Minnesota News Council » 1992

Determination 96: Pam Coyle v. Austin Daily Herald

mnc.staff — Thu, 10 Dec 1992 16:33:38 +0000

During this hearing, Coyle brought up complaints on two issues. First, that an item under the headline “Police Report” inaccurately stated that her job status had been discussed at a city/county Law Enforcement Commission meeting, when it had not. Second, that the paper treated her unfairly by running 10 items in its editorial-page feature “Anonymous Comments,” criticizing her and calling for her dismissal from her job.

Present at the hearing were Pam Coyle, a police dispatcher in Austin, Minn., and newspaper representatives Larry Antony, publisher, and Jim Negen, managing editor.

Background: In the fall of 1991, Pam Coyle turned herself in and was convicted of misdemeanor shoplifting in Rochester, Minn. When she voluntarily reported that fact to her supervisors during a Law Enforcement Committee meeting, the newspaper, acting on a tip, reported that her job status had come up for discussion at a public meeting in a December 5 Police Report column, which read in part:

“The status of a Law Enforcement Center dispatcher’s job was discussed Tuesday afternoon at a joint city/county Law Enforcement Commission meeting.

“Pam Coyle, the supervisor of dispatchers, was recently charged with a petty misdemeanor for shoplifting in Olmsted County District Court.”

No reporter was present at the meeting. That column generally includes items picked up from the police department: accidents, break-ins, anything found on a crime report.

Over a period of six days, a spate of anonymous phoned-in comments appeared in the paper criticizing her and calling for her dismissal. Coyle believes they were all the work of one disgruntled former employee, but has no evidence of that. There is no mechanism at the paper to determine if all the comments came from one person. Coyle says that friends and coworkers called and wrote in support of her but that those comments were not published.

Coyle contends that Herald policy on anonymous comments at the time of her complaint could allow an individual to carry on a personal vendetta. She contacted the publisher, Larry Antony, and he assured her that no more comments would appear unless a new issue was raised, but on September 25, 1992, another anonymous comment appeared in the paper. She then contacted the Minnesota News Council.

Media outlet response: The newspaper contends that it checked the veracity of the anonymous tip on the news item and found that Coyle had indeed been convicted of misdemeanor shoplifting. Further, the editor believed that, given her position as a government employee, it was newsworthy.

NOTE: the newspaper has now changed its policy on the number of comments that may appear about one particular item or issue, in part in response to Coyle’s complaint. The paper encourages people to leave their name and phone number so it can verify authenticity, but most do not and the paper will publish the comments regardless. Negen said they received no letters or calls supporting Coyle that it did not published.

Discussion and Determination Complaint 1: Police Report - While the information about Coyle’s misdemeanor charge was true, some Council members felt it was unfair to include it in a local crime report when it was not a local crime. While the newspaper justified its coverage by saying she was a government employee and should be held accountable, Council member Kostouros pointed out that she is a low-level supervisor, not an elected official. The lead paragraph was judged by the Council, on a 7-6 vote, to be inaccurate and misleading and the grievance is upheld.

Concurring: Hilger, Orwoll, Parrish, Dornfeld, Kostouros, Hoben, Peterson

Dissenting: Larson, Parker, Smith, Simonett, Handberg, Pennock

Complaint 2: Anonymous Comments - Anonymous comment columns are one of the fastest-growing features in American newspapers. Council member Donald Smith, editor and publisher of the Monticello Times, said that some editors think the feature is the best thing that has happened to papers, increasing reader interest and community activism, and drawing out opinions from those who normally would not speak out.

Others, Smith said, believe it amounts to yellow journalism when editors fail to verify allegations made in comments. If newspapers refuse to run unsigned letters in their Letters to the Editor column, why would they run anonymous phoned-in comments? He said that newspapers that do not verify facts run the risk of losing credibility. Negen said that most comments regarded not fact, but opinion.

Andy Hilger, radio station owner in St. Cloud, said that while his station does take anonymous calls, it realizes that it has an obligation to get responses from parties who are attacked. He asked if Coyle was invited to respond and Negen said she was not. Council members noted that there appeared to be few or no criteria for publishing anonymous comments and that this feature could easily be used to manipulate and damage others. Council member Ron Handberg, a former TV news director and general manger, suggested that rules needed to be applied: in particular, the newspaper should consider not allowing personal comments about private citizens. While the newspaper reports that it has instituted a policy of not allowing more than one comment on an issue, which would avoid repeating this type of complaint, Council members do not see this as a useful rule. How do you show a groundswell of opinion if you limit comments to only one?

The Council voted 9 to 4 to uphold the complaint that Coyle was treated unfairly in the Anonymous Comments column.

Concurring: Peterson, Hoben, Smith, Handberg, Pennock, Parrish, Dornfeld, Kostouros, Simonett

Dissenting: Parker, Hilger, Larson, Orwoll

Determination 95: Candidate Sally Evert v. Stillwater Gazette

mnc.staff — Thu, 10 Dec 1992 16:28:28 +0000

Former Washington County commissioner Sally Evert complained that the Gazette was unfair to her re-election campaign by running a front-page article under a four-column headline promoting her opponent’s candidacy, with a byline of a writer who was a campaign worker for him, but who was not so identified. It also ran her opponent’s thank-you to his supporters as a guest column, with his picture, but ran her thank-you as a letter to the editor with no picture. FInally, it ran a critical letter to the editor without saying that the writer was her opponent’s campaign manager.

News outlet’s response: The publisher, Mike Mahoney, says that he addressed Evert’s complaints adequately and admitted error when it occurred:

The paper has changed its policy so that campaign-generated material no longer appears on the front page.
Evert’s letter was treated differently, but that that did not constitute unfairness.
A clerical error caused the omission of the letter writer’s affiliation.

Discussion and Determination Complaint 1 – News Story: The Council unanimously upheld the complaint about the unfairness of a campaign-generated article appearing as a news story and lacking identification of the writer as a campaign worker. While the newspaper has changed its policies and no longer allows campaign-generated material on the front page, Council member Mollie Hoben, editor and publisher of the Minnesota Women’s Press, found it poor journalistic practice to publish stories written by campaign workers anywhere in the paper, and certainly unacceptable to omit identification of the writer as such. Council member Don Smith, editor and publisher of the Monticello Times, noted that bylined articles are usually written by staff writers, with others getting a tag line. This is evidently not the practice at the Stillwater Gazette.

Concurring: Dornfeld, Graham, Handberg, Hilger, Hoben, Kostouros, Orwoll, Parker, Parrish, Pennock, Peterson, Simonett, Smith, Stanley

Complaint 2 – Guest column: The Council acknowledged the difficulty in judging overall fairness of campaign coverage in a busy election year. The Gazette had encouraged robust debate, and for this the Council strongly affirmed the paper. By an 8-7 vote the Council upheld the complaint that it was unfair for the paper, after giving her opponent a guest column with a photo, to offer Evert only a letter to the editor, with no photo and less space. Council members noted that there appeared to be no clear rules as to what constitutes a guest column. Smith said that such columns usually do not benefit a person, but reflect some public issue, clearly not the case here. Council member Laverne Orwoll, long active in politics, said that items such as this are usually paid advertisements or appear after the election.

Concurring: Dornfeld, Hilger, Hoben, Kostouros, Orwoll, Pennock, Peterson, Smith

Dissenting: Graham, Handberg, Larson, Parker, Parrish, Simonett, Stanley

Complaint 3 – Unidentified letter writer: The Council finds it an unacceptable journalistic practice to publish a critical letter to the editor without identifying the writer’s affiliation, when it is known. Council member Smith noted that some papers do not allow letters to the editor from campaign managers.

Concurring: Dornfeld, Graham, Handberg, Hilger, Hoben, Kostouros, Larson, Orwoll, Parrish, Pennock, Peterson, Smith, Simonett, Stanley

Abstaining: Parker

Determination 94: Dr. Paul Matson v. Mankato Free Press

mnc.staff — Thu, 08 Oct 1992 16:23:33 +0000

A Mankato orthopedist complained that the newspaper ran a story, with a display headline and photograph on the front page of the local section, in which a woman who had picketed his office called him a liar, but in which he did not receive an opportunity to reply. He said the Free Press’s display made it a big story in a small town and did not adhere to the least standard of ethical fair play: “It can take years to build up a reputation that can be destroyed (by the press) in seconds.”

Background: The woman, Mary Rosival, had had foot surgery performed by a doctor in St. Paul and, feeling dissatisfied with the result, asked some doctors in southern Minnesota, including Dr. Paul Matson (the complainant) to testify on her behalf in a malpractice suit. When Dr. Matson refused to do so, Rosival picketed his office, holding up a sign calling him a liar.

Response of the News Organization: The Mankato Free Press was represented at the hearing by its editor, Mike Larson, by its night news editor, and by the reporter who covered the story. The newspaper offered this defense:

The reporter tried to reach Dr. Matson for comment at 4:48 p.m. on the day Rosival was photographed outside his clinic, but a clerk told the paper Dr. Matson was away and was not expected back in town until the evening, and that no further comment from the office would be forthcoming.

The paper should not be held to as high a standard as usual in this instance because the story was “spot news,” meaning that someone had seen the picketing – an unusual activity in Mankato – and the paper had dispatched a reporter and photographer to find out what was going on.The reporter volunteered, however, that she had spoken by phone with Rosival a few days before this incident and had photographed her picketing another doctor’s office in Faribault a week earlier.

Discussion: A News Council member, a former news executive, asked the reporter if she had told the doctor’s office that the paper was planning to run a story the next day containing a serious charge against him and that it was important for the paper to reach him for comment. She said she had not.

The doctor said that if he had been given the opportunity to respond to the charge that he had lied to Rosival he would have said he had never promised to back her claim against her surgeon. “I gave her an honest opinion (that her surgeon was not negligent) and referred her to two noted foot surgeons for their opinions because she didn’t like mine.” Dr. Matson also contends that the headline and the photo caption might have led readers to believe that he was the surgeon who had operated on the woman. The editor acknowledged that possibility and said he is troubled by such lapses: “All of us in the (news) business would hope this wouldn’t happen. You’ve hit a nerve.”

Determination of the News Council: The complaint is unanimously upheld. The “spot news” defense is invalid. Further, even in “spot news” coverage, a story based on a serious charge should have sounded an alarm for the reporter and editor, leading them to try as hard as possible to reach Dr. Matson before the midnight deadline. One News Council member, an experienced journalist, told the night news editor that in the news business, seven hours (the time between 4:48 p.m., when the reporter called the doctor’s office, and the deadline) is “an eternity.” The newspaper should have pursued the doctor aggressively or, still lacking a response from him, should have held the story until the doctor’s response could have been included. There was no significant pressure to generate a scoop on the story.

Concurring: Cytron, Graham, Handberg, Hilger, Hoben, Huynh, Kostouros, LeGrand, Orwoll, Parker, Pennock, Peterson, Pine, Smith, Stanley, Swain, Tanick

Determination 93: Professor William Lass v. Star Tribune

mnc.staff — Tue, 14 Apr 1992 16:18:20 +0000

A Mankato State University professor complains that the Star Tribune failed to contact him for a story on problems in the Indian Studies program that quoted a student accusing him of arbitrarily changing her grade.

Background: In May 1991, the Star Tribune published a story about troubles in the Indian Studies program at Mankato State University. A primary source for the story, an American Indian woman student, charged that her history professor, William Lass, had arbitrarily reduced her grade from an “A” to an “F” because she had publicly protested against what she considered his bias against Indians. She objected to remarks he made in a lecture and to a section of a text he wrote that described violence by Indians against a white child in the Sioux Uprising of 1862. Professor Lass complained that the newspaper published the article without representing his side of the story; in fact, he said, the reporter had never even talked with him. This dispute centers on two questions: How hard did the reporter try to find Professor Lass to interview him? And why did the paper publish the story before it had his answers?

Response of the News Organization: Ordinarily the News Council’s procedures calls for a complainant to state his or her case and to answer questions from members, then for the news organization to state its side and answer questions from members before the council deliberates upon the issues and votes to uphold or deny the complaint.

In this case, the news organization asked the Chair’s permission to speak first. Executive Editor Tim McGuire began by apologizing to Professor Lass, saying that while the paper stood by the main thrust of its story on the Indian Studies program, it wished it had “exhausted all efforts” to find Lass and interview him. McGuire said that the reporter had tried to find Lass but failed. Told by an employee of the History Department that Lass “won’t be back,” the reporter took that to mean that he was gone for the summer. Lass explained to the Council that the school term had three weeks to run and that he could easily have been reached.

Lass accepted the apology but said he wished that it had been offered six months earlier, when he first complained directly to the paper. He asked McGuire to send it in writing to him, with copies to his academic supervisors. He said the story had damaged his reputation for integrity and that, had the reporter interviewed him, he would have been able to document the fact that the student’s grades had not been changed arbitrarily but were based purely upon objective tests.

McGuire pointed out that the newspaper had, in the absence of comment from Lass, included in the article the contextual information that Lass’s account of the Sioux Uprising had blamed the war on whites. On the second question, McGuire said that, if a reporter cannot reach an important source, the newspaper must “balance its desire to go with a story against the need to corroborate the facts” it has gathered.

Decision of the News Council: Since the newspaper made a pre-emptive apology, the discussion turned on whether the News Council should formally consider the complaint. McGuire said he expected that, given the apology, Lass and the Council would drop the complaint. Lass left it to the Council.

Public member Ron Graham moved that the Council uphold the complaint, saying that it was the business of the Council to hear it and to issue a determination. The newspaper based its apology upon an admission that it had fallen short of its own standard, he said, and upholding the complaint clearly acknowledges that admission for the record. The motion carried. The Council majority also commended the Star Tribune for its forthright apology.

When McGuire said that he had hoped the apology would erase the complaint, media member Ron Handberg said that it was the News Council’s very process that produced the apology, which could have been issued at any time before the hearing but was not. The minority in the 5-3 vote (two members abstained) did not endorse the newspaper’s conduct in the reporting and publication of the story; rather, they felt that the apology should have earned the paper relief from the formal complaint.

Concurring: Graham, Handberg, Orwoll, Peterson, Smith

Dissenting: Dornfeld, Parker, Swain

Abstaining: Florence, Simonett

Determination 92: Metropolitan Council v. WCCO-TV

mnc.staff — Thu, 09 Jan 1992 16:11:55 +0000

The complainant claims the television station acted contrary to “accepted journalistic conventions” in ignoring an embargo placed on a news release by the complainant.

Background: In the late summer of 1991, the Metropolitan Council’s advisory task force on sites for a new airport completed its study and report. On August 9, the task force mailed to the Twin Cities news media a notice that the task force would be holding a news conference on Friday, August 16, a week later, to receive and act upon a report from the Council’s staff recommending a replacement airport location. The notice stated that “copies of the report may be ready and available to the media by Thursday so that you may prepare for the news conference, but the information is absolutely not to be released until 9:15 a.m. on Friday.” (emphasis in original).

On Thursday, August 15, WCCO-TV called the Metropolitan Council and requested a copy of the report; a summary of the report, in the form of a news release, was promptly faxed that day to the television station. The news release stated that east-central Dakota County was the most promising airport site of the three locations considered. At the beginning of this news release was the statement: Not For Release or Publication Before 9:15 a.m., Friday, Aug. 16.

Upon receipt of the news release, WCCO-TV called the Metropolitan Council to say that it was going to release the story on the 5 p.m. news that day. The Council objected, but to no avail. As a result, Council staff called the other major media in the Twin Cities and told them of WCCO’s decision and that they could go ahead and release the story as well. Other media had to hurriedly rearrange their schedules, and some of the local officials in the search area, contacted by the media for their reactions, were unprepared to comment.

WCCO readily concedes it did not honor the Metropolitan Council’s embargo, but claims it was not required to do so because it had never agreed to the embargo beforehand. The station says a news source should not be able unilaterally to impose restraints on the free flow of information to the public. WCCO-TV will, on occasion, agree in advance to delay the reporting of information, but only if there are good reasons for doing so.

Decision: To embargo news is to prevent its publication before a specified time. If a source decides to embargo a news story, the common practice is to state, “Do not release before such-and-such a time and date.” Apparently, the embargo practice has developed informally between media and regular providers of news items, particularly governmental units, business entities, and public relations firms.

From the news providers’ point of view, the embargo system is a way to treat all media fairly by having the same news release time for all. From the media’s point of view, the embargo, at least as to complex stories (such as the governor’s budget message, an appellate court decision, or a detailed research report), gives the media time to digest the information and do background work before publication so a better news product results.

From the discussion at the News Council hearing and from our investigation, it appears that the embargo system is now more honored in the breach than in the observance. To some extent, perhaps, news sources may have abused the practice by attempting to control the news when there was no need to do so. The main reason for the decline of the embargo, however, appears to be the rise in competition between the print and broadcast media. Because the two media have different publishing schedules, there is no way the timing of an embargo will satisfy both print and broadcast media. One or the other is put at a disadvantage in breaking the story. Our survey of several public relations firms indicates that they rarely use embargoes on news releases for clients because the media simply ignore them. “The embargo system is disappearing,” says one public relations executive. “We haven’t issued a release under an embargo for the last five years. We’d never send one out cold – that is, without calling and establishing a prior agreement. It would be a huge risk.”

Even outside the news releases of public relations firms, the effectiveness of embargoes appears to be weakening. The public is accustomed to the news story stating that a news conference has been scheduled by some party for the following day for an announcement to be made, with the story then continuing to speculate or state flatly what that announcement will be.

Embargoes apparently are still in use on complicated stories in combination with briefings by the news source of the media for, say, a day before the release. This practice makes for accurate, in-depth reporting of the news and is in the public interest. Even here, the system usually works only on the basis of a prior agreement or on news beats such as state government where the practice is well-known and understood both by news sources and reporters. In the case of appellate court opinions, the embargo is enforced by court order. The New England Journal of Medicine’s embargo is designed to withhold information about medical research until physician subscribers have had a chance to receive, absorb, and prepare themselves to answer patients’ questions.

In the case before us, the Metropolitan Council’s task force was unaware that the old rules about embargo were no longer reliable. Indeed, complainant says its embargoes in prior cases had always been honored. In any event, in this particular case the Metropolitan Council offered to furnish the media a copy of the site location report on request, but on condition the information in it was not to be released before Friday morning. WCCO-TV did not choose to conduct an independent investigation. It requested a copy of the report; in making this request we believe WCCO-TV accepted the condition on which the offer of the information was made, namely, to abide by the embargo. Consequently, under the facts of this case, we believe there was a prior agreement to an embargo and that the television station should have honored the release date.

Placing embargoes on news developed simply as a business practice, an arrangement tacitly agreed to by both parties for their mutual interest. It is now clear that some news organizations, pressured by competition, are increasingly finding this arrangement no longer meets their interests.

If nothing else, this case suggests that the subject of embargoes deserves further study and further discussion within the profession. Clearly, any attempt by a news source to impose unilaterally an embargo on a news story is worthless. For an embargo to have any hope of being honored, the news source must seek and obtain an explicit prior agreement with the media concerned.

The grievance is sustained.

Concurring: Dornfeld, Flemming, Orwoll, Stauffer, Stone, Swain, Graham, Pennock, Parker, Stanley

Abstaining: Handberg

Dissenting: Hilger, Parrish, Tanick, Larson – We share the view, as expressed by the majority, that news embargoes generally are valuable policy and of utility to the news profession as well as the dissemination of news. However, in this particular case, we do not believe that WCCO acted improperly.

The scope of the proposed embargo here was somewhat ambiguous. If an entity desires to impose an embargo, it has an obligation to make the barricade as clear and impenetrable as possible. The Metropolitan Council did not do so here.

In addition, while useful, embargoes should be used sparingly because they impede the free flow of information. When used by a public entity, embargoes have First Amendment implications of restriction of public data. In this case, we do not perceive: 1) a substantial need for an embargo; 2) that any great harm would ensue from disregarding the embargo; or 3) that any significant deleterious effect ensued because WCCO broke the embargo.

The attempt by a government entity to control the timing of news is troublesome. Embargoes have their place. When the subject matter of the material is relatively complex, furnishing it in advance to journalists makes sense because it allows them the opportunity to digest the material, undertake background research, and otherwise prepare for a news story. That type of complexity does not seem to be the issue here. Rather, the Metropolitan Council wanted to impose the embargo largely for its own political convenience. This may constitute a legitimate concern for the Metropolitan Council, but is not one that should be given great deference by a news organization. We do not believe that WCCO’s action was above reproach, but neither do we think that its conduct merits upholding the grievance under this particular circumstance. For these reasons, we respectfully dissent.

Dissenting Opinion: Hilger, owner of two radio stations in St. Cloud, objects to news embargoes, saying that they often favor newspaper publishing deadlines and that, more important, they are used to manipulate media to insure what the source considers “the best coverage.” Hilger finds embargoes by government agencies especially distasteful: “Media should not encourage that close a relationship to those who govern or rule us. It is better for an entrepreneurial and competitive media to pursue a story than to behave like sedulous scriveners waiting for embargoed handouts, much like Sea World dolphins performing on cue for sardines.”