Attending the hearing was the complainant, Dr. L. David Mech, a biologist specializing in wolf research with the National Biological Survey. Accompanying Mech were Walter Medwid, director of the International Wolf Center (IWC), and Nancy Gibson, an associate of Mech’s at the IWC. Representing the Star Tribune were Pam Fine, managing editor, Tom Meersman, reporter, and Marilyn Hoegemeyer, story editor.

Background: The Star Tribune said the story originated when the paper received information that Mech and the International Wolf Center had been sued by a former IWC employee. Meersman interviewed more than two dozen people and interviewed Mech twice. On July 23, 1995, the Star Tribune published a copyrighted article on page one, above the fold, with the headline, “Is wolf expert above the rules? Incidents raise ethics questions.”

Mech complained to the Star Tribune, asking for almost two dozen corrections; the paper made two. Mech also asked for rebuttal space on the Commentary page with a front-page referral; the paper gave him 36 inches with no front-page referral. Mech remained unsatisfied with the Star Tribune’s response because he felt the paper had not taken responsibility for what he considered irresponsible journalism. Also, Mech said the original article was circulating on the Internet and had spawned articles in other publications that repeated and distorted its charges. Therefore, Mech asked the Minnesota News Council to review his complaint.

Response of the news organization: The Star Tribune defended the story as fully documented, fair and balanced. It said the article followed standard journalistic practices and raised legitimate questions about the activities of a well-known scientist. Further, the paper said it had provided readers ample opportunity to learn Mech’s views both within the story and in the lengthy Commentary piece written by freelance journalist Dave Anderson at Mech’s request and published on December 10, 1995. More specifically, the paper responded that:

1. The headline reflected legitimate questions posed by numerous people interviewed for the story.

2. The passages to which Mech objected were summaries at the beginning of the story; the assertions they contained were explained in greater detail later. Also, a summary statement by Mech, in his defense, ran near the beginning of the story with further explanation later.

3. The article contained 16 named sources, all of whom were chosen either because of their scientific expertise, their direct experience working with or for Mech, or their knowledge of rules and regulations pertaining to wolves. It also included several people who spoke on condition on anonymity because they said they feared retaliation by Mech. Those sources were used primarily to support what named sources said in the story.

4. The article provided substantiation for its major points both in statements from qualified sources and documents that pertained to the issues raised.

Discussion: Mech claimed that the article’s presentation implied serious wrongdoing when, in his opinion, the worst thing the article had accused him of was accidentally killing a wolf while tranquilizing it in the presence of a British film crew. However, he said, even that charge lacked context – that he had drugged wolves thousands of times without incident. He argued that the article did not merit being marked copyrighted and placed on the front page next to a story about Susan Smith, a woman convicted of murdering her two young sons. Mech expressed concern that many people don’t read beyond the headlines and that it wasn’t until 34 lines into the story that he was quoted. Further, Mech calculated that the statements in his defense totaled less than 10 percent of the article. He questioned the fairness of the paper’s being able to control which of his comments it published and how they were presented.

Carol Pine, a public member, asked Mech if he considered himself a public figure; he replied he did not. Pine then posed the same question to the paper; Pam Fine, managing editor, answered that it did consider Mech a public figure because he works for the University of Minnesota and receives public funding. Pine then asked what the paper’s standards are for news coverage of public figures. Fine said that many factors influence how a story about a public figure is played, among them importance, interest and the effect on the community.

Media member Trish Van Pilsum asked the paper how large a factor exclusivity of a story is in determining its placement. Fine answered that generally speaking, when a newspaper has exclusive stories, it plays them prominently.

Public member Ann Barkelew asked the paper to explain what standards it uses to judge a story as fair. Fine answered that the paper considers balance and accuracy fundamental to fairness. She said the paper asks itself if its stories present the right picture, if it’s right to hold a person up to questioning, and if the story is clear and makes sense.

Public member Laurisa Sellers said that while the stated purpose of the article was to raise legitimate questions, it seemed to go beyond that and, in effect, pointed readers in the direction of answers. She asked the paper if giving readers direction fit its journalistic standards. Meersman responded that his findings were substantiated by numerous people.

