Complaint: The complainants contended that the Star Tribune’s December 1994 series, titled “Out of Control: the spiraling costs of special education,” misled readers through the following alleged inaccuracies, distortions and omissions:

A. Inaccuracies:

1. The series did not offset special ed costs with the money that each special ed child brings to a school district, or money raised by special ed levies, thereby creating the impression that a huge gap existed between revenues and costs.

2. The series’ conclusion – that the high cost of special education “requires districts to quietly siphon away money that is needed for other purposes” and that “Average kids are losing” – was false.

B. Distortions

1. The series unjustifiably implied that special ed families are litigious with headlines like, “In special education, there’s no issue too small to fight,” and by leading with three extraordinary cases as if they represented typical cases.

2. The series title, “Out of Control,” is sensational; special ed children account for 9 percent of the public school population while the cost of their education accounts for 12 percent of the total budget.

3. The characterization of special ed spending as “crippling school budgets” is sensational; the cost of special ed as a percentage of the total education expenditures increased only 3 percent between 1982 and 1993, to 12 percent from 9 percent.

4. The use of phrases like “If you build it, they will come,” gave the impression that Emotional Behavioral Disorder (EBD) is a fabricated category that children were being funneled into just to qualify schools for special ed revenues.

C. Omissions that misled readers:

1. The series claimed that special ed costs are “crippling school budgets” but did not report that state aid pays 68 percent of the salary of special ed teachers and aides, down only 2 percent from what it paid in the mid-1980s.

2. The series did not report that some districts, including St. Paul, do not levy up to their statutory limit, thus adding to the squeeze on public school budgets.

3. The series failed to address the following related issues: a) What would be the cost to taxpayers if special education children were institutionalized rather than educated? and b) What amount of aid would school districts lose if special ed children did not attend school?

Response of the news organization:

A. Inaccuracies:

1. The Star Tribune said the existence of the gap between revenues and costs for special education was verified many times by experts at the Minnesota Department of Education. Robert Fischer reviewed the reporters’ methods and numbers before publication and confirmed their conclusions.

2. The paper said individual school districts confirmed the transfer of regular education money to pay for shortages in special education.

B. Distortions:

1. The paper said it made no claim that the three examples used to lead the series were either extraordinary or typical.

2. The paper said the issue was not what percentage of students are in special education compared with what percentage of the total budget they consume; rather, the issue the series explored was how special education is funded. The paper found that special ed costs are increasing faster than regular education costs, with local property taxes paying for the increase because state and federal governments haven’t provided funding to match their mandates.

3. The paper denied that it gave the impression that EBD is a fabricated category.

C. Omission that misled readers:

1. The paper said lack of money can be attributed to many factors but its research showed that no category of school spending is growing as fast as special education.

2. The paper defended its conclusion that the cost of special education is squeezing school budgets because schools are not getting enough state and federal aid for mandated programs.

3. The issues raised by the complainants go beyond the scope of this series, the focus of which was how schools spend their money when faced with competing educational interests.

The Star Tribune said its findings came from months of research and more than 100 interviews. In addition to reporting the financial issues, the paper said it gave considerable attention to the human side through in-depth profiles of special-needs children. The Star Tribune said that the content of the articles supported its conclusions.

Discussion: Guthmann told the Council that while some parts of the series were balanced, that was not the tone the Star Tribune set for the series as a whole. He said that the frequent use of phrases such as “choking empire,” “quietly siphon money away,” and “crippling school budgets” was hardly objective journalism. He also challenged the conclusion that a huge gap exists between revenues and costs for special education. He said the series created the appearance of a gap by not offsetting special-ed costs with the $232 million in general education aid that each special ed child brings to a school district. Had that figure been included, he said, it would have shown that the money special education brings to districts exceeds the cost.

The paper defended its conclusion that there is a huge gap between revenues and costs for special education. McGuire said a sidebar, “How Special Education Funding Gap is Calculated,” specifically explained their calculations.

Brick said that the headline, “In special education, there’s no issue too small to fight,” was sensational and was refuted by the fact that of the 90,000 special-ed students in the state in 1994, only 29 of their families requested hearings and only 9 hearings were held. Media member Maureen Reeder asked the paper if it knew those numbers. Hotakainen said they did have those numbers but did not use them because the paper felt it was the 100 complaints filed, not the 9 hearings held, that was the issue.

Gregory objected to the headline “Average kids are losing,” saying it pitted parents of special-ed children against parents of “regular” children. She said one-liners such as that can cause more damage than the whole story can repair.

