Background: In its Sunday variety section of May 22, 1988, the Star Tribune published an 8-page feature with 25 photographs on teenage pregnancy, told as the personal story of one teenager, Makela Scott, a 16-year-old Black girl attending a special public school program for pregnant adolescents. The United Black Front claims the article is unfair both to the young girl and to the Black community, and, indeed, promotes racial prejudice. The Star Tribune denies the claim and contends that the article is responsible journalism focusing needed public attention on a problem involving the whole community.

The article, entitled “Meet Makela Scott,” begins with Makela, on her 16th birthday and 5 months pregnant, attending PACE (Pregnant Adolescent Continuing Education). The article chronicles 21 months of Makela’s life, her pregnancy, her relationship with her mother and family members, her boyfriends, difficulties with school and work, the birth of her son, and the problems of money, housing, and raising a child alone. The story ends in the spring of 1988, the child, 15 months old, and Makela not going to her high school prom, which she had hoped to attend. Much of the story is told in Makela’s own words. The story’s dramatic impact is intensified by the photography.

The newspaper states that Makela was not chosen as the subject of the feature story because she was Black but because of all the girls in the PACE program (of whom 20-25 percent were White) she was best qualified. She had relatively good school attendance, had family support, was not involved with drugs or alcohol, was herself interested in the project, cared about becoming a good mother, and had the maturity to see the project through to its completion. Makela and her mother signed written permission forms for the story. There were no financial or other inducements. (The story itself notes that the reporter and photographer gave Makela modest gifts on special occasions.) It appears that Makela is not displeased with the article and neither she nor her mother is a party to this grievance. Makela is, however, concerned about the strong negative response the article generated in the Black community. She attended the hearing but did not speak.

This is, then, a third-party grievance brought by the United Black Front. Grievant claims that the article is exploitive, degrading, and insensitive; that it perpetuates racial stereotypes; that the article uses photographs which are insensitive to community values and demeaning and quotes Scott in demeaning “street dialect”; and that, by its overall unremitting focus on one young Black adolescent, the article fails to place the general problem of teenage pregnancy in an appropriate, community-wide context, with the consequence that, intentionally or not, the article is essentially racist. Grievant also faulted the newspaper for its failure to solicit and publish the viewpoints of Black experts who write about unwanted teen pregnancy, or of Black community leaders who work to change the social conditions which enable it.

Discussion: We do not think the article glorifies teenage pregnancy; on the contrary, it shows the heavy burden of an adolescent mother, so early in life and so unprepared, having to cope with the responsibilities of motherhood. Nor do we think the article seeks to perpetuate a racial stereotype. The article sets out the valid reasons mentioned above why Makela was chosen to tell her story, and these reasons are unrelated to race. Her story was intended to illustrate the problems of all low-income, teenage mothers of all racial and ethnic backgrounds. Even so, we suppose there will be some readers who will choose to see the young mother in the newspaper story as typical of Black family life. Such readers, and one hopes they are a dwindling few, are being unfair to Makela Scott, a young woman who, like all of us, has both good and not-so-good qualities; and such stereotyping is seriously unfair and false to the Black community. But if there is any perpetuation of stereotype here, it is, we think, in the eye of the beholder, not in the newspaper article.

The major complaint about the article, as we see it, is that it is “insensitive” to the Black community, a “hurting experience” as Edwards put it. The Sunday the article was published, Dr. James Shelton, president of the St. Paul Chapter of the NAACP, received 63 telephone calls of complaint from outraged constituents. We undertake to discuss this complaint with a certain sense of inadequacy because we recognize in the word “insensitivity” an attempt of two cultures to understand each other.

