Minnesota News Council » 1991

Determination 90: William McGaughey, Men’s Rights Association v. Star Tribune

mnc.staff — Fri, 25 Oct 1991 16:01:56 +0000

William McGaughey, a member of the Men’s Rights Association, based in Forest Lake, complained that an April 21, 1991, Star Tribune article in which he was quoted was biased and that the reporter deceived him about its nature to induce him to grant her an interview. In attendance at the hearing were complainant William McGaughey, and Star Tribune staff: managing editor Tim McGuire, reader representative Lou Gelfand, and reporter Donna Halvorsen.

Background: The Men’s Rights Association was named as one of several groups advocating greater consideration for men by courts and social service agencies in divorce and custody cases and in those domestic violence cases in which men are victims.

McGaughey complained that the Star Tribune told him it wanted to do a story on men’s rights advocacy but that it actually did a negative profile of one advocate, George Gilliland, Sr. McGaughey further complained that the reporter exhibited bias by using a quote from him that unfairly made him look cynical and foolish, and the reporter willfully neglected to include information provided to her that would give credibility to men’s advocates’ arguments.

Media Outlet Response: Regarding deception, the newspaper said that, as in many cases, a story idea that starts out with one focus goes through a process of discovery that may shift that focus. When the reporter interviewed McGaughey, she was gathering information on men’s rights advocacy groups; by the time she was ready to write the story, Gilliland had emerged as a vivid symbol of male activities and as the focus. No deception was intended or committed, they assert.

The newspaper further said that neither the reporter nor the article was biased and that material McGaughey had wanted included in the article appeared to the reporter and her editors as unsubstantiated. They chose not to use it. The managing editor said he believed the editing process – with as many as five sets of eyes examining a story before publication – provided protection for readers, sources and the newspaper.

Determination: The Council voted unanimously to deny both grievances (bias and deception).

Determination 91: Hennepin County Medical Society v. KARE-TV

mnc.staff — Wed, 23 Oct 1991 16:07:40 +0000

Appearing for the Hennepin County Medical Society were Dr. Eugene Ott, Dr. Edward Maeder, Dr. Burt Schwartz and Thomas Hoban. KARE-11 appeared by a written submission only. The grievance centers around a four-part investigative report presented by KARE on the excessive use of cesarean sections.

Background: The Medical Society contends the program made inappropriate use of statistics and unfairly compared cesarean sections to rape, and that this in turn reflected directly and unfairly on the Medical Society and its members.

Several women who had undergone what they felt were unnecessary C-sections appeared on camera, one of them stating, “I feel as though I was raped.” The Medical Society argues that this was gratuitous sensationalism. The thrust of the television program was that there are far too many C-sections. The program relied on a study stating half of all routine cesarean procedures might be avoided and another report indicating “a high number” of C-sections were unnecessary and done for the wrong reasons. Two main reasons for unnecessary C-sections were given: hospitals found C-sections more profitable than vaginal deliveries, and doctors and hospitals were fearful of possible malpractice claims if a C-section were not performed. It is within the context of this thesis that the Medical Society contends statistics were unfairly used.

The program stated women are 2-to-4 times more likely to die while attempting a C-section than women who give birth vaginally. The trouble with the statistics is that C-sections are more likely to be used in life-threatening situations, where a mother’s death might be attributable to the underlying medical risk more than to the C-section surgery itself Put in proper perspective, the fact is that childbirth deaths of mothers in Minnesota are very low.

The program also stated that 20 to 40 percent of all women who have C-sections develop post-operative infections. The Medical Society questions these figures, pointing out, for example, that some women who come to the hospital as C-section candidates are already infected. The infection rate also, it appears, needs to be broken down into sub-groups so that the sources of the infection (a fever, bladder, the surgery, etc.?) may be identified. One of the doctors who testified at the hearing indicated the infection rate at his Minneapolis hospital for planned C-section patients was less than 1 percent.

Discussion: This case is a good illustration of the difficulty in using statistics. KARE’s statistics were obtained from reputable sources and are not incorrect. But at the same time, the figures may need qualification and explanation and national and state statistics at times need to be distinguished. Indicative perhaps of the difficulty in determining when a C-section is or is not necessary is the fact, as reported by KARE, that it hired researchers to review 40,000 birth certificates from the Twin Cities area, but that “the results were unclear.”

KARE reported that the number of C-sections nationwide was now at about 25 percent of all deliveries, a considerable increase over the past decade; the station also correctly reported that in Minnesota the C-section rate was only 17 percent. KARE also reported that, for a certain group of doctors at Abbott-Northwestern Hospital, their C-section rate was over double the state average, but again the station duly noted that their rate would be high because this group of doctors takes care of more high-risk babies than any other group of doctors in the state. The program stated that according to one study a high C-section rate was prevalent at for-profit hospitals, suggesting a profit motive for unnecessary C-sections. The Medical Society noted this study was of hospitals in California which, unlike Minnesota, has for-profit hospitals.