Media member Maureen Reeder said she thought the story was an example of solid journalism. “As a journalist, often you end up reporting what your gut tells you. That’s an important part of journalistic practice,” she said.

“Along with respecting the gut feeling of the reporter, we must respect the gut feeling of the interviewee,” added public member Terry Thompson.

Many members were troubled by the placement and tone of the article. “This was a story with a point of view,” media member Ron Handberg said. “I’d be far more comfortable if the paper had neglected the copyright and instead labeled it analysis.” Barkelew agreed. “The headline carries a powerful punch. If I read no more, I would think this is a bad guy.”

Mech also questioned the fairness of the Star Tribune’s corrections policy. Included in the original article was the statement: “Mech serves on various boards that directly or indirectly control much of the funding for wolf research projects.” A correction ran in the Corrections column on page two on November 19, 1995, stating: “An article on Page 4A July 23 incorrectly stated that Phil Sauer was executive director of the International Wolf Center in Ely, Minn. He was interim administrator. The article also said L. David Mech serves on various boards that directly or indirectly control much of the funding for wolf research projects. Mech serves on one board and one scientific panel, neither of which controls funding.” Mech asked how that correction compared to the front-page presentation of the original accusation.

Rabbi Barry Cytron, a public member, said the story did more than raise questions. He called the story prejudicial and challenged the practice of making an assertion on the front page while placing the correction on page two. Fine responded that most newspapers anchor corrections in a set place so that readers don’t have to search for them. She added that if an error reaches the level where it seems unfair to put it inside, papers may elect to put it outside.

Sellers asked the Star Tribune if, when it ran the correction, it considered also noting that the story was based, in part, on anonymous sources who feared retaliation. Fine answered that the paper did not consider doing so because its policy is to keep corrections narrowly focused on facts. Sellers pressed the issue, saying that the fundamental reason for granting these sources anonymity was undercut by the correction. Meersman defended the use of the anonymous sources, saying that the correction did not say that Mech does not influence funding, but that he does not sit on boards. Fine explained that the paper allows the use of anonymous sources when it has multiple sources speaking to the same point, when they’re highly credible and their credibility is unimpugnable. In this case, she said, anonymous sources were used as secondary sources to support named sources.

Mech challenged the paper’s use of sources he deemed non-authoritative, specifically 1) photographer Jim Brandenburg, who commented on the scientific validity of Mech’s research, and 2) an IWC student volunteer who said Mech misused government vehicles. Mech questioned why these people were quoted rather than wolf researchers or, in the case of use of vehicles, his supervisor. He quoted the syndicated columnist William Raspberry who said, “But for the most part, we’d rather report the scandal we suspect than the service that we know.”

Fine said that Meersman asked Mech whom he should talk to and then interviewed them. Meersman said he tried to interview Mech’s supervisor, but found that Mech had faxed the supervisor and told him not to talk to Meersman, but to refer Meersman to the IWC lawyer. Fine said Brandenburg and the student volunteers were used as sources because they were eyewitnesses, not experts.

Determination 1: The Council upheld the complaint that the headline was prejudicial and that the framing set an unfair tone for the information that followed.

Concurring: Amaris, Barkelew, Cytron, Denny, Peterson, Pine, Pumarlo, Sellers, Seltzer, Thompson

Dissenting: Conner, Handberg, Hoben, Reeder, Smith, Van Pilsum

Abstaining: Anderson

Determination 2: The Council upheld the complaint that the article used inflammatory and prejudicial language.

Concurring: Amaris, Barkelew, Cytron, Denny, Hoben, Peterson, Pine, Pumarlo, Sellers, Seltzer

Dissenting: Conner, Handberg, Reeder, Smith, Thompson, Van Pilsum

Abstaining: Anderson

Determination 3: The Council denied the complaint that the article was based upon comments from sources who were anonymous, biased or lacked authority to judge his behavior.

Concurring: Barkelew, Conner, Cytron, Denny, Handberg, Hoben, Peterson, Pine, Pumarlo, Reeder, Smith, Thompson, Van Pilsum

Dissenting: Amaris, Sellers, Seltzer

Abstaining: Anderson

Determination 4: The Council denied the complaint that the article leveled charges against Mech without providing substantiation or context.

