Background: The Bunkers bring this proceeding against The Owatonna People’s Press, a daily newspaper in Owatonna, a city of about 18,000 people. The newspaper disclosed Mrs. Bunkers’ name in a front-page story on Saturday, March 14, 1987, concerning an assault that she witnessed and reported in rural Steele County the previous afternoon.

Bunkers and her family reside on 20 acres of wooded land outside of Medford, Minnesota. Their home is in the northern portion of Steele County, adjoining Rice County. Shortly after noon on Friday, March 13, 1987, Bunkers noticed, through a window, a moving car pull off the nearby road and enter a small path leading to a secluded woodshed on her property. She left her house, went to her car, and drove towards the shed. From her car, she observed what seemed to be a violent assault occurring about 50 feet away. One man appeared to be bent over another person, striking a fist or thrusting an object at the person on the ground.

Bunkers yelled out, “What the heck is going on,” which apparently was heard by the perpetrator. She then left the vicinity without clearly seeing the face of the assailant. She drove to a neighbor’s home and asked him to report the incident to law enforcement authorities. The neighbor called the emergency 911 number at the nearby Rice County Sheriff’s office in Faribault, then returned to the scene of the incident while Bunkers stayed on the phone with personnel from the Sheriff’s office. A short while later, the neighbor returned, having seen nothing at the scene. An investigator from the Sheriff’s office soon came to the scene. The investigation was later turned over to the Sheriff of Steele County, where the alleged offense occurred.

About two hours later, a reporter from the Owatonna People’s Press called the Bunkers’ home inquiring about the alleged offense. The reporter had heard the incident broadcast over the area law enforcement scanner. Bunkers’ husband, who had come home from work after the incident, told the reporter that he had no comment and suggested that he call the Rice County Sheriff. Meanwhile, Bunkers was back at the scene of the apparent crime with another law enforcement investigator. She told him that she did not want her name released to the news media. She claims to have made at least one or two similar requests to law enforcement authorities during the afternoon.

The People’s Press reporter subsequently spoke to law enforcement authorities from both Rice and Steele Counties and learned more details about the incident. Law enforcement officials from both counties deny that they gave Bunkers’ name to the reporter. However, it appears likely that the reporter did get her name from either the law enforcement authorities or the scanner, or perhaps both. Later that evening, the reporter called the Bunkers’ home a second time seeking to verify Bunkers’ first name. Bunkers spoke with the reporter and, in her words, “pleaded” with him not to use her name in any newspaper article about the event.

The reporter wrote the story later that night. It is unclear if the reporter told the copy editor about Bunkers’ request for anonymity. The story was published in the newspaper the next morning under the headline “Report keeps lawmen busy.” It stated that law enforcement personnel had responded to the reported assault on the property. Although no victim or weapon was found, the story reported that blood was found in the woods and on the road. It also identified Bunkers as the witness and described what she had seen. The story described the vehicle that she had reported to the authorities and concluded by noting that there were no suspects and that the investigation was continuing.

The next day, Sunday, March 15, 1987, the body of a 28 year old, mentally retarded man was found stabbed to death about seven miles from the Bunkers’ home. The perpetrator was found and arrested later that day. He subsequently pleaded guilty to second-degree murder. Bunkers then brought this proceeding, charging that the People’s Press improperly divulged her identity in the Saturday morning story. Noting that the assailant was at large at the time, Bunkers asserts that identifying her by name as a witness placed her in jeopardy of reprisal by the perpetrator.

Response of the News Organization: The newspaper’s position is that it identified Bunkers because it felt her name was important to the story in light of the limited information that was available at the time. This is in keeping with the newspaper’s “traditional” policy of publishing the names of people who report crimes, and the circumstances of those crimes, unless law enforcement authorities specifically request that the identities be withheld. The newspaper justifies this practice on the general grounds of the public’s “right to know” and, more particularly, the need to dispel rumors in the community.

Determination of the News Council: Part I – General Considerations:Determining the propriety of identifying a witness to a crime requires balancing the public’s right to know against the individual’s privacy interests. We do not refer to the “right of privacy” in its narrow legal sense. The courts in Minnesota have not recognized a right to privacy against disclosure by the media. Further, courts that do recognize an individual’s privacy right hold that the press is constitutionally entitled to report facts concerning crimes which are true or contained in a public record. This includes the names of perpetrators, suspects, victims, witnesses, or other participants. While it is legally permissible to report the identity of a witness, the question we consider is whether, and when, it is appropriate to do so as a matter of journalistic practice.