McGuire defended the series, saying it was not anti-special education, that it neither depicted special-ed kids as bad, nor ignored the good of special education. Rather, the paper framed the series from the point of view that society is being forced to choose between educating special-needs students and regular students. He said that many readers, including teachers and even some special education parents, thanked the paper for publicly discussing the issue. Guthmann countered that the special education community would welcome the scrutiny if it were fair, not sensational or divisive. Media member Trish Van Pilsum asked the paper how many school districts said they were being forced to choose between special and regular education. McGuire said the overall sense of the reporting was that virtually every district felt the trade-off. Van Pilsum then asked Fischer if that was a fair characterization. He said he has heard from school districts that they feel financially pinched but rather than cut special education, they reduce other expenditures.

McGuire said the series did not blame the budget problems on special education children, but focused on the federal government’s funding only 6 percent of special ed costs rather than the 40 percent to which it committed.

News Council members questioned whether the series actually focused on the government’s failure to provide promised funding. Public member Laurisa Sellers said she saw it mentioned only briefly the first day of the series. Media member Maureen Reeder asked whom in government the reporters talked with, if indeed that was the focus of the series. The paper conceded that it had not interviewed anyone in the federal government for a response.

News Council members praised the series, on the whole, as a public service. Public member and president of the Minnesota Federation of Teachers, Sandra Peterson, said the issue needs to be discussed: “Legislators need to know that there are many needs out there but the sources of funding are not there.”

Others wished the paper had done a better job of focusing so special-ed kids were not blamed for the high cost of their education. Public member Ann Barkelew said that while the series, as a whole, did not do a disservice to the special education community, the headlines were misleading.

Determination: The Council unanimously denied the complaint.

Concurring: Barkelew, Denny, Handberg, Hoben, Kostouros, LeGrand, Parker, Peterson, Pumarlo, Reeder, Sellers, Seltzer, Smith, Sorensen Craig, Thompson, Van Pilsum, Wicks
Abstaining: Anderson

Attending were Jackie Schwietz, executive director of Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life (MCCL), Mary Cracraft, MCCL communications director, and Marice Rosenberg, MCCL vice president. Representing KTCA’s Newsnight Minnesota were Ken Stone, executive producer, and Cathy Wurzer, reporter.

Background: Schwietz was contacted by Cathy Wurzer and asked to give an interview for a personality profile piece. She was told it would be a one-on-one interview and that similar ones had been done with Archbishop Roach and businessman Jeno Paulucci. She insisted that she be the only one interviewed and was assured that she would be. On the day of the interview Wurzer was on jury duty and another reporter, Maureen Willenbring, conducted the interview.

KTCA aired promos before the program and Schwietz learned that other people had indeed been interviewed. She called Stone to complain; he told her they intended to run an introductory piece to put her interview in context. She then asked that her interview be withdrawn. He refused to do so.

When the program aired, a three-minute introduction showed several legislators talking about Schwietz’s role as a lobbyist at the recent state legislative session. Ken Stone then said that Schwietz didn’t want people to see her interview but KTCA thought it was important, and then Schwietz’s interview followed (6 minutes). Stone didn’t say that Schwietz had requested the interview not air because she felt the station had reneged on its promise to her.

Response of the news organization: KTCA denied that any promise was broken because no promise was made about what would be aired in the rest of the program.

Discussion: There was no disagreement between the parties that Schwietz had been told her interview would be a one-on-one piece. The disagreement concerns the introductory piece, which Schwietz contends violated the agreement and which Stone says is another piece entirely and therefore did not violate the agreement.

After the interview was recorded the station decided it needed a background piece to put Schwietz’s comments into perspective and to provide context. The background focused on the previous legislative session, with several pro-life legislators expressing dismay at Schwietz’s behavior and at the tactics of the MCCL toward them. MCCL accused them of compromising pro-life positions to help overhaul the MinnesotaCare program. MCCL strategy was to stall the overhaul until pro-life strategies had been incorporated into it.

Council members asked Wurzer about the promise she made to Schwietz before the interview. Wurzer said they casually agreed to do a half-hour interview, and she specified some subjects of discussion. Schwietz said she never takes a conversation with a reporter casually or off the record. She said she was reluctant to grant an interview because in the past such interviews had turned out not to be personal but political. She said she agreed to the interview with Wurzer because she received much reassurance and believed they had a firm agreement.