Concurring: Amaris, Conner, Cytron, Denny, Handberg, Hoben, Peterson, Pine, Pumarlo, Reeder, Sellers, Smith, Thompson, Van Pilsum

Dissenting: Barkelew, Seltzer

Abstaining: Anderson

Background: In March 1983 the Advocate published a favorable profile of Lori Peterson and her interests in political and feminist issues. On November 8, 1984, the paper published a front-page story, in which Peterson was briefly quoted on the decision to withdraw a purportedly pornographic magazine from the campus bookstore. On May 17, 1984, the paper published a humor issue entitled the “Badvocate” in which public figures on campus were satirized. There were several references in the “Badvocate” to the grievant – as, for example, Peterson praising the president of the university for making Penthouse required reading for students. The grievant objected and submitted two letters to the editor under the pseudonym “Sue Carlson,” which contained personal attacks on the editor. It appears the editor knew the grievant was the letter writer. The letters were not published.

On May 16, 1985, the Advocate published an editorial replying to several critics of its humor issue, in which the following paragraph appeared:

“We also angered Lori Peterson, but that was expected. We discovered that Peterson secretly taped phone conversations with myself and Glenn Tornell and has divulged the contents of those tapes to others. Her friend, Sue Carlson, unwittingly admitted this to me in a phone call Friday, and who knows if that conversation was live or Memorex?”

The editorial went on to say this was “pathetic behavior” for someone with political aspirations and was conduct unbecoming a Truman scholar. The editorial further said Peterson had been invited to respond to the “Badvocate,” but said she had not done so. The editorial was entitled “Sour notes: sour grapes.”

Peterson says she has never taped any phone conversations. Glenn Tornell says that while he once suspected that the complainant was taping a phone conversation with him, he does not actually know of any taping of phone conversations, either his own or of others. Peterson also says the newspaper refused to print anything she had to say.

Discussion: This is only the second time the Council has heard a complaint against a college newspaper. By agreeing to participate, the Advocate has agreed to be judged by journalistic standards applicable to general circulation newspapers, and the Advocate is to be commended for agreeing to the submission of this grievance to the News Council.

The grievant says she was misquoted in the November 8, 1984, story, but the reporter says she was not. We are not in a position to judge this dispute on facts. At the Council hearing, the grievant withdrew her complaint about her treatment in the newspaper’s humor issue and, we think, properly so. Not only the grievant, but many others, including the student editor, were treated satirically. While the satire was heavy-handed and the humor perhaps debatable to some, clearly no reader could mistake the references to Peterson in the “Badvocate” as anything other than satire.

Peterson’s main complaint is the May 16, 1985, editorial. She agrees an editorial writer has great latitude in expressing opinions, but she claims the opinions here were based on certain facts that were inaccurate and untrue. Specifically, she denies taping any phone conversations with the editor and she questions the use of a fictitious Sue Carlson as a source of information.

The factual basis for an editorial opinion should, of course, be accurate. This Council is not in a position to decide the dispute over whether any phone conversations were taped. We can, however, make one observation. The editorial writer says her information about “secretly taped phone conversations” came from Sue Carlson, a friend of Peterson’s. It is undisputed that there is no such person as Sue Carlson and, in her written response to the News Council, the editorial writer indicates that she knew this. If the editorial writer meant to say the information came from Lori Peterson using the name of Sue Carlson, the writer should have said so. In that the editorial names an actual person by the name of Sue Carlson as the source of its facts, it is clearly in error and, to this extent, the Council sustains the grievance.

To the extent the grievance rests on other facts that are in dispute, the Council must decline to consider it.

Concurring: Casey, Chucker, Clark, Earley, Falkman, King, Larson, McPherson, Mundale, Parrish, Persons, Simonett, Stone, Warder

Present on behalf of the grievant was its owner, Betty Lou Berg. There was no appearance by KSTP-TV, which declined to participate.