To begin, it is agreed that teenage pregnancy, especially in a deprived socioeconomic setting, is a serious problem deserving media attention. Indeed, this feature story was apparently inspired by remarks of the mayor of Minneapolis calling attention to the seriousness of the problem. Moreover, it is not claimed that the article “Meet Makela Scott” is inaccurate; Makela’s story is reported correctly. As to quotes of Makela in the article, her speech patterns varied, sometimes in “street dialect,” sometimes not; but the reporter states this is how Makela speaks. The main basis for the complaint, as expressed to us at the hearing, is that the article lacks balance and sensitivity. It is contended that the unusual length of the article, accentuated by vivid photography in which no white person appears, focuses relentlessly on one young Black girl’s experience and, by telling no more, implies that there is no more to tell. Ultimately, claims the grievant, the article is one of unrelieved hopelessness which demeans the achievements and aspirations of the Black community.

The newspaper agrees that the article is shocking. It says it must be. But just as stories and photos of Bull Connor in Birmingham shocked the public conscience to civil rights and similar journalism awakened the public to the Vietnam War, so, too, contends the newspaper, people need to be shocked into an awareness of current serious social problems such as teenage pregnancy. Only if the problem is presented in direct, realistic, personal terms, says the paper, will public attention be gained, which is the first step to remedial action.

We find the article “Meet Makela Scott” to be responsible journalism. It is an achingly human story, well written, told in nonjudgmental terms. Some members of the Council find at least two of the photographs (of the mother’s bare abdomen and of the actual delivery) to be gratuitously dramatic, but we agree that the overall effect of the article is a powerful, realistic, very human portrayal of teenage pregnancy and motherhood. We commend the newspaper for what obviously was a major commitment of time and resources to an important subject.

Because the article tells a personal story in nonjudgmental terms, it should not be expected to offer the balance of other points of view which would only diffuse the impact the article seeks to obtain. The article is designed, rather, to raise questions, to make people think, not to provide answers. Treatment of the subject matter in this manner lies, we believe, within the editorial discretion of the newspaper.

There will and should be other occasions for the newspaper to report the good news in the Black community. We note some of the comments at the hearing by Star Tribune Managing Editor McGuire:

“This entire incident has caused us to reflect deeply on how we cover the Black community. While we have come to the conclusion that the Makela Scott story is one of which we can be very, very proud, we came to other conclusions about our overall approach to the Black community. We listened to complaints that we don’t present Blacks in a positive light often enough and that we don’t show Blacks just being average folks. We have raised consciousness among our staffers on that issue and have made some policy changes, such as urging our people to roam the minorities of our communities more to look for news and photo opportunities.”

There are, as speakers at the hearing eloquently pointed out, other stories to tell, stories of hope and achievement. And, as those speakers also observed, in a society where opportunity is not equally shared, the media, no less than other institutions, has an affirmative obligation to represent minority views. This means the perspectives of minority people should be made a part of the stories about their own cultures, and also of stories about the community we all share. Perhaps in the telling of these other stories, the entire community will begin to find answers to the many questions raised by “Meet Makela Scott.”

Grievance denied.

Concurring: Ashmore, Bednar, Chucker, Igoe, Larson, McDowall, Orwoll, Pennock, Simonett, Sundin, Swain, Tanick

Dissenting: Beaulieu, Warder - The Makela Scott article from a journalistic point of view was factual and informative, but it failed to give the complete story. I believe that the Makela Scott article was unfair, perpetuated old negative stereotypes and promoted racial disharmony. The story in the Star and Tribune was vividly presented with a series of poignant photos that focused on Makela and her pregnancy, but the article generated a strong negative response in the Black community. Black members of the community were offended. The author of the article should have given special emphasis to the fact that teenage pregnancy is a general concern, but seemed to say through photos that it was a Black problem. I was particularly concerned with the insensitivity of the newspaper in printing several photos such as the one with Makela giving birth to her son.

The Makela Scott story, because of the manner in which it was written, and because of the photos, perpetuated old myths, fostered negative feelings, and did irreparable harm in race relations. Stories of this type, with emphasis on Black youth, have far-reaching negative effects. This past summer the Japanese prime minister made racist comments publicly that U.S. Negroes have brought the overall intelligence and literacy rate of the United States down and that Negroes prefer to file for bankruptcy rather than pay their obligations. When confronted, the Japanese official apologized and stated that Japanese pick up their racial attitudes and stereotypes from the U.S. media. Stories such as the Makela Scott article, without a full explanation, can have far-reaching negative effects. The problem becomes most acute in those communities without Blacks.