The Medical Society does not directly challenge KARE’s thesis that there are too many C-sections. The Society contends, rather, that in view of the many complicating factors, it is difficult to say what a proper C-section rate should be, and it notes the rate in Minnesota is well below the national average. In the final analysis, the Medical Society’s complaint is that despite the program’s concession that C-sections are justified in many instances, the program unduly sensationalized the instances of unnecessary C-sections, particularly as it relates to Minnesota. KARE, on the other hand, points out that the focus of its expose was on the unnecessary procedures and the reasons therefore and the consequences thereof. We think the television program highlighted a legitimate public interest in C-sections, and it was evident the station had devoted a great deal of time and care to the program. In the instances above cited, we feel, however, that the statistics were presented without adequate explanation so that they were susceptible to misleading inferences about C-sections in Minnesota. The Medical Society argues that interviewing the women comparing C-sections to rape was gratuitous sensationalism. We disagree. The woman was expressing her true feelings, albeit in vivid fashion, feelings that evidently are shared by at least some other women as well. While other women might feel differently, presenting this provocative comment on the program was well within the bounds of responsible journalistic practice.

The grievance is denied in part and affirmed in part.

Dissenting: Andy Hilger

- The overall series was well-balanced and provided ample opportunity for competent medical people to affirm or refute the statistics used.

Determination 88: Dr. Morris Kurtz v. St. Cloud Times

mnc.staff — Mon, 19 Aug 1991 15:52:07 +0000

Dr. Morris Kurtz appeared, as did Don Casey, executive editor of the St. Cloud Times. The complaint involves a claim of unfair comment in a newspaper editorial.

Background: In its August 19, 1990, Sunday edition the St. Cloud Times published a feature story on clothing styles for students returning to school. The newspaper selected four students who then went “shopping” at a local mall. Each student’s selections were reported in the story, with the price of each item and the name of the store where the item could be purchased. The story was accompanied by three color photos, in two of which a male student was shown modeling selected apparel. The story noted that the young man was a sophomore at the University of North Dakota (UND), where he “plays cornerback on the football team and needs nice clothes for travel.”
Dr. Morris Kurtz, men’s athletics director at St. Cloud State University (SCSU), saw the story and notified UND that an infraction of the rules of the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) might possibly be involved. UND then contacted the NCAA directly, as required by rules of the North Central Intercollegiate Conference (NCC). The student was subsequently suspended for one game for violating a rule prohibiting student athletes from permitting use of their names or positions to advertise or promote the use of a commercial product or service.

The St. Cloud Times reported the student’s suspension in a Sept. 5 news story, pointing out that none of the students kept any of the clothes used in the photos and story. The article stated that it was Dr. Kurtz who had notified UND about the possible rule infraction. The day after the suspension story appeared, the St. Cloud Times ran an editorial critical of the NCAA, noting that the student had acted innocently and claiming that the punishment was “unwarranted.” The editorial then went on:

“Kurtz said he believed he was doing the right thing to turn Holder (the student) in – a favor he hoped would be returned if the circumstances were reversed. But how pure Kurtz’s motives were is something only he knows. The possibility of overzealous rivalry can’t be ignored, since Kurtz is athletic director for one North Central Conference university and Holder plays for another.”

Dr. Kurtz’s complaint is that the above-quoted portion of the editorial unfairly impugns his motives and was a “cheap shot” made without any factual basis. The newspaper says its observation that the “possibility of overzealous rivalry can’t be ignored” was based on the fact that the student was a St. Cloud resident who had been recruited by the SCSU football team but who had chosen instead to attend UND.

Dr. Kurtz contends that as a university athletics director, charged with enforcement of NCAA rules, he had no choice – in fact, he had an ethical obligation – to report the possible rule violation. He says he reported the incident to UND first, rather than directly to the NCAA, as a professional and ethical courtesy. If he had contacted the NCAA directly, or if he had not reported the incident promptly and it came to light later in the season, he says the NCAA might have imposed more severe punishment on UND, such as game forfeits.

Following publication of the editorial, the St. Cloud Times published three letters to the editor in unequivocal, strong support of Dr. Kurtz. One letter was from SCSU’s faculty representative for the NCAA, the second from the NCAA commissioner, and the third from UND’s dean and faculty athletics representative.

Discussion: Considering the rivalry between the two universities, the recruiting history of the student, and the seeming unfairness of the NCAA in suspending the student for an unknown rule violation, we think there was factual basis to at least raise the question of why Dr. Kurtz had reported the possible rule violation. While the editorial comment was unfair in that it did not explain why Dr. Kurtz “believed he was doing the right thing,” we conclude that the comment was within the bounds of provocative editorial comment. The editorial comment served to air a controversial and little-understood collegiate policy concerning the governance of student athletics. We, therefore, deny the grievance.