The criteria that should be taken into account in making this determination include the following:

• The circumstances surrounding the incident;
• The seriousness of the offense;
• Whether any arrest has been made or the alleged perpetrator remains at large;
• The relationship, if any, between the victim, perpetrator, and witness; 
• Whether law enforcement officials or other knowledgeable authorities caution against disclosure;
• Whether the witness requests confidentiality;
• The effect on other reporting about crime; and
• The effect the identification may have on the actual or possible spreading of rumors.

None of these factors is conclusive. Nor are we able to assign particular weights or priorities to any of these considerations. Where applicable, each of these factors should be taken into account by responsible members of the news media in making a determination whether the beneficial effect of identification of a witness on the public’s “right to know” outweighs the witness’ interests in maintaining anonymity. Additional considerations may be appropriate depending upon the facts of a particular case.

Part II — Weighing the Considerations Here: Applying these general considera-tions to the story in the Owatonna People’s Press presents a very close question. The public had a “right to know” that a serious crime of violence possibly had been committed and that the perpetrator was unknown and at large. The name and address of an eyewitness added important credibility to the story. On the other hand, the newspaper was required to weigh the countervailing interests of the eyewitness in remaining anonymous. Bunkers requested anonymity directly of the reporter. She did so because she genuinely feared for her personal safety, rather than for personal reasons of embarrassment or because of general dislike for publicity.

On the basis of the information known at the time, and known to the reporter, Bunkers’ fear was legitimate. There was reason to believe a person had been violently assaulted near her home. Blood was found at the scene. The perpetrator apparently saw Bunkers, or at least had observed a person in a car who witnessed the incident. The Bunkers live in a relatively isolated rural area and there had been reports or criminal activity involving drugs in the area. Because her name and address were published the next day, while the suspect was at large, Bunkers had a reasonable basis for fearing that the perpetrator might return to do her harm.

The newspaper considered the incident was serious enough to warrant a story on the front page. The newspaper editor stated that she had a feeling that the crime committed might be a homicide, although no body had yet been found.

It is unclear if the law enforcement authorities gave Bunkers’ name to the newspaper. But whether they did or not is not relevant to our determination. Once the newspaper lawfully acquired her name, the question of whether to publish it was a journalistic decision to be made by the newspaper, not the sheriff’s personnel. The newspaper, of course, might take into account any suggestion of law enforcement personnel regarding the propriety or effect of disclosure of the identity of an eyewitness to a particular incident.

Regardless of how her name was acquired, the newspaper should have given more serious consideration to Bunkers’ request for anonymity. In fact, the reporter either did not mention it to the copy editor or, if he did, it made no impression on the copy editor. We do not, however, suggest that the media must necessarily refrain from identifying a witness simply because a witness prefers anonymity. Many witnesses and other voluntary participants in newsworthy events request anonymity. The media are not obliged to honor these requests, no matter how fervently expressed. The use of specific names often is necessary to establish credibility, dispel rumors, and otherwise present an accurate account of any event. Being involuntarily identified as a witness to a newsworthy event is one of the prices we pay for living in a free society with an unfettered press.

In these circumstances, though, we think better practice would have been to refer simply to an eyewitness whose identity was not being disclosed at present. Disclosure of Bunkers’ identity would have been more appropriate, as Bunkers herself acknowledged, after the perpetrator was apprehended.

We admire both parties to this grievance. Bunkers acted courageously and responsibly in reporting the incident, which led to apprehension of the perpetrator. We also are impressed with the goodwill and sincerity of the newspaper and its employees.

The editor, Debra Flemming, exhibited keen sensitivity to the various considerations underlying this issue in her presentation to the Council. Flemming’s perceptiveness also was manifested in a column she wrote in the newspaper a few months after the incident. That article fairly examines the issues raised by Bunkers’ complaint and the newspaper’s position. An analysis of this kind is particularly welcome because it familiarizes the community with the issues and permits readers to evaluate the merits of the dispute. We encourage others to initiate similar dialogue on perplexing issues of the responsibilities of the media, even if they do not involve an actual News Council hearing.

Despite the newspaper’s sincerity, we find that, on balance, the publication of Bunkers’ name was inappropriate in the circumstances of this case.

