Minnesota News Council » 1989

Determination 79: Candidate Raymond Ploetz v. Circulating Pines

mnc.staff — Thu, 28 Sep 1989 22:03:49 +0000

Raymond Ploetz, the complainant, appeared on his own behalf; Andrew and Grace Gibas, co-publishers and editors, appeared for the Circulating Pines.

Background: In the fall of 1988 Ploetz was a candidate for Congress. In his campaign literature, Ploetz listed his military service, stating he had taught “disarmament and counterintelligence” while in the Army, and had served in the State Department “working on projects to secure our embassies in Africa” and “as an expert consultant on counter-terrorism.” In an editorial on November 3, 1988, the Circulating Pines endorsed Ploetz’s opponent. Among other things, the editorial commented, “We are not reassured by Ploetz’s background of counter-terrorism work in Africa with the Department of State. Spies, used to subterfuge and plotting, don’t make good office holders in a democratic society.” Ploetz understands that the newspaper is entitled to its editorial opinion. He objects, however, to being identified as a “spy,” which he never was. Does the editorial’s reference to complainant as a “spy” offend standards of fairness and accuracy?

Discussion: At the hearing, Ploetz explained that his work in counterterrorism and counter-intelligence had nothing to do with spying. He explained a spy is one who engages in clandestine activities, posing often under a false identity or under false pretenses. Counter-intelligence, on the other hand, said Ploetz, involves blocking an enemy’s intelligence efforts; it may involve overt as well as covert activities. Ploetz cited pertinent dictionary definitions in support of his position.

On the other hand, editor Grace Gibas testified that in her opinion “counter-intelligence” was a euphemism for espionage and spying. She claimed the gathering of military intelligence or the obstructing of the enemy’s gathering of intelligence is often done by “spying,” the secret gathering of information. Gibas also cited two dictionary definitions.

This dispute cannot, of course, be resolved by dictionary quotes. The test, really, is what people reading Ploetz’s campaign literature understood the terms “counter-intelligence” and “counter-terrorism” to mean. People will tend to evaluate these terms in the context of today’s culture, which includes movie films, novels, and the news media, all of which describe or report on acts of terrorism, espionage, and intrigue.

The language complained of in this case appeared in an editorial, not a news story. In editorials, the writer is expressing an opinion and is free to do so vigorously. Editorials, particularly, are a way in which a newspaper is able to express its own unique personality. The reader understands the editorial is not reporting facts but offering a personal comment on the facts. To the extent, however, that an editorial opinion depends on facts, the facts should be accurate and fairly reported.

In this case the Council believes that many readers commonly perceive the terms “counter-intelligence” and “counter-terrorism” to be associated with spying. We conclude, therefore, that the newspaper’s use of the word “spies” (along with the negative references to subterfuge and plotting) was within the bounds of editorial comment. Consequently, we deny the grievance.

Whatever one might think of spies and spying is, we suppose, a matter of opinion. Many will hold a view contrary to that expressed in the editorial, arguing that terrorism must be countered and that intelligence gathering is necessary and honorable. The problem here, however, is with the editorial’s assumption that, in fact, Ploetz had engaged in clandestine, secret spying, when in fact he had not. A more careful checking of the facts might have avoided the misunderstanding that occurred. On the other hand, Ploetz chose to use campaign literature that invited conflicting interpretations, and it was on the basis of this literature that the editorial was written.

Grievance denied.

Concurring: Casey, Dornfeld, Falkman, Graham, Hanley, Parrish, Persons, Sundin, Warder

Dissenting: Givens

Dissenting opinion: Orwoll - I dissent from the opinion that the newspaper’s use of the word “spies” was within the bounds of editorial comment. Even if “many readers commonly perceive the terms ‘counter-intelligence’ and ‘counter-terrorism’ to be associated with spying” (emphasis mine), I don’t believe readers equate terrorism with counter-terrorism or counter-espionage with espionage. If the print media are to be the guardians and indeed the promoters of the correct use of the English language, then it behooves them to be such guardians, and it is right to chastise them when they are not.

I agree with the Council opinion that the facts upon which an editorial depends “should be accurate and fairly reported.” The Council agrees that Ploetz had not engaged in “clandestine, secret spying.” That was Ploetz’s statement and reason for bringing the case to the Council. If one agrees with these two statements, then one must hold for Ploetz.

Determination 78: Richard Stanek v. Minneapolis Spokesman

mnc.staff — Fri, 02 Jun 1989 21:51:31 +0000

Presentations were made by grievant Richard W. Stanek and Sumner Jones, assistant editor of the Spokesman.