The Makela Scott story, from the viewpoint of a community ethos, was unfair and insensitive in that it failed to underscore that the problem is not exclusively that of Black people. Not all Black youth have babies in their teen years, but that is the message conveyed to many people who only look at the negative aspect. The article as seen by Makela’s peers seems to tacitly promote teenage pregnancy by its glorification of the issue. The Star and Tribune needs to be more thorough in its investigation and promulgation of such stories as the Makela Scott article. The article – because of its omission of significant segments of the total problem – was unfair.

Background: In the presentation, Dave Nimmer and Marcia Fluer interviewed Tom Steward, the freelance reporter who accompanied the business executive in riding a Burlington Northern freight train from the Twin Cities to LaCrosse and back. The trip was televised. Steward began by noting, “Now, what he does is illegal and dangerous, and to us – absolutely fascinating.” The business executive spoke of “the open-ended freedom and the adventures and the thrill sport of really kind of living life on the edge for a time.” The camera showed the man hiding in the railroad yard, then jumping aboard two empty grain cars. The camera caught the passing scene, the St. Croix River, the “backs of the towns,” where we “can feel the sense of history.” Steward spoke of “seductive speeds, sounds, cutting loose and shipping out can be mesmerizing.” For the return trip, the camera showed the men hiding by some bushes, then hopping a flatcar back to the Twin Cities, accompanied by a sunset over the Mississippi. At one point on the trip, the business executive was shown drinking champagne in celebration.

BN strongly objects to the report. It claims that any entertainment value is vastly outweighed by the danger involved in riding the rails. Because of the danger and the fatalities that occur, BN engages in a concerted, conscientious effort to police its railroad yards and to enforce the trespass laws. The railroad conducts numerous safety lectures for students, warning of the dangers of playing on and around trains. The railroad says that WCCO-TV’s story tends to frustrate its efforts to promote safety. Indeed, says BN, the atmosphere and tenor of the televised report, both in its dialogue and in the scenes pictured, sought to portray a dangerous, illegal activity as “fascinating,” an “unforgettable ride,” and a “thrill sport.”

WCCO-TV, on the other hand, says the focus of its presentation was not the illegal riding of railroad freight trains, but rather a human-interest feature story about an unusual person who engages in an unusual adventurous activity, much the same as television reports on persons who skydive and climb mountains, or even tall buildings. Moreover, the television station points out that the presentation did specifically call attention to the dangers involved and the illegality of the activity. Steward stated that riding the rails is illegal and dangerous at the beginning of the segment. The business executive was shown saying, “I think it’s really too dangerous for most people . . . . I really know what I’m doing and it’s still dangerous, and it’s a survival sport . . . . I don’t recommend it to anybody, no.” When asked why he had recommended that his trip be televised, he replied, “[I]t would be wonderful if some people could live it vicariously.”

The night following the show, WCCO-TV reported on viewer reaction. Two people called in who were highly critical of the story as “advocating law-breaking” and glamorizing dangerous and illegal activity. A third viewer, apparently a former hobo, enjoyed the story. Marcia Fluer announced that Burlington Northern had called “to tell us just how dangerous it is and BN officials said 55 people died hopping trains last year on BN property alone.”

Decision of the News Council: The full impact of the television report cannot, of course, be captured in this written decision, but the foregoing description gives some picture of what is involved.

The Burlington Northern, better than most, knows how foolhardy trespassing on its premises and the rolling stock can be, and the Council appreciates the railroad’s concerns for the safety of its own people and of the public. These are serious matters. If the television story had been about “riding the rails” as a general subject, we believe that a proper balance would have required showing the actual dangers and hazards involved. Proper balance would have required giving adequate time to the railroad’s perspective, explaining the safety problems presented by trespassers. But this was not the kind of story involved here. WCCO-TV’s presentation clearly was intended to be an entertaining, human interest, adventure story focusing on a particular individual who was leading a double life, a staid businessman during the work week, and a free-spirited hobo on weekends. As so presented, the Council finds the presentation was appropriate and responsible video journalism. We think the viewing audience (mostly older adults at the time slot shown) would find the story interesting and entertaining.