When asked if she was expecting special treatment, Schwietz said she was not, that she was told this was how all previous pieces had been done. Schwietz said that, as the source agreeing to do an interview, it was her prerogative to set ground rules. Stone agreed that sometimes sources lay down very strict ground rules and cited the example of a Minneapolis police officer and the major who would not appear in the same room together.

Council members asked about the format of previous pieces. Stone said that Schwietz’s interview was only the third such piece done and that the two that had been mentioned to her (Roach and Paulucci) had not actually been done. Neither of the two pieces done before Schwietz’s had background, though two since have had background in the form of an anchorperson’s scripted introduction to provide context. Wurzer said, “We’ve never used footage to introduce these pieces in the past.”

Media member Maureen Reeder asked Wurzer if she felt she had kept her promise. Wurzer said she was uncomfortable because Schwietz was upset and that she (Wurzer) had not been aware of the background piece before it aired.

Stone said that the decision to provide context was the news editor’s decision, not the reporter’s and he repeated that no promise had been made that context wouldn’t be provided elsewhere in the program. He believed that context on the legislative session was needed to demonstrate the news value of the profile. When asked if he authorized reporters to make promises, Stone said there is no formal policy, but it is understood that all promises must be cleared with him. “If a promise is made, even if it was a bad judgment, that promise is kept.”

Broadcast media members Reeder and Trish Van Pilsum told the Council that a lot of bargaining is sometimes needed to satisfy both a source and a news director. They sympathized with Wurzer that sometimes the treatment of a story changes and the source isn’t happy. Media member John Kostouros pointed out that one way to deal with a story that is changing is to contact the source and explain.

Van Pilsum suggested that an anchorperson’s introduction would have upheld the spirit of the promise. Schwietz said that she could see that such a set-up might be needed and had said that was okay.

Van Pilsum said that she found the background piece to be necessary: “To do less would have been irresponsible and incomplete.” Media member Kate Stanley, an editorial writer for the Star Tribune, called the piece excellent journalism and called the backgrounder the broadcast equivalent of a headline and photo caption. She said she learned a lot about Schwietz and gained respect for her.

Stanley asked Schwietz if she was unhappy with anything said during her interview and Schwietz said she was not. Then what harm, Stanley asked, had been done? “It harmed the integrity of the station,” said Schwietz. “I’m going to be extremely careful in the future. I probably won’t ever participate in one again.”

John Seltzer, public member, said he believed Schwietz had a promise and an expectation. “I’ve learned here that what we’re talking about is a moving target. That you don’t know what the story’s going to be.” He questioned whether reporters can even make promises, and he advised sources: “When you do grant interviews, it is at your own peril.”

Van Pilsum said, “I would hate to have people thinking that they have to talk to a reporter at their own peril. But the media, at their own peril as well, characterize their stories [to get sources to talk]. The harm is to the trust level.”

Stanley urged the station to be vigilant when it makes promises, but Seltzer countered that it seemed impossible to make promises regarding a moving target. Reeder said it is the reporter’s obligation to say he or she can’t make certain promises so sources are not misled. Seltzer pointed out the difficulty for a reporter in trying to build a trusting relationship with a source and then undercutting that trust by acknowledging that they may not be able to keep their word and that a story might change.

Determination 1: The Council voted to deny the complaint that KTCA had acted unethically by violating a promise. A majority of members agreed that there had been misunderstandings but felt that the background information was reasonable and that no promise had been broken.

Concurring: Amaris, Denny, Hoben, Kostouros, Peterson, Pumarlo, Reeder, Smith, Stanley, Van Pilsum

Dissenting: Sellers

Abstaining: Anderson (chair), LeGrand, Seltzer

Determination 2: The Council chose to consider whether KTCA violated an understanding with a news source, a complaint that did not reach the level of unethical conduct, but was unfair. The Council denied this complaint as well.

Concurring: Denny, Hoben, Kostouros, Peterson, Pumarlo, Smith, Stanley, Van Pilsum

Dissenting: Amaris, LeGrand, Reeder, Seltzer

Abstaining: Anderson (chair), Sellers

The complainant contended that the July 12, 1995, story about her father’s sentencing:

• invaded her privacy when it identified the victim of the sexual assaults as the convicted man’s minor daughter (she is his only daughter), and
• was sensational and revictimized her by publishing graphic details of the abuse she endured.

Response of the news organization: The paper said it could not serve the truth if it left out the details of the crime and the relationship of the offender to the victim. If it did so, the paper said, it would be abandoning its responsibility to the community. The editor said he believed that by fully reporting the incest the paper would discourage others from committing the crime for fear of publicity. Smith said that the paper had been very sensitive to the well-being of the girl by choosing not to run a story when the man was charged with the crime a year before his sentencing.