We sustain the grievance.

Concurring: King, Mundale, Ryan, Simonett, Stone, Sundin, Tanick, and Warder

Dissenting: Ashmore, Bednar, Casey, Dornfeld, Falkman, Orwoll, Persons - We concur with Part One of the majority opinion, that legitimate requests for anonymity should be carefully weighed against various considerations, including those listed by the majority. We also agree that, on balance, this was a close call. We disagree, however, with the direction in which the balance should be tipped. The newspaper acted appropriately and the complaint should have been denied.

It is clear the Owatonna People’s Press reporter was following a loosely defined newspaper policy when he named Bunkers in his initial story. It must be noted that the newspaper printed information routinely made available to the media. The newspaper’s conduct after the incident proved to be compassionate; editor Debra Flemming was apologetic in a follow-up column. The paper showed an extra effort to tell all sides of the story once it became clear that the initial story caused the Bunkers to fear for their safety. The newspaper did everything we would have expected in this situation and more. Flemming wrote: “It’s impossible . . . to say that we’ll never use the name of a witness of a violent crime . . . . We will, however, consider even more carefully the potential dangers . . . .” The People’s Press was forced to think hard about its policies, or lack of them.

The newspaper and authorities were initially unaware that they were dealing with a murder case. Authorities did not request that the witness not be named. It was not firmly established that Bunkers did not want her name used because she was afraid the perpetrator would come back and hurt her. Instead, we heard phrases like, “You are not to use my name in the story,” which would suggest a position of (mock) authority, and would make most reporters angry, or at least annoyed. If that is the case, Bunkers did not properly communicate her fear to the night editor. By the judicial standard, this certainly creates more than a “reasonable doubt,” and should tip the balance toward denial of the complaint.

A major point in the discussion by those who voted to uphold the grievance seemed to be that the witness’ name was not necessary to the story . . . that the story would have been “just as good” without the name. How would a lawyer react if one of his clients stood to be convicted by the testimony of an unnamed witness? More important, we are telling the newspaper to censor information not because there is a convincing reason to (because the Bunkers’ fear for their safety was not necessarily established with the reporter), but because “the story would be just as good without it.”

The publication of Bunkers’ name was appropriate in this case. The grievance should have been denied.

Background: In its 6 p.m. newscast, KARE reported that Villaume was allowed to withdraw from the case after the defendant’s father got into a shouting match with Villaume and accused Villaume of “not doing a good job” of representing his son. The report included a taped comment from the defendant’s father in which he again threatened Villaume. The 6 p.m. report included no response from Villaume.

Representatives of KARE said their reporter unsuccessfully attempted to contact Villaume for comment for the story. Villaume said he was not aware of any effort to contact him. Instead, Villaume said, he saw the report on the 6 p.m. news, called the station and spoke with news executive Tom Kirby. Villaume said he asked for the opportunity to respond to the allegations by the defendant’s father and that Kirby dispatched a cameraman to record his response.

In its 10 p.m. report, KARE again reported that Villaume had been allowed to withdraw from the case after the attorney and the defendant’s father had engaged in a shouting match in the courtroom. This time, the report also said the defendant’s father had “accused Villaume of trying to commit adultery with his wife.”

Unlike the 6 p.m. report, the 10 p.m. version stated that Villaume wanted to withdraw because the defendant’s father had “repeatedly threatened him.” It included a taped comment from Villaume about his concern for his safety, as well as his response to the adultery charge (“an out-and-out lie”). It also reported that the defendant had told the judge Villaume was “the best attorney he’s ever had.” In his complaint, Villaume focused on his objection to KARE’s use of the adultery accusation made by the defendant’s father, which he said was totally groundless. He submitted transcript of the court proceedings in which he explained that his only contact with defendant’s mother was to request that she provide her son with suitable clothing to wear in court, so he would not have to appear before the jury in jail fatigues. The defendant told the court he was aware Villaume planned to contact his mother for this purpose. Villaume argued that the allegation was so outrageous, and so lacking in foundation, that it should not have been reported at all.

Response of the News Organization: Representatives of KARE responded that they gave Villaume the right to deny the allegation, and that their story had been balanced and fair.

Decision of the News Council: The Council holds that the KARE reports were not inaccurate or biased, but they were incomplete.