While the report may have glamorized the business executive, we do not think it tended to glamorize riding the rails as such. The program did warn about the dangers from the heavy equipment and “the characters lurking here,” and did warn the activity was illegal and that one could get arrested. The following night the station reported the adverse comments of two viewers as well as Burlington Northern’s warning and the sober statistics on fatalities. Considering the clearly announced focus of the television segment and viewing the story as a whole and in context, we find that the presentation was an entertaining adventure story responsibly reported.

The Council discussed the question of journalists’ breaking the law to get a story, and the consensus was that it occurs more often that most people probably imagine and that the press faces the same risk of arrest and charges as any member of the public when breaking the law. The Council believes that taking that risk is an editorial decision. Ron Handberg stated at the hearing that the station understood this risk and, if the station’s reporter or crew had been caught and arrested while doing this story, the station would not have presented a “First Amendment” defense. WCCO-TV acknowledges that the video tapes make it obvious that WCCO personnel did trespass on BN property. BN did not bring charges but elected instead to bring a complaint to the News Council, alleging that the report was socially irresponsible. We elect not to consider the question of the journalistic integrity of the story.

Grievance denied.

Concurring: Ashmore, Casey, Dornfeld, Igoe, Mundale, Parrish, Pennock, Simonett, Sundin, Swain, Tanick, Warder

Dissenting: McDowell, Orwoll

Background: In its issue of October 23, 1987, the St. Cloud Times published a story on a high school football game between two top teams of the Central Minnesota Conference. The article reported that the game was a “rout,” in part because the losing team “was missing five of its starting players.” The article explained that the five players had turned themselves in for violating the High School League rules on use of alcohol and had been suspended from playing. The coach was quoted, “These are all real good kids.” The positions played by the five suspended players were given. Also reported were the names of the five players. While the grievant believes the newspaper story devoted too much space to the suspensions and not enough to the game itself, its main complaint is that the newspaper should not have published the names of the juveniles.

Discussion: The sports program, says the district, is part of its over-all program to educate young men and women. Mistakes will be made by 15- to 17-year-old youngsters, and discipline for mistakes must be imposed; indeed, this is part of the learning process. But, contends the district, in a case such as this, it was not necessary to publicly identify the youngsters involved. The boys had already suffered enough; making their mistake a matter of public record only added to their punishment, perhaps creating a stigma that will be harmful to these youngsters with their lives ahead of them.

While the local community is aware of the persons involved, says the district, this awareness is limited; publishing the names in the St. Cloud Times, however, spreads the information to those who really have no need to know, causes anguish to the families involved, and gives the incident more importance than it deserves. While no law forbids the use of the students’ names, the many laws protecting the privacy of juveniles illustrates the importance our society places on treating juvenile matters discreetly.

The newspaper admits that “[t]he issue on use of juvenile names in a situation like this is a difficult judgment call.” The editor states that whether or not to publish names of juveniles must be decided on a case-by-case basis. In this case, the newspaper noted that the consequences of the student suspensions were obvious and public. The absence of five starting players from an important high school football game was newsworthy. Consequently, says the Times, it was not inappropriate to identify the players involved.

Decision: All parties agree the newspaper story was factually accurate. Moreover, the Council believes the focus of the story, explaining the outcome of the football game in terms of the loss of five players, was appropriate and was handled with restraint. The Times story quoted the coach as source of the information concerning the rules infraction under which the youngsters were suspended, i.e., an alcohol-related offense. Perhaps the school might have been successful in keeping that particular information from the press, but the circumstance here was that the press did know that it was an alcohol offense and published that information in the story which included the names of suspended players. We agree that whether to identify the juveniles involved is a difficult judgment call. We cannot say that it was improper in this instance for the newspaper to have used names.