Discussion: The girl told the Council that when she finally told the secret of her abuse, after eight years, she felt a great weight lift off of her, “until a week later when I saw the article on the front page. It totally tore me apart knowing that I had gone so far and for what? To have the whole town know, detail by detail, what my father did to me?

“Because of the article I feel that everybody is looking at me and isn’t seeing me… but somebody who had sex with her father…. After the article… everybody [at work] would be staring at me and whispering…. I believe that… people will think that I had some part [in] what my father did to me.”

Sandy Garry, the girl’s therapist, said that the paper had indeed revictimized her. She said it could have warned the girl that it was about to publish a story, could have consulted professionals to ask how best to deal with the information, and could have accompanied the article with a story about sex abuse, about the dynamics of the problem and about how to help victims. She said that the girl was vulnerable because she had not yet accepted the idea that she bore no blame for the abuse.

Both the girl and her therapist denied that the paper’s actions would discourage perpetrators, as the editor claimed. The girl said that “as a victim I know that it would instead be used by the offender as a threat to keep the victim from telling.” Garry said that, from her experience in working with offenders, threat of exposure would not alter their behavior or their decision to offend.

Mike Smith, the Herald’s editor, said that he faced a very difficult decision: the paper couldn’t both tell the truth and minimize harm. He believed he had to state the relationship between the victim and the offender to communicate the seriousness of the offense, and to give all the details of the crime because the sentence – one year instead of the 13 the sentencing guidelines call for, plus 30 years’ probation – was so lenient.

He said “In my opinion, if you didn’t do anything wrong, you have no reason for shame.” Public member Terry Thompson, vice president of PR at Pillsbury, took exception: “To say that if there is no wrongdoing there is no shame is ignoring the reality that the victim does feel guilt and shame.”

As to the complaint of sensationalism, Smith said that he printed exactly what was in court documents to prevent sensationalism and to circumvent gossip in the community about what had happened in the family. The serious nature of the crime made it a front-page story in the community of 2,488, he said the headline was not an unusual size and the story was treated like any other felony story.

When the family complained about the story, the editor drafted (as a proposed settlement of the complaint) an explanation to them and to readers on the reasons for writing the story as the Herald did. Smith said he was trying to tell the community that the family was a victim and to encourage the community to reach out to them. He showed the family the draft; they asked that it not be published, calling it insincere and self-serving because it expressed regret that the girl felt harmed but did not acknowledge that the paper could have done anything differently.

Council members asked the editor and publisher about other ways they might have written the story. Kate Stanley, Star Tribune editorial writer, asked if they had considered identifying the victim as “a relative.” Gary Stumpf, the publisher, said that all relatives would then be suspect. She asked if he really wanted the victim identified and he said yes. Stumpf believed that leaving out the details of the crime or the relationship of the victim to the perpetrator would have been misleading and inaccurate, and that the public had a right to know the seriousness of the crime. (The editor said the Herald does not name rape victims, and if the perpetrator had been a juvenile it would not have reported any names.)

Syl Jones, media member, pointed out that the issue was power. “The victim had no power [in the acts that abused her]. You’ve taken the power away from her again,” by not consulting her or the family before printing the story. Council members asked who had been consulted before publication, and the editor and publisher said that they had spoken to each other and the prosecutor, who had urged full disclosure. They did not speak to the family, or to a mental health therapist, or seek a woman’s perspective. Smith said he had all the information he needed and had only a weekend to write the story. Jones disagreed, “You had a year,” he said, referring to the fact that the father had been charged a year earlier.

Council members asked the girl what she thought the Herald was going to write. She said she was not prepared for the details. She said that at first she wanted the case kept secret, but now she wants to help others.

Council member Kate Parry, political editor of the Pioneer Press, said it was important to know the nature of the assault because it called into question the judge’s lenient sentence, which is a community issue. Public member Dorothy LeGrand, an attorney, asked the editor why, if the punishment did not fit the crime, that part of the story did not receive more prominence. The girl explained that she had asked for a lenient sentence so her father could receive counseling sooner. The newspaper did not report that.

 Determination: The Council choose not to vote on invasion of privacy or sensationalism, but after discussion decided that the paper had been insensitive to the girl. Members suggested that the paper should have consulted others in developing the story and could have talked with the family before printing it to prepare them. Syl Jones urged them to think not only of journalistic standards, but also community standards.