We believe the station was justified in reporting the shouting match and the allegations made by the defendant’s father, including the one that Villaume attempted an adulterous relationship with the defendant’s mother. It was this belief that apparently prompted the defendant’s father to renew his threats against Villaume. The incident was bizarre, but it did happen and KARE’s reporting of the incident – stating that it was bizarre – was not irresponsible journalism.

KARE contends that its taped interviews fairly gave its viewers the opportunity to see and hear the participants to the dispute and to make an informed evaluation of the adultery accusation. We agree. No reasonable viewer would have given any credence to what obviously was an outrageous and untrue charge.

But the KARE reports – particularly the 6 p.m. version – were lacking. They did not make it clear that before the opening day of the trial, Villaume had been the subject of repeated threats from the defendant’s father and had gone to court that morning for the purpose of withdrawing from the case. Viewers may have gotten the faulty impression Villaume withdrew from the case after the defendant’s father confronted him in court and accused him of not providing adequate legal representation to his son.

The grievance is denied with respect to accuracy and bias, but sustained with respect to completeness.

Concurring: Brooks, Chucker, Dornfeld, Larson, Mundale, Orwoll, Persons, Ryan, Stone, Swain, Warder

Abstaining: Simonett

Dissent: Parrish, Ashmore - I am dissenting from the majority opinion of the News Council for two reasons. First, the Council failed to accurately report its own decision on Villaume’s original complaint, and second, the members of the Council took it upon themselves to discuss and rule upon elements of the news broadcast that were not at issue.

Villaume’s original complaint was limited to one very specific item. He claimed that KARE should not have reported the adultery aspect of his withdrawal at all. The premise of this complaint is that Villaume has the right to dictate what can and cannot be reported, i.e., what is or is not newsworthy. The Council considered the facts relating to this issue and found that the station was justified in reporting the adultery allegation.

Villaume further claimed that the report was inaccurate, biased and misleading to the public because not enough details were given. The Council considered the facts relating to this issue and agreed with KAREÕs contention that it had given all participants to the dispute an opportunity to be seen and heard, allowing the viewers “to make an informed evaluation of the adultery accusation.”

If the Council had stopped at this point, after fully considering Villaume’s original complaint, I would join in their decision. Unfortunately, the Council went beyond the scope of the original complaint and began to consider other ways the KARE report might have injured Villaume, injuries that must not have been readily apparent to Villaume since they were not included in his original complaint. After their consideration, the Council decided that another aspect of the story was “incomplete” in that KARE failed to clearly report that Villaume had intended to withdraw from the case even before the shouting match occurred. The Council therefore upheld Villaume’s complaint as to incompleteness, even though the incompleteness the Council found had nothing to do with his original complaint.

I find this decision unsettling. I do not believe it is the role of this News Council to discovery injuries for a complainant. In addition, the Council expanded their consideration of an isolated element in a particular story and turned it into an indictment of the way television reports the news. The Council has taken the disturbing position of finding a report accurate, yet incomplete, while failing to consider the constraints under which television reports the news. As long as a story is accurate, its completeness is irrelevant. While a story may be so incomplete as to be inaccurate, that was not the case in this instance. If the Council finds a report accurate, no further consideration is necessary.

Background: In the fall of 1986, there was a spirited election campaign for state representative for District 64B (St. Paul’s Highland Park area, considered to be a swing district) between Bill Batcher, the I-R candidate, and Howard Orenstein, the DFL candidate. Prior to the general election campaign, there had been a hotly contested campaign for the DFL endorsement both for the House seat and the Senate seat in that area. In the general election, Orenstein was the winner.

On October 21, 1986, the Pioneer Press Dispatch published an article entitled “Batcher, Orenstein color Highland race.” The article includes the following passages:

“Saying that “he’s one of us,” Batcher and his campaign have tried to paint Orenstein as a carpetbagging opportunist who bought a house in the district a year and a half ago only because he saw a legislative seat opening up.”Moreover, Batcher has not shied away from the spread of rumors about Orenstein, first that he is not really married and then that he is secretly the cousin of the current DFL Rep. Dick Cohen, who is vacating the seat to run for the state Senate.”