Rightly or wrongly, high school football generates considerable public interest, and the players, even though youngsters, achieve a rather high profile within their communities. With this high profile goes the likelihood of publicity. In part, it is because of this situation that high school athletes are required to attend an orientation session on the importance of compliance with High School League rules governing student conduct. In passing, it should be noted that several members of the Council at the hearing commended the five players for their integrity in turning themselves in for discipline.

Here, the newspaper need not have published the names of the juveniles. On the other hand, neither can it be said it was inappropriate to have done so. The decision to publish, we think, under the circumstances of the case, was within the discretion of the newspaper.

We do not think, as the district suggests, that a newspaper must adopt a flat policy not to use names of juveniles in cases of this kind. There must be room for the exercise of editorial judgment. Having said this, it is clear that the St. Cloud Times is not unsympathetic to the concerns expressed by the school district. “We cannot say,” stated the Times, “that if a similar situation faced us today that we would handle it differently. But with . . . the opportunity to hear the concerns of Supt. Doucet . . ., the decision could be different.”

Grievance denied.

Concurring: Ashmore, Dornfeld, Igoe, McDowall, Mundale, Orwoll, Parrish, Sundin, Swain, Tanick

Dissenting: Simonett, Warder

Background: Tekautz served a one-year term on the Chisholm City Council in 1984. He ran for a seat on the city council in 1986 and lost by 54 votes of 2,638 votes cast for him and his opponent. Complainant first contacted the News Council on November 18, 1986, and decided to go forward with his complaint on March 11, 1987. The grievance was not heard in the fall of 1987, at grievant’s suggestion, because he was again running for city council. He was subsequently elected.

When Tekautz was narrowly defeated for Chisholm City Council in 1986, the Chisholm Free Press-Tribune Press printed an advertisement by his opponent Randy Schroetter and an opinion letter by Dave Andrews, both of which grievant says incorrectly reported his 1984 voting record. The ad and letter appeared in the Free Press-Tribune Press’s last issue before the election, not allowing complainant an opportunity to respond before the election. (The newspaper is published twice a week, on Tuesday and Thursday.)

Grievant complains that both the advertisement and the letter misrepresented his voting record and that the late placement did not allow him time to respond in the newspaper before the election. The open letter dealt with fewer alleged Tekautz positions than the ad, which specified nine votes by complainant. For this discussion, the Council concentrated on the 3-1/2″ by 8″ ad which stated:

• He Voted Against the AEOA Bus Service
• He Voted Against the Chisholm Ambulance Longyear, Inc. contract
• He Voted Against Sunday liquor sales 
• He Voted Against the Right to Know Seminar
• He Voted Against calling for bids and purchasing new squad cars for the Public Safety Dept. 
• He Voted Against IRRRB projects in 1984
• He Voted Against the Mobile Home Ordinance
• He Voted Against purchase of a new pickup for the city garage
• He Voted Against the Assessment Policy

Let’s not move backwards – let’s move ahead 

RANDY SCHROETTER your Councilman

Polls open Tuesday, November 4

 7 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.

 Thank you for your support

 Paid for by candidate in his own behalf.

Discussion: The newspaper did not endorse any candidate, and complainant’s position on the issues in the ad had not been the subject of general news coverage prior to the ad.

Complainant told the Council that when he placed his own ad in the Chisholm Free Press-Tribune Press, the publisher challenged his statement that his opponent had “consistently voted for increases in taxes and levies” and that in response he removed the word “consistently.” He complains that he was not told of his opponent’s ad and that his opponent “was apparently not asked to prove his statements the way I was.”

On assignment by the chairman, the Council’s executive director Tom Patterson met with Tekautz and publisher Ponikvar in Chisholm on March 2. He also interviewed Tekautz’s 1986 opponent Randy Schroetter about the ad and examined the voting records for Chisholm City Council meetings in the official Minutes.

