pressing election results. The media should report election results to the public and let the public decide whether a candidacy is “minor.” They should not make the decision for the public.