Batcher contends these statements in the article are unfair, inaccurate and biased. He concedes he stressed his native roots in the Highland area as a lifelong resident in contrast to his opponent’s relative newcomer status; but he says he never used the phrase “carpetbagging opportunist,” which he says contains a derogatory implication he has no intention of conveying. More importantly, Batcher says the newspaper article strongly suggests that he was spreading the false rumors about his opponent’s marital status and relationship to the DFL Senate candidate. Batcher says he became aware of the rumors at some point in the campaign but he further states emphatically that he was not the source of the rumors, nor did he spread them. Apparently, the rumors were being spread by others, including possibly DFLers disappointed in the endorsement contest, but not by Batcher himself. Indeed, Orenstein, who had alerted the reporter to the spreading of the false rumors, did not attribute the rumors to Batcher.

On October 22, 1986, the Pioneer Press Dispatch endorsed Orenstein for election “because he better appreciates the need to seek common ground in the legislative process.” The paper added, “We also are concerned with Batcher’s campaign tactics, which involve too many innuendoes and rumors and not enough issues.” When Batcher protested to the newspaper, he was offered access to its Letters to the Editor column. On October 29, Batcher’s letter was published in which he said, “I do not recall ever hearing the rumor that Howard Orenstein was not really married. I, therefore, could not and did not spread that rumor. Howard told me that he was married last November [i.e., the prior fall] and I have never questioned that fact.” In his letter to the editor, Batcher also stated he had asked Orenstein if he was related to Cohen and Orenstein had said, “Check the record.” At the hearing, Batcher testified that when his opponent told him to check out the rumor, he then asked about 15 persons whether they had heard a rumor that Orenstein and Cohen were cousins and if they knew it to be true or false.

In the October 21 article, Batcher was also quoted, and quoted correctly, as saying:

“I don’t see anything unusual in being curious about someone’s background . .. I think he’s [Orenstein's] been less than forthright. …. [W]henever I’ve talked to anybody, I’ve represented it [the rumors] as something I’ve heard.”

Discussion: While the newspaper article reports that the campaign “has turned personal” and describes the two rumors being circulated about Batcher’s opponent, nowhere in the article are the rumors attributed directly to any source. By reporting, however, that “Batcher has not shied away from the spread of rumors about Orenstein,” the article implies that Batcher was the source of the rumors. There is, however, no evidence of this, except we believe that checking out the Cohen rumor with 15 persons did have the effect of spreading that rumor. It should be noted that Batcher’s opponent did not attribute the source of the rumors to Batcher when talking to the reporter.

In preparing for the October 21 story, the reporter interviewed Batcher by telephone on October 16. Batcher says he was taken aback by the reporter’s confrontational approach. Rather than flatly disassociating himself from the rumors and asserting their lack of relevance to the campaign, Batcher responded that “I don’t see anything unusual in being curious about someone’s background. . . I think he’s been less than forthright.” This response might well have led to the reporter writing that Batcher “has not shied away from the spread of rumors.” Unfortunately, this also left the impression that Batcher was spreading the rumors.

Considering all the facts and circumstances, the Council believes that the October 21 article was not unfair, inaccurate or biased. We think the reporting was, however, incomplete in its lack of attribution of the source of the rumors and in not including Batcher’s denial of spreading the marriage rumor. In view, however, of grievant’s rather ambiguous reply to the reporter’s questions during the telephone interview, we cannot say this incompleteness supports any claim of unfairness or inaccuracy on the part of the newspaper.

Batcher did not complain to the newspaper about the reference to “carpetbagging” until his grievance was initiated. We accept Batcher’s statement that he never used the term, and that his position throughout the campaign was simply to make the point that his greater familiarity with the district better equipped him to represent the district. We cannot say, however, that Batcher’s position on the residency issue may not, in the rough and tumble of a spirited political campaign, have been perceived differently by others, and, therefore, we cannot say that the use of the term “carpetbagging opportunist,” in a piece of political reporting, was unfair.

The grievance is denied, but with the observation that as to the rumor attribution issue, the newspaper article lacked a necessary completeness.

Concurring: Ashmore, Chucker, King, Larson, Parrish, Persons, Ryan, Simonett, Stone, Swain, Warder

Dissenting: Brooks, Orwoll - The dissenting members agree that the paper was not inaccurate and probably not deliberately unfair. But the lack of a “fair shake” does come to mind in this case. While we agree that the problem was one of incompleteness, that word by itself is somewhat inane. There was a whole lot more missing than clarity on the rumor issue. Orenstein’s reaction to the marriage rumor was missing. More solid information on the candidates’ positions was missing. The newspaper’s representative told us the editorial page decided on its endorsement choice in September, but the endorsement of Orenstein followed this October 21 article by one day and largely attributed the endorsement of Orenstein to his opponent’s alleged campaign of rumors and innuendo, reported the day before. As we understand the majority, this was a good article that just had a little something missing. We think fairness called for a whole lot more.