Background: The Council viewed four segments of the television program and had a transcript of what was said. Betty Lou Berg, owner of Granite City, testified. The Executive Director also talked by telephone with the St. Cloud housing inspector’s office. The first segment begins with the announcer stating, “Sounds like a real bad deal” The narrator then says, “Buying a home is still the American Dream, but when that dream is shattered and turns into a nightmare, it’s very sad….” The program then explains that the Peschls had “last year” purchased a two-bedroom rambler for $26,000 with a loan through the St. Cloud Housing and Redevelopment Authority. Two weeks after the purchase, the Peschls noticed the roof leaked during a rain storm. It became apparent that there were major problems: the roof, though new, had been improperly installed (new shingles ineptly placed over two layers of old roofing); the foundation was cracked; some of the windows were rotting and could not be opened; some electrical wiring was not up to code; the ceilings were less than the required seven-foot height; and the house did not meet code. The Peschls were told by the city that the house had to be either renovated or replaced or they would have to move out. According to the narrator, the Peschls “blame the realtor and the mortgage company for this mess,” and he asked, “How could a couple be sold a house in such bad shape? They thought they were getting professional advice from trustworthy experts.” On the screen, the viewer was shown the house with a corner of damaged siding, the poor roof, a cracked foundation, low ceilings, a bad chimney, and windows covered with plastic.

In the second segment, the narrator explains that Jodie Peschl had been unable to get a copy of the appraisal report from the real estate agent. There was a further explanation of how the house failed to meet code and, contrary to zoning regulations, was built too close to the alley. The narrator reported that, “After the Peschls found out about these problems, they tried to contact the previous owner. No luck.” And, further, neither the real estate agent nor the mortgage company would help. The executive director of the St. Cloud Housing and Redevelopment Authority appeared on camera and said everybody from the realtor to the lender had “dropped the ball” and had taken “advantage of the situation.” The announcer then asked the narrator, Neil Murray, what the legal responsibilities of a prospective buyer were, and Murray replied, “I think all the buyer has to do is show up with money at the closing….”

The third segment begins with the announcer stating, “What a mess, huh?” The narrator then says that the Peschls’ “biggest mistake was trusting the so-called professionals who were involved,” stating that the real estate agent had told the Peschls he did not know the house was not up to code, and the mortgage company had hired an appraiser who failed to report the house’s poor condition. The executive director of the Housing Authority again appeared on camera, stating he would use leverage to get the realtor, the mortgage company, and the appraiser to rectify the problem.

The fourth segment, a follow-up show two months later, recapitulates the Peschls’ problems with the house, and reports the Peschls had been able to acquire another home. The director of the Housing Authority and the president of the mortgage company appeared on camera, stating the importance of developing an inspection program to prevent reoccurrences of the problem the Peschls had experienced.

Granite City points out the television program reported the Peschls had bought the house “last year,” which would have been in the summer of 1984, when in fact the house had been purchased two years before, in August 1983. Also, at the time the sale was closed, there was no damage to the siding, no signs of roof leakage in the house, no cracks in the foundation, nor was the chimney exposed as shown on television. At closing, the house was apparently in a neat condition, with new carpeting and, as the appraisal report states, “Pride of ownership is evident.”

Granite City explains that, as a reputable, long-established real estate broker, it showed the house to the Peschls on behalf of the seller and that it was unaware of any structural defects. Indeed, following its customary practice, Granite City had obtained from the seller a signed written warranty and disclosure statement. In this statement, the seller expressly stated she had never had any problems with the foundation or any structural elements and added, as to the roof, “New roofÑno leaks now.” The seller also expressly warranted the appliances, furnace, wiring and plumbing were all “in proper working order.”

Granite City further points out the Peschls dealt directly with the mortgage company in obtaining their house loan, and Granite City was not involved in this process. The mortgage company hired the independent appraiser who submitted his report to the mortgage company. Granite City never had a copy of the appraisal.

Also, under the St. Cloud Housing Code, it appears a majority of older residential homes may not “meet code” in various respects, but, under a grandfather clause, the owner is not required to bring the house into compliance with the current code unless and until improvements are made. Apparently, there is no requirement for a building inspection to qualify for financing through the St. Cloud Housing and Redevelopment Authority.