The position of the publisher has been that the ad was accurate or essentially accurate. The Council found that for the nine items in the ad, complainant had either voted “no,” as the ad indicated, or his voting record on the issue was subject to interpretation. On AEOA bus service, Tekautz was present for both city council votes on the issue in 1984. In the first instance, he made a motion to approve a $3,000 city subsidy for the service when $6,300 had been requested. Both his opponent and the publisher considered this a “no” vote because they did not expect the service to continue without the full subsidy. At the later vote, the earlier motion to approve $3,000 was amended to raise the amount to $6,300 and Tekautz voted in favor of the motion. While it does not appear that Tekautz voted against the AEOA bus levy, the News Council felt that interpretation of the votes could support an argument that “technically” the ad was correct or “technically” the ad was incorrect.

Similarly, on the Right to Know seminar, Tekautz voted “yes” on a seminar held in Eveleth and “no” on one held in St. Paul. While Tekautz had voted in favor of most IRRRB (Iron Range Resources and Rehabilitation Board) projects, he did vote “no” on one. It was incorrect that he voted against letting bids on new squad cars. He voted for the squad cars. But he did vote “no” on a motion to sell an old squad car. (He wanted to keep it for the city nurse.) Since selling the old squads was part of buying the new, even this vote is subject to interpretation.

The Council then considered Tekautz’s position that because the ad ran in the last edition of the newspaper before the election, he was not permitted an opportunity to defend his voting record. The News Council has previously been asked to consider complaints of last-minute attacks in political elections, and the Council has recognized this as a troublesome area for both publishers and candidates. Such ads affect reputations and, especially if timed for publication immediately before an election, when there is little time for effective rebuttal, can affect election results. Publishers would be wise to have policies for dealing with late introduction of new issues into a campaign. The need to offer response time was particularly important in this case, where it could be argued that some “no” votes referenced in the ad were really “yes” votes. Some newspapers choose to solve this problem by not allowing political letters to the editor or political ads which introduce new issues at a time when an opponent cannot respond. Some newspapers make it their policy to tell an advertiser that a last-minute political ad will be accepted only with the understanding that the newspaper will show it to the opponent and offer the opponent an opportunity to respond in the same issue of the newspaper.

Decision: The Council finds the ad and open letter ambiguous with respect to accuracy, and the complaint of inaccuracy is denied. The complaint is sustained with respect to the unfairness of publishing these new attacks without adequate time for complainant to respond in the newspaper.

Concurring: Ashmore, Beaulieu, Bednar, Casey, Chucker, Falkman, King, Parrish, Persons, Ryan, Simonett, Stone, Warder

Dissenting: Larson - Although a newspaper editor should have some type of policy regarding election material presented, whether close to election time or not, it seems that a voting record is not necessarily a new issue. Voting records are just that: records. To remind people of that record would not seem to be a new issue unless the candidate is insisting he/she has been voting another way than the record shows.

In attendance at the hearing were Nancy Barsness, the grievant, and John R. Stone, publisher of the Pope County Tribune.

Background: In 1985, the City of Glenwood received a grant from the Minnesota Small Cities Development program. The city loaned these grant funds to Watkins for expansion of its operations. The Glenwood Development Corporation was designated by the city to make reports, to handle repayment of the loan, and to reinvest the funds in other worthy development projects.

On April 6, 1987, the Minnesota Department of Energy and Economic Development (DEED) wrote a letter to the mayor stating it had received a letter from an employee of Watkins “alleging that the company is discriminating against women in both hiring and employment practices,” which, if true, would violate the grant. The city was asked to inquire into the matter. On April 10, 1987, the mayor wrote the Department that “[w]e could find no discrimination.” In early June, Barsness met with Gene Wenstrom, who was working part time for the Development Corporation, and with a director of the Development Corporation to discuss the sex discrimination charges and the then pending investigation by the Department of Human Rights.