More, however, needs to be said. At the Council hearing it was made clear that Dr. Kurtz did not have any ulterior motive and that his only motivation in reporting the incident was his ethical obligation as a responsible administrator of university athletics. Indeed, UND, the university adversely affected, agrees.

It is unfortunate the editorial writer did not investigate further the NCAA rules on the responsibility of school authorities to report possible infractions, before raising the question “rhetorically” in the editorial. If this had been done, it seems to us it would have been much clearer that the editorial’s disagreement was not with Dr. Kurtz but with the NCAA’s application of its own rules.

This is a close case, as the Council vote indicates. The majority opinion upholds, we think, the normative standard for editorials which permits provocative, even at times seemingly unfair, comment. It is at least to the newspaper’s credit that it published the three letters to the editor which effectively rebutted any suggestion of impropriety on the part of Dr. Kurtz. The dissent, on the other hand, adopts a more aspiring standard which would require a more solid factual basis for questions posed in editorials. While there is merit to the dissent’s position, the Council thinks the more normative standard should apply here.

Grievance denied.

Concurring: Flemming, Graham, Larson, Parrish, Simonett, Stanley, Stauffer, Stone, Tanick

Dissenting: Gilson, joined by Huynh, Orwoll, Parker, Pennock - The Times’ editorial called Dr. Kurtz’s motives into question without even acknowledging that he had been quoted in an earlier Times news article as saying that his profession required him to notify the athlete’s school of a possible NCAA violation. The editor said the editorial’s suggestion of under-handedness was based upon talk around town. Gossip is not reporting, and editorial writers should be at least as vigilant as daily news reporters, if not more so.

Abstaining: Hilger

Determination 89: Officer Robert Goedderz v. KARE-TV

mnc.staff — Tue, 22 Jan 1991 15:57:36 +0000

Grievant says that putting unrelated information related to an earlier event poisoned a news report and unfairly prejudiced viewers against him.

Background: On January 22, 1990, the lead story on the Channel 11, KARE news broadcast was that “a longtime Minneapolis vice officer and sex crimes investigator” was under police investigation. “The investigation was ordered,” announced the station, “after KARE 11 News obtained sworn statements alleging the officer forced a woman to have sex with him to avoid a prostitution arrest.” Further, said the station, two convicted prostitutes say they were forced into providing false statements about a well-known Twin Cities attorney.

Next, after stating that the police chief had ordered an immediate investigation, the station said:

“In an unrelated case, [name omitted] is currently serving a twenty-day suspension and demotion for his handling of an undercover sting operation. That operation turned into a beer-drinking party involving several officers and two female strippers. [Name omitted] was in charge of the undercover sting in which officers’ behavior was described by police officials as immoral and disgusting. Now with an exclusive report on the latest allegations…”

The balance of the four-minute broadcast was devoted to the new allegations. One of the prostitutes involved was interviewed on camera and repeated the recantation of her original statement to the police. Also interviewed on camera were the police chief and counsel for the well-known Minneapolis attorney. The officer was quoted by the reporter as saying the coercion charges by the women were “bull” and that they had given their statements freely.

The grievant’s complaint concerns the quotation set out above. He claims that putting this unrelated prior episode at the beginning of the broadcast “poisoned” the entire report that followed, prejudicing viewers against him so that a fair evaluation of the new charges by the viewers would be impossible. KARE, on the other hand, says the prior episode helped identify the police officer and was relevant information.

Decision of the News Council: The News Council believes the information about the officer’s suspension, although unrelated to the charges then under investigation, was not improper. The officer suggests the suspension story should have appeared later in the broadcast, not at the beginning, but we think this was a matter of editorial discretion and, in any event, we doubt if a different placement would have made any significant difference.

The Council does, however, think the manner in which the unrelated suspension story was described went too far. The story did more than identify the officer and give the essential facts of his suspension; it went on to say his conduct had involved “immoral and disgusting behavior.” This had the effect of inviting viewers to pre-judge the new charges by giving credence to the prostitutes’ stories that the officer had coerced them into making false statements. It would have been better, we think, if this inflammatory characterization had not been interjected into an already very messy matter.

To the extent noted, we sustain the grievance.

We should add that the police investigators subsequently cleared the officer, concluding that he was “the victim of a pack of lies,” and that KARE 11 News so reported in a follow-up story in June 1990, with appropriate prominence.

Concurring: Flemming, Gilson, Graham, Hilger, Larson, Oliver, Parrish, Pennock

Dissenting: Parker, Simonett, Stanley

Abstaining: Orwoll