Special dissent: Mundale - Basically, I agree with the dissent as stated, except that I do not feel our observations should include the matter of the editorial endorsement, which was not part of the complaint.

Thereafter, when the newspaper’s reporter contacted Grant for his side of the story, Grant gave an interview which resulted in an article published May 20, 1986, with the headline, “Ex-legislator spurned politics, farming to become controversial city landlord.” Grant claims this article is unfair, biased, and fails to tell his story.

Present at the hearing were George Grant, the complainant; Tim McGuire, managing editor of the Minneapolis Star and Tribune, and Lou Gelfand, readers’ representative for the newspaper.

Background and Discussion: The article reports that complainant was a five-term state legislator from rural Minnesota, but now, 15 years later, has a new life as a rental property owner in south Minneapolis. The article mentions that the city had brought condemnation proceedings against six of Grant’s buildings and that the list of building code violations was long. Grant admits to a long list of complaints against his rental properties but says his troubles with the city housing inspectors are the result of complaints from neighbors who object to his tenants, many of whom are American Indians and Hmong He says he improves his properties, that his tenants are pleased with him as a landlord, and that complaints against him are racially motivated.

Two of Grant’s disputes with city officials were noted in the article. Two neighbors were quoted as dissatisfied with the manner in which Grant maintained his properties. Much of the article, however, was devoted to Grant’s previous legislative career and his current lifestyle.

Among other things, the article described Grant at the interview as unkept, dirty, and dressed in a tattered shirt, and driving a 1969 Rambler. Complainant points out that the article failed to report that at the time he was tearing old floorboards out of the attic of one of his buildings, and understandably his untidy appearance reflected the work he was doing. Complainant felt, too, the reference to the age of his car was unnecessary. It seems to the Council it would have been more appropriate for the article to have explained the circumstances under which complainant’s appearance was observed.

The article mentioned that Grant talked about a kind of spiritual relationship with animals and quoted Grant as saying, among other things, that “I live like an animal.” As Grant explained at the hearing, his philosophy was to live in harmony with nature and nature’s creatures. The Council believes the article’s description of complainant’s philosophy was not inconsistent with Grant’s explanation.

Complainant charges that the article, in effect, portrays him as a slum landlord. Grant says this is untrue and unfair. He states he provides low-cost housing for poor people and that the tenants are satisfied with his housing. At one point in the article, it is stated: “Olson said he is now trying to form a partnership with at least 10 other homeowners in the neighborhood to buy dilapidated housing before Grant and other undesirable landlords buy it.” The newspaper points out the reference to Òundesirable landlords” is attributed to Olson and is not editorializing on the part of the newspaper. Grant contends that more of his side of the housing story should have been given, but the article does quote one of Grant’s tenants who said Grant was a good landlord who fixes things when they need fixing. A city housing inspector is also quoted as saying that Grant “honestly believes he’s helping these people out there.”

Complainant maintains that an independent inspection of his properties would establish that his buildings are not substandard. It was not incumbent, however, on the newspaper to participate in an independent investigation off the properties, regardless of who would pay for the study – and Grant did offer. The newspaper article was not a project in investigative reporting. It was simply reporting on a controversy that was in the news.

The newspaper article was really a profile piece on complainant, who had become newsworthy because of his former public service in the legislature and his now quite different lifestyle. Complainant was described at one point in the article as an “enigma” and another time as an “anomaly” to those who know him.

We might add that the headline which says Grant has spurned politics is inaccurate, except as “spurned politics” could be taken to mean “spurned elected office.” As Grant explained at the hearing, while he no longer seeks political office, he still maintains an active interest in politics.

Decision: The article portrays complainant, as the headline states, as a “controversial landlord,” and contains quotes from many persons, from former legislative colleagues to city officials and neighbors, to tenants, but the newspaper article does not editorialize. Complainant is depicted as a person who, following Thoreau’s dictum, marches to his own drummer. We think the article, taken as a whole, is reasonably fair and balanced.

The grievance is denied.