About 2 months later, on August 4, 1987, grievant Nancy Barsness appeared at the meeting of the Glenwood City Commission, at which time she presented a two-page statement mentioning the complaints of sex discrimination at Watkins, questioning the administration of the grant funds, and claiming lack of oversight of the project by the city. Barsness explained that “several female employees” had brought the matter to her attention the previous March. in her capacity as an outreach consultant for the Minnesota Women’s Fund. Also, on August 4, Barsness gave John Stone, who was reporting the commission meeting for his newspaper, a two-page “news release” setting out in detail the discrimination complaints involving the West Central plant operated by Watkins, and identifying the two women complainants by name.

Stone reported these events in the Pope County Tribune for August 10, 1987, in two stories, both under his byline. In the same issue, Stone wrote an editorial, “It should have been handled better,” in which the newspaper was critical of the Barsness news release and generally defended the Watkins operation as beneficial to the community’s economy. The next issue of the newspaper contained a letter to the editor from Barsness claiming the previous week’s coverage of the Watkins story was biased. The editor appended an editor’s note to this letter, setting out a long verbatim quote from the Barsness statement given to the city commission.

On September 11, the Department of Human Rights announced that it had found probable cause that unfair discriminatory practices had been committed by Watkins. This news was fully and fairly reported by the newspaper in its issue of September 21. On September 28, the newspaper published an editorial, “Good intentions apparently not enough,” which was sympathetic to Watkins. Another editorial entitled “Good news” appeared in the paper on October 5, commenting on a study about why some small towns survive while others fail, and noting, among other factors, that successful communities did not have “entrenched leadership” unwilling to accept change but “[n]ew-comers were welcomed into leadership roles.” Barsness responded to this editorial with a letter to the editor in the October 19 issue pointing out that the study had specifically mentioned “acceptance of women in leadership roles,” and citing the editorial’s failure to mention this as “once again demonstrat[ing] how biased this newspaper can be ….” The editor appended a note to this letter denying the charge of bias.

Finally, an editorial on October 13, 1986, commenting on several pending election contests, stated, “Nancy Barsness has been pecking at County Auditor Bill Boyle ….” Barsness objects to the word “pecking,” claiming it implies “hen-pecking,” a subtle form of sexism.

Discussion: Delay in coverage: The first claim is that the newspaper should not have waited until August 10, 1987, to report on the sex discrimination story, but should have printed a story in April when the mayor received the letter from DEED, or at least in early June after Barsness had met with Wenstrom.

The April 6 letter from DEED was vague, not specifying what the alleged discrimination might be. It was within the newspaper’s discretion not to treat the letter as a news story, at least not until further developments. The mayor’s response, finding no discrimination at Watkins, made within only a few days after DEED’s letter, suggests the city’s investigation may have been perfunctory. On the other hand, it appears that the Department of Human Rights was making its own confidential investigation and the parties concerned were waiting for its report. We find no evidence of a “cover-up,” either by the city or the newspaper. Indeed, Barsness, in her statement to the city commission, stated she would give the benefit of the doubt to the city in its cursory investigation because it “did not know what specifically to look for when they visited WASP.” While Barsness had met with Wenstrom in early June, neither Barsness nor Wenstrom reported their discussions to the Development Corporation or the newspaper. Stone was told the discrimination matter was being worked on, apparently satisfactorily. The Development Corporation did not meet in July.

On August 4, Barsness formally presented her complaint about the city’s handling of the Watkins matter at the city commission meeting, thus making the matter public. The newspaper promptly reported her charges. We do not believe it was improper for the Pope County Tribune not to have reported on the Watkins discrimination matter sooner. Small, out-state communities are concerned with economic development needed for survival and the need to encourage businesses which create jobs; at the same time, they are concerned with the important social issues of equality in today’s society. The local newspaper tries to balance these concerns, and, in a case such as we have here, unless it has the considerable resources needed for investigative reporting, may wait until unsubstantiated rumors and vague allegations gain some substance before publishing a story which may otherwise be inaccurate, unfair, or premature. Barsness, quite properly, created a news story by utilizing the public forum of a city commission meeting to present her claims formally and specifically. At this point, quite properly, the newspaper reported that news story.

This first grievance is denied.