Granite City says the Peschls never registered any complaint about the house with it, but if a complaint had been made, they would have been told to contact the seller. The Peschls claim they did complain to the real estate agent. The News Council is not in a position to resolve this issue, and the television program makes no mention of this factual dispute. Granite City claims the first notice it had of any complaint by the Peschls was a phone call followed by an undated letter from KSTP-TV in June 1985, asking for a written response because “[e]very situation has two sides….” Betty Lou Berg declined an invitation to appear on camera when the offer was first made because the facts of the complaint were unknown to her. When the film crew later came to St. Cloud, Berg was in San Diego attending her son’s wedding. Even so, Granite City’s attorney wrote a letter to KSTP-TV on June 18, 1985 – a month before the television program was shown – giving Granite City’s explanation of the Peschl sale. Yet no mention of Granite City’s position was used in the television program.

Discussion: The News Council believes it was a serious omission for the television program not to state that the Peschls had purchased the home two years, not one year, earlier, and to explain that at the time the house was purchased, the leaky roof, the cracked foundation, the exposed chimney, and the damaged corner siding – shown so vividly on the screen – were not present. It should have been explained that the sale of this older residential home, though not up to current code, did not violate the code, and that a variance could be sought for the zoning setback if improvements were contemplated. Further, although questions come to mind about maintenance and remedial repairs of the house during the two years of the Peschl occupancy, the television program leaves these questions unanswered.

It is unfortunate the seller’s responsibility was ignored by the television program. The program mentions briefly the Peschls had tried, without luck, to contact the previous owner. It is unclear if any attempt was made by “On Your Behalf” to interview the previous owner, although it appears she was still living in this state. We think the role of the real estate broker should have been clarified. “On Your Behalf” should have reported that the prior owner had furnished Granite City with a written, signed statement that there were no problems with the roof, foundation or structure of the house and that Granite City did not have the appraisal report. Moreover, not only does the television program make no mention of a buyer’s responsibility to make some investigation into a home about to be purchased, but the narrator incorrectly states there is no such responsibility, that “all the buyer has to do is show up with money at the closing.” Although the television program does not say that Granite City misrepresented the condition of the house, nor do the Peschls make that claim, the program leaves the impression that it was the real estate broker, not the prior owner, who failed to disclose the true condition of the house.

No representative of Granite City appeared on the program. While Berg was invited to appear on camera, it is unclear if the invitation was made at a time she was available. On the other hand, it is also unclear if Berg would have chosen to appear on camera if given a feasible opportunity to do so. Whether or not Berg might have appeared on the program, we think it was incumbent for “On Your Behalf” to have made itself aware of Granite City’s position and to give its “side of the story,” and at least to have mentioned the explanation given by Granite City’s attorney. Perhaps some other representative of the real estate industry could have appeared on the program to explain a real estate agent’s role and to have given the program some balance.

The thrust of the program, however, from the start, was to put blame on the real estate agent, appraiser, and mortgage company, all lumped together: the good people against the “bad guys.” Thus the emotional lead-ins to the segments (“Sounds like a real bad deal…. What a mess, huh?”); and the reference to “so-called professionals.” We conclude that the “On Your Behalf” presentation of Granite City’s participation in the Peschl matter was unbalanced and unfair. Consumer reporting is an important news function, and “On Your Behalf” performs a worthwhile service. In this case, for example, a young couple bought a house that some time after purchase developed problems, largely due to a defective “new” roof, that were not discernible to a casual inspection. The television program rightly points out the need for some kind of city inspection or truth-in-lending program.

But it should also be remembered that “On Your Behalf,” appearing on prime time evening news and utilizing the immense visual impact of the camera, can be a powerful and intimidating force, and it is important, therefore, that the program discharge its responsibilities with care and concern for all involved. Here, in an effort to help the home purchasers, a complex situation was over-simplified and Granite City’s role unfairly presented.

Grievance sustained.

Concurring: Ashmore, Beaulieu, Bednar, Brooks, Chucker, Clark, Earley, Falkman, Mundale, Parker, Parrish, Persons, Ryan, Simonett, Stone, Sundin, Warder

Abstaining: Casey