Concurring: Ashmore, Beaulieu, Bednar, Chucker, Dornfeld, Falkman, Larson, Mundale, Ryan, Simonett, Stone, Sundin, Swain, Tanick, Warder

Special concurrence: Ashmore - Grant’s situation merits continued monitoring by the Star and Tribune news staff. Some effort should be made to determine the veracity of his charge that city officials are using the inspections department to displace Indian tenants. Simply asking one of the inspectors, as the newspaper said the Star and Tribune did, would not reveal this kind of information.

Special concurrence: Dornfeld - The Minneapolis Star and Tribune article on George Grant clearly was intended to be a profile on a colorful public figure, rather than an in-depth investigation of city housing inspection problems.

Nonetheless, since questions were raised about Grant’s track record as a landlord, he should have been given the opportunity to present his side of the story – that his troubles with the housing inspectors are the result of complaints from neighbors who object to his tenants, many of whom are American Indians.

Background: In the fall of 1986, the Albert Lea Evening Tribune published a letter to the editor from C___ L___, under the heading “Leave Smokers Be,” in which she answered a county commissioner who apparently had said that taxpayers should not provide for the privilege of people smoking in public buildings. The letter stated in part:

First, smoking, drinking or overeating are rights – not privileges. Secondly, (smokers) are also taxpayers. They buy homes, furniture, cars and groceries. They also vote for County Commissioners, Treasurers, and Auditors . . .. Give me back my freedom and let me have control of my body as I see fit.

Polis then submitted to the Tribune his letter to the editor in reply:

How wrong, how dead wrong your views C___ L___. Our entire life and what we do with it is a privilege. Only by the grace of God we live from day to day. And one of the reasons why we have all this misery in this world is because of that word RIGHTS.

Some feel they have the right to hoard $$$ while millions are starving, some feel they have the right to take the life of an unborn, others, like you feel they have a right to blow smoke in my face.

Should I go on? If you forget about the RIGHTS and consider everyone else’s feelings – do unto others as you would want them do to you – this entire world would be a much better place to live in.

The Tribune, under the heading “No ‘Right’ to Smoke,” publishes the following edited version of Polis’ letter:

One of the reasons why we have all this misery in this world is because of the word “rights.”

Some feel they have the right to hoard money while millions are starving. Some feel they have the right to take the life of an unborn child. Others, like C___ L___, feel they have the right to blow smoke in my face (while they work in government buildings).

If people would forget about the word “rights” and consider every one else’s feelings, this entire world would be a much better place to live.

/s/ John Polis

Polis agrees that the Tribune had a right to edit his letter for “bad language or length.” He concedes the edited version correctly states his position, although he takes exception to the elimination of the first three sentences of his submitted letter, particularly the third sentence. Polis says, “Editors shouldn’t put words in other people’s mouths,” and he contends the edited letter was not recognizably his own.

Schmidt of the Tribune said the Tribune felt the tone of the submitted letter was, if not libelous, rather inflammatory and subject to be construed as a personal affront to C___ L___. While conceding the editing was “on the side of conservatism,” Schmidt argued the revision, if anything, clarified and better stated Polis’ position.

Decision of the News Council: This case presents a particularly interesting and difficult question. The question is not whether a newspaper has the right to edit letters to the editor. Rather, the question is how much editing. In this case, the revision was done in good faith and with legitimate motives, although we are not here passing judgment on whether the changes were advisable. Moreover, the letter writer’s message was left intact. The problem, however, is whether an editor may change the distinctive writing style of the letter writer.

It is customary for newspapers to reserve the right to edit letters to the editor. Indeed, we think it is good practice for a newspaper to announce it reserves such right and to set out for the readers the paper’s guidelines for letter editing. For example, a letter’s length is a proper matter for editing. Unclear sentences may be clarified. Poor grammar, punctuation, and language usage may at times be corrected, especially if it saves the letter writer from embarrassment. Editors also are properly concerned about statements that may be libelous or in poor taste. Each newspaper, reflecting the mores of the community and its readership, tends to develop its own standards of what is appropriate correspondence.