Concurring: Barkelew, Hoben, Jones, Kostouros, LeGrand, Pumarlo, Reeder, Sellers, Smith, Stanley, Thompson, Wicks

Dissenting: Handberg, Parry

Abstaining: Pine (acting chair)

The Council also voted unanimously to recommend that the paper create guidelines for covering sexual abuse cases, consulting with outsiders, including counselors and victims.

 NOTES:

• The Council has received a number of complaints about the identification of juvenile incest victims recently and it commended the girl for her courage in coming forward to allow the discussion to take place.
• The girl requested anonymity at the end of the hearing. The Council agreed to preserve her anonymity in its news releases. The Council decided not to ask other outlets not to use her name, but to use its own news release as an example.
• News coverage of this case avoided any mention of the girl’s name or of the family name. This included the story in the Wabasha County Herald.
• Shortly after this determination, two major news outlets ran a story identifying another 17-year-old victim of incest. She wanted to be identified, saying that her recovery had progressed to the point where she was strong enough to demand accountability from her abusers, who were her parents. This case illustrated a point made by the therapist, Sandy Garry, who said that news organizations should decide each case on its merits and that sometimes publication of a victim’s name helps the victim. She advised news organizations to talk with victims, families and therapists to determine the merits.

Representing the Women’s Studies department were department chair Amy Kaminsky, former acting chair Jacqueline Zita, and professors Naomi Scheman and Leola Johnson. Representing the Star Tribune were Pam Fine, newsroom leader, Maureen McCarthy, assistant city editor and reporters Maura Lerner and Anne O’Connor.

Response of the news organization: For the first complaint, they responded that the article acknowledged that the class was unusual, quoting Zita as saying the class was “not at all typical,” and “an unusual and exceptional course for us.” For the second complaint, they stated that the newsgathering method was not unethical because the University of Minnesota is a public institution and its courses should be open to the public; the reporter was a legitimate student registered for credit in the course and she never lied about who she was (although she didn’t say she was writing an article), and the reporter told the acting chair she wanted to talk about both the department’s accomplishments and alleged shortcomings. Last, it was said that the article did contain critical comments about Sommers by Zita, Dean Julia Davis of CLA and Professor Janet Spector.

Discussion on #1: The Star Tribune explored the national debate over the academic rigor of women’s studies departments on college campuses, fueled by Christina Sommers’ book Who Stole Feminism? and a Mother Jones article in 1993 charging that women’s studies programs support a specific agenda, have no tolerance for dissent and engage in male bashing. Education editor Maureen McCarthy said the paper decided the best, most vivid way to explore and localize the debate was to examine the Women’s Studies Department at the University of Minnesota and to include a first-person account of a course. They chose the course “Woman: A Sense of Identity” because it used sharply criticized teaching techniques, such as sitting in circles, sharing personal experiences and feelings and writing in journals.

The reporter, Anne O’Connor, was a senior in the Journalism School as well as a part-time staff reporter for the Star Tribune. She took the class for credit and wrote about her experience. O’Connor did not misrepresent herself to the professors or her classmates, but did not reveal that she was writing an article about the class. The Department charged that the Star Tribune was biased in choosing to report only on the course “Woman: A Sense of Identity,” an extension division class. Scheman said O’Connor was registered for a course in the regular curriculum but dropped it because the extension class better fit her thesis that women’s studies is not academically rigorous. Chair Amy Kaminsky said the course was created before the Department came into existence to help older women returning to school to develop the personal and intellectual skills needed to ask critical questions about their place in society. The course is not content driven, but experiential. Editor McCarthy said the paper chose this class because it was looking for a course that incorporated controversial teaching techniques that were receiving national attention. It did not intend to do a survey article about the Department in general. O’Connor did sign up for another course, but it was taught in more conventional academic way, so she dropped it. Fine pointed out that the Department has said it fully supports the use of the teaching methods. She also said the article clearly stated the course was not representative.

Scheman questioned the Star Tribune’s contention that it was examining teaching techniques, noting that the first-person story focused instead on content, not technique, and that no source was quoted talking about the teaching methods, which are also used in Ph.D. programs.

The reporters and editor were asked if they had ever written about pedagogical methods before; McCarthy said she had written about teaching at the lower levels and higher level science education, but not in liberal arts. O’Connor said she asked the Education Department to comment on the scholarly nature of the techniques but it declined to comment.