Inaccurate, unfair coverage: The second claim is that the coverage of the discrimination story in the August 10 issue was inaccurate and unfair, and that, in reporting the story, Stone should have made a “disclaimer,” disclosing he was a vice president of the Development Corporation.

The News Council has carefully reviewed the articles in the August 10 issue. While there are some inaccuracies, they are minor and the Council finds that the complaints of the women employees and the position of their employer were fairly and adequately reported. One of the articles says that Barsness thought the DEED inquiry made in April had been “fairly investigated” because the city had not then known what to look for. We agree with Barsness that this was inaccurate, and editor Stone now agrees. Barsness’ position, rather, was that the city’s failure to investigate more fully was excusable under the circumstances. While Barsness objects to the article stating that two women had brought the matter to Barsness’ attention rather than “several,” the news release did refer to two women. Also, we do not think it was necessary for the news articles to contain a disclaimer by Stone. In editorials expressing a point of view, it may be appropriate to have a disclaimer; in Stone’s editorial involved here, we believe Stone should have noted his connection to the Development Corporation.

This second grievance is denied as to inaccuracy or unfairness but sustained as to the failure of the editorial to note Stone’s connection to the Development Corporation.

Letters to the editor: The third claim deals with the newspaper’s treatment of Barsness’ three letters to the editor. In each instance, the editor appended an editor’s note responding to what was said in the letter.

As a general rule, we think it best not to append an editor’s note to a letter to the editor, unless a note is needed to correct a statement of fact or to identify the letter writer, or perhaps to present the letter in its proper setting. An editor should avoid using an editor’s note to argue with the letter writer. To do so is to give the editor the “last word,” which will be perceived as unfair and which ordinarily is unfair. If the editor wishes to respond, he or she should do so in a separate personal column or in an editorial.

Here, with respect to the letters appearing in the issues of October 19 and October 26, the editor’s notes undertook to argue with the positions taken by Barsness in her letters and were, therefore, inappropriate. The editor’s note to the letter in the August 17 issue simply set out a quotation from Barsness’ earlier statement, but it might have been construed as arguing with the writer.

The third grievance is sustained.

Sexist terminology: Finally, grievant claims the October 1986 editorial reference to her “pecking” at a county official was a sexist term.

The Council finds no merit to this complaint. In an editorial, the writer has considerable liberty to express a personal point of view. Beyond that, we do not think in the context of the editorial that “pecking” is to be equated with “hen-pecking.” The latter term was not used, nor do we think it was implied.

The fourth grievance is denied.

A further comment might be appropriate here. From our observations of Barsness and Stone and their testimony, we were impressed with their good faith, professionalism, and willingness to communicate with each other. In an editor’s note to one of Barsness’ letters, Stone wrote, “While we wouldn’t [be] so naive as to assume that no discrimination exists, we would challenge the assertion that there is a conscious conspiracy [in the community] to keep women ‘in their place’ and would suggest that even unconscious discrimination is rapidly fading.” Barsness quite properly objected that she had not said anything about a “conscious conspiracy” or keeping women “in their place,” although she would, we are sure, point out there is much need to raise the consciousness of people about women’s rights. Thus, in her letter, Barsness argued there was evidence to “strongly suggest that reforms are needed in both attitudes of the local power structure ….” We mention this exchange only to illustrate that the newspaper does publish exchanges of views on such important matters. Any vital community needs a public forum for the expression of viewpoints on issues affecting the community, and it also needs people willing to use that forum. As the above quotations and the history of this case indicate, the Pope County Tribune and Nancy Barsness both realize this and both are committed to the well-being of the community they both serve.

Concurring, with some exceptions: Ashmore, Beaulieu, Bednar, Casey, Chucker, Falkman, King, Larson, Parrish, Persons, Ryan, Simonett, Warder

Dissenting on the first claim: Chucker

Dissenting in part on the second claim: Parrish, Larson, Beaulieu

Dissenting on the fourth claim: Beaulieu

Further concurrence: Ashmore - It is unfortunate the Council has missed this opportunity to guide publishers whose interest in community economic development might conflict with the public’s right to know.