Letters to the editor are a unique and popular feature of newspapers. In effect, the paper provides a bulletin board for an exchange of views among people in the community. Letters, with few exceptions, must be signed. This means that, in publishing a letter, the newspaper represents to the public that what is said in the letter is being said by the person whose name appears as that of the author. Consequently, it is important that not only the letter writer’s position be fairly stated but that the letter retain the “flavor” of the letter as submitted, and that it generally reflects the writer’s personality. In other words, we think retention of a letter writer’s own distinctive style is important. Thus, letters to the editor should be edited in the same manner as an editor edits a staff writer’s copy. If a submitted letter, in the opinion of the newspaper, requires extensive editing so that it no longer fairly reflect the views or style of the writer, it seems to us either the edited version should be approved by the writer before publication, or the letter should be returned to the writer for rewriting, or the letter should be rejected for publication.

The News Council recognizes an editor must be afforded considerable discretion in editing letters to the editor and that different editors will edit differently. Indeed, the split among the News Council members in this case illustrates how difficult it is to agree on what is or is not appropriate editing.

We turn now to this case. Polis has a lively, distinctive writing style. It seems rather unlikely that Polis’ letter would be construed as either libelous or as an improper personal attack on the letter writer whom Polis was answering. Some newspapers, we think, would have published Polis’ letter “as is,” with minor grammatical corrections. On the other hand, we believe other newspapers, concerned about the argumentative tone of Polis’ letter, might prefer, as did the Tribune, to do more editing.

In this case, in an attempt to lessen the personal tone of the letter, the editor recast the wording into the third person, leaving the message the same but the style more neutral and bland. To the extent Polis has argued that a person’s distinctive writing style should not be removed in the editing process, we agree with him. To the extent, however, he claims the Tribune’s editing went too far, we disagree. Although a close question, on balance, we conclude that enough of Polis’ style remained in his letter as edited and that his message was left intact and clearly stated.

The grievance, therefore, is denied.

Concurring: Casey, Clark, Earley, Falkman, King, Larson, Simonett, Stone, Warder

Dissenting: Graven, Parrish

Dissenting Opinion: Ashmore - The Council’s determination favoring broad editing discretion over letters to the editor is correct, but the apparent corporate-sponsored chill in the Evening Tribune newsroom is not. Through the hearing, the Council uncovered a major journalistic problem but failed to deal with it in the determination.

In his presentation, Schmidt indicated he feared the reference to C___ L___ was libelous. He said a news adviser from Chicago visited his office recently and indicated such references might create a libel problem. It is, he said, company policy not to print such references, and he endorses that policy.

There are nuisance suits that cost newspapers money, and that is unjust and injurious to newspapers. But the only way to eliminate the danger is to stop publishing. A newspaper cannot carry out its public duty to report information if its editor is walking on eggs, fearing one broken shell will cause him or her to be hauled into court.

We have not seen the end of costly, unjust libel actions. But how will this injustice end? Plaintiffs will not end it, as long as the corporations that publish newspapers cower in fear at the mention of a lawsuit. Attorneys will not end it, as long as vigorous client representation is rewarded with settlements that do not require presenting an unjust case to a judge or jury.

The injustice will end only when editors say “Hogwash” when told, or when thinking, that something as simple as “How wrong, dead wrong, your views . . .” is libelous. Only when judges and juries see enough examples of injustice will they tighten up the system and make it too risky for a plaintiff to being a nuisance suit. The fear that it might have to stand up and be part of the solution has apparently caused the Evening Tribune to give up and become part of the problem.

Newspaper people, like all professionals, must know what will in fact constitute libel and publish, with care, accordingly. But to avoid printing a legitimate item (or to edit it, stylistically, beyond recognition) because someone might get angry and initiate an unjust action perpetuates the problem.

To the extent that this chill is induced by the corporation that publishes the newspaper and employs the news people, the Council shall speak out against it. If this is a mistake on the part of an individual, the Council should provide guidance to help keep the problem from recurring.

Dissenting Opinion: Ryan - Ashmore expresses essentially my determination of this case. The newspaper revision, I think, was done in good faith. But barring offensive language or inflammatory rhetoric, the content should have been used as submitted. The original letter was hardly libelous, and the newspaper was too overly cautious. Since the volume of letters to the editor in Albert Lea is small, the editor might have made more effort to contact the writer to discuss the proposed alteration. It is obvious that the publisher, especially, seemed to make himself impossible to be reached on the subject.

Dissenting Opinion: Graven, Parrish - I agree with the majority that the question is close. I agree with almost all of their opinions except the conclusions. I think that on these facts the editing gutted the distinctive style of the writer so that the substantial rewrite should have been submitted for his approval before it was published. The editor went too far.