Background: The Minneapolis Spokesman publishes a newspaper for the Black community. A featured columnist in the newspaper is Hobart T. Mitchell, Jr. On March 17, 1988, Mitchell wrote in his column about an investigation conducted by Stanek as an officer of the Minneapolis police force. Stanek was referred to as Chief Bouza’s “boy,” with the further comment, “and believe me, in my opinion, he is just that.” The column stated that Stanek had not treated Black women with respect, and if this kind of misconduct were to be tolerated, “something will hit the fan.”

Stanek denied any misconduct and objected to the article’s “one-sided view and inaccuracies” and its use of the racial epithet. At the suggestion of the News Council’s Director, Stanek called the Spokesman and was told to call Mitchell and was given his phone number. When Stanek called Mitchell with his complaint, Stanek says that Mitchell was abusive. In the March 31, 1988, issue of the Spokesman, the newspaper published an editorial in which it stated Stanek had made a threatening phone call to Mitchell. The editorial went on to say, “We strongly suggest that police officials look into the conduct of Mr. Stanek in this regard. It may very well be that the poor judgment indicated by his telephone call to Mr. Mitchell is cause for reconsideration of his position within the Department.” Grievant’s conduct was subsequently reviewed by his superiors; his investigation report was affirmed; no adverse action was taken. Stanek claims the newspaper article, including the “retaliatory” editorial, was not in accordance with proper journalistic practice and caused him great personal embarrassment and concern. In August 1988, Stanek filed this grievance with the News Council.

On May 26, 1989, the publisher of the Spokesman responded to Stanek’s grievance. The publisher conceded that “[i]n the past we have allowed Mr. Mitchell and others of our contributors greater latitude than was perhaps prudent in both the content and the character of their expression,” and that the newspaper had decided to exercise more editorial control over its contributors. At the same time, the newspaper acknowledged the valuable contribution of Mitchell as an important and insightful advocate for the concerns of the Black community. The newspaper stated it was unfortunate that the article had used “name-calling,” observing that such name-calling would lose its potency if there were a social environment in which racism was not prevalent. The letter concluded by saying, “Both Mr. Stanek and our readers deserve an apology for an editorial lapse which momentarily took us away from the struggle to create such an environment.”

Discussion: It is generally understood that columnists on a newspaper write their own personal views, which are not necessarily the view of the newspaper. Moreover, a columnist has wide discretion in expressing his or her opinions and may do so with vigor and pungency. To the extent a personal column relies on facts, there is, of course, a responsibility to be accurate and fair, and the newspaper itself must, in this regard, bear some of the responsibility.

The use of the racial epithet “boy” in the Mitchell column was inappropriate. On this the parties agree. So does the News Council. On this claim, the grievance is sustained.

In its “retaliatory” editorial, the Spokesman stated, “It may very well be that the poor judgment indicated by his telephone call to Mitchell is cause for reconsideration of his position within the Department.” In fact, however, Stanek was instructed by a person at the Spokesman’s office to call Mitchell. It was both inaccurate and unfair to criticize Stanek for calling Mitchell and to imply that Stanek’s job should be in jeopardy for doing what the newspaper suggested he should do. In this respect, the grievance is sustained. In its editorial, the Spokesman did offer Stanek the opportunity to write a letter to the editor. It is understandable, however, that Stanek would be reluctant to accept this offer in view of the retaliatory response his phone call to the newspaper elicited.

To the extent the grievance claims inaccuracies in the reporting of the telephone conversation between the grievant and the columnist or in the columnist’s version of the investigation conducted by grievant, the Council has not been provided with the facts of these underlying disputes and is not in a position to resolve factual disputes. Our concern, rather, is with the manner in which the dispute was handled by the newspaper. This case illustrates the importance of a newspaper checking out the facts upon which opinions are made. To the extent the grievance complains of inaccuracies other than those specifically discussed herein, the Council takes no action.

The Spokesman points out that it is ironic it should be apologizing for a racial epithet against a police officer while “[i]t is likely that there is not an African American above a certain age in the Twin Cities who cannot recall being publicly insulted by a police officer.” The Spokesman claims that “[D]uring the past four years an average of 200 complaints per year . . . have been filed with the Minneapolis Police Department’s Internal Affairs Unit” on police use of racial epithets. There may be irony, too, in the fact that the epithet directed against the grievant, who is white, is an epithet particularly repugnant to African Americans.

Against this background of uneasy relations between the Black community and the police, perhaps there is a glimmer of hope in the fact that both Stanek and the Minneapolis Spokesman have been willing to submit this matter to the News Council. If a social environment free of racism is to be achieved – an environment that the Spokesman is dedicated and to which every police department is sworn to uphold – it is important that matters of this kind be dealt with forthrightly.

As indicated in the above discussion, the grievance is, in part, sustained. In part, no action is taken.

Concurring: Casey, Chucker, Falkman, Givens, Graham, Hanley, King, Larson, Orwoll, Parrish, Pennock, Simonett, Stauffer, Stone, Swain

Determination 77: Scott Vreeland & Cedar Riverside Community Group v. Star Tribune

mnc.staff — Fri, 02 Jun 1989 21:48:23 +0000

Scott Vreeland presented his grievance and the Star Tribune was represented by Tim McGuire, managing editor; Mike Finney, deputy managing editor; Lou Gelfand, reader representative; and Mike Kaszuba, reporter.

Scott Vreeland, chairman of the board of the Cedar-Riverside Project Area Committee (PAC), a neighborhood governing body of elected, unpaid members, complained that an August 4, 1988, article about the neighborhood in the Star Tribune was “bad journalism.”

Background: The article appeared on page one, with the headline “Cedar Riverside finds itself in a midlife crisis.” Grievant complained that the article did not contact “firsthand sources,” that some sources were described generally as “neighborhood activist” and “key official,” etc., rather than by name, that the article contained untrue statements, that the reporter was “hoodwinked” by factions in a political dispute, that the article was not front-page news, that alleged problems with the article were “covered up” by an inadequate correction of an error in fact and a follow-up article which dealt with only one issue, a lawsuit, and failed to report a significant comment by the judge in dismissing the lawsuit, and finally, that the article was “intellectually sloppy” for use of terms such as “left winger,” “hippies,” “insiders,” etc., and the “midlife crisis” metaphor of the headline.

Discussion: The Council discussed all aspects of the complaint but concentrated primarily on the allegations of factual inaccuracy, attribution of comments as to source, and the suggested “cover-up” of the article’s alleged problems in a correction and a future article. The article stated that “the whole thing is ludicrous to me,’ said Tim Mungavan, a longtime staff person at the Cedar-Riverside PAC, who now serves as a consultant to it. Mungavan, who with his wife lives in a three-bedroom remodeled cooperative unit in Cedar Riverside, is one of the neighborhood leaders who have come under criticism for allegedly altering policies that previously gave the largest living units to large families. He denies he benefited from decisions made by the organization.” A complaint to the newspaper about the reference to just Mungavan and his wife in the three-bedroom unit resulted in the following correction published by the Star Tribune on August 4, 1988:

“An article in Thursday’s edition said Tim Mungavan and his wife (Dorothy) live in a three-bedroom remodeled cooperative unit in Cedar-Riverside. Mungavan, the article said, has been criticized for allegedly altering policies that previously gave the largest living units to large families. The article did not say that Ann Jacobs, daughter of Dorothy, lives with the Mungavans.”

Grievant complained that the correction treated a false implication “like an error in math.” He also said that the policies were never altered and that persons who would know that they were not altered were not contacted by the reporter. The Council recognizes the potential problem of corrections being “out of context,” but believes that the interested reader either makes the proper connection or seeks an explanation. In this instance, the Council believes the correction properly set the record straight as to the number of persons living in the Mungavan unit. Grievant’s several references to the policies not having been changed also lack merit because the newspaper only said that it had been “alleged” that the policies were rewritten and that PAC had been “accused” of rewriting them, which is the case.

The Council noted that the article attributed most quotations to a named source and agreed that a name was not essential in the few instances where the article referred to sources in more general terms. The newspaper used several sources for the article and the Council finds no fault with the newspaper for not using some of the sources complainant would have chosen.

A January 19, 1989, article in the Star Tribune reported that a Hennepin County district judge said that the lawsuit against PAC was not properly before the court because the petitioners had not exhausted their administrative remedies. The judge further said in her order that “plaintiffs are unlikely to prevail on the merits of this case.” Grievant complained to the Star Tribune reader representative that the January 19 story did not report the judge’s comments about the merits of the case. Reader Representative Lou Gelfand wrote in his column of Sunday, January 22, 1989, that the reporter said he agreed the comment should have been in the story, and Gelfand added his opinion that “the judge’s statement that the plaintiffs are unlikely to prevail was almost as significant as her refusal to hear the case. That should have been in the newspaper.” The Council recognizes and appreciates the reader representative’s role of reviewing complaints and sometimes criticizing the newspaper, and believes that the newspaper’s willingness to print the criticism is ample demonstration, along with its earlier correction of the only significant error in the story, that there was no effort to “protect” the first story.

The Council found the original article to be an interesting historical perspective and update on an interesting and sometimes controversial community. The article did not deal only with a lawsuit against PAC but with many changes in the continually developing area. The Council is hesitant to second-guess an editor’s decision about what is or is not a front-page story and we see no reason to challenge the newspaper’s decision of front-page placement in this instance.

Complaint denied.

Concurring: Casey, Chucker, Falkman, Graham, Hanley, King, Orwoll, Parrish, Pennock, Simonett, Stauffer, Stone, Swain

Abstaining: Givens

Dissenting: Larson