Fine said the stories were intended to paint a picture of the national debate, indicate the range of opinions, and dispassionately focus upon a local class experience. Scheman said the national debate was not about whether courses like “Woman: A Sense of Identity” exist, but whether women’s studies departments are academically rigorous. “[The Star Tribune] didn’t enter that debate,” she said.

Discussion on #2: Scheman, professor of women’s studies and philosophy, argued that the Star Tribune’s use of an undercover reporter observing and participating in a class without identifying her mission was deceptive and did not comply with the SPJ guidelines for use of deception:

• the information gained was not vital to the public interest,
• there were other ways to gain the information, and
• the harm done to the Department’s image was not outweighed by any harm prevented by the story, since there was no harm to the public.

Newsroom leader Pam Fine said there was much discussion among the staff about the ethics of doing this kind of story. The University is a public institution, she said, and therefore its courses should be open to public scrutiny; the SPJ guidelines cited did not apply because reporter O’Connor was not undercover: she did not hide or misidentify herself in any way. All information she gave was accurate and she participated fully as a student in class. The paper took precautions not to invade the privacy of other students, and O’Connor called every student after the course was over to get permission before using any of their comments in her article (only one student refused). She also interviewed the faculty after the course and told them she was writing a story. While Fine acknowledged that the use of a reporter as student might be unusual, she did not believe it was unethical.

Scheman said O’Connor could not have experienced the class as an average student would because she was involved in the process of reporting it. While one of the faculty members had said she would not have changed her instructional techniques had she known a reporter was in the class, she did say she would have been able to understand O’Connor better if she had known her purpose in attending. Editor McCarthy said that in her experience people always change their behavior when they know a reporter is present: they say or don’t say something, they strut or hide.

Council members asked O’Connor about the nature of her participation in class. O’Connor said she participated fully and was a class leader, as she said she is in all of her classes. Council media member Ron Handberg said he was concerned that O’Connor’s participation may have led other students to make comments that O’Connor later quoted in her article.

Handberg asked if she had generated any negative comment by her participation and she said she did generate comment. Newsroom leader Fine found the inference that O’Connor had provoked dissent “nefarious, if you consider we went back to everyone quoted and asked to use their comments.” She said the comments were the true opinion of the participants and that they are responsible for their own comments, not O’Connor.

Media member Jim Pumarlo asked the Star Tribune if it could have put together a package without O’Connor’s article. Fine agreed it could have done so, but McCarthy said the paper would not have done so because the important local element would have been missing. Scheman said the paper could have asked other students in the class to relate their experiences.

Regarding the complaint that Lerner misrepresented the nature of the story, Zita said Lerner told her she was working on a piece about the field of women’s studies and the anniversary of the department. Zita said Lerner did mention Sommers’ name during the phone call but she had no idea the story was to be an expose based on Sommers’ ideas. Zita said when Lerner interviewed the assembled faculty she asked no questions about the quality of the department and there was no investigation into course offerings, projects undertaken, graduates or faculty qualifications. She said she found the interview biased and very upsetting.

Fine said that prior to the interview Lerner told Zita she wanted to talk about criticisms of women’s studies and had faxed her the Mother Jones article.

Discussion on #3: The Department complained that the stories relied uncritically upon the opinions of Sommers and did not identify what they called the “right-wing” funding of her work. Lerner said no one told her of the right-wing funding. Zita said she didn’t know about it at the time of the interview and admitted that she didn’t tell the Star Tribune after she found out about it. Professor Leola Johnson said that the professors who knew about it weren’t contacted, but added that the Minnesota Women’s Press had found this information itself without being told by the Department. Fine said the paper used Sommers’ work because she had gained national attention and was particularly critical of the Minnesota program. Fine pointed out that the article provided balance by quoting Zita calling a passage of Sommers’ book “a cartoon,” quoted the Dean of CLA saying, “That woman has really gone off the deep end here,” and quoted Professor Janet Spector saying of Sommers’ criticisms, “It reminds me of the early ’70s – it’s trivializing what we do to see that we don’t get funding.”

Scheman agreed that it was fair and essential for the Star Tribune to give the department an opportunity to respond to the charges but argued that as interested parties they necessarily came across as self-serving and defensive. She said that since this was a national debate national sources should have been interviewed as well. Fine said she typically prefers to use local experts on national issues.

Determination 1: Distortion by using unrepresentative course The Council found in favor of the Star Tribune and did not uphold the Department’s complaint. Members felt the stories were basically fair and balanced, given their limited objective. Dissenting opinion focused on a broader definition of fairness (see opinion at end). Seven members expressed concern about a headline that suggested the stories were broader and referred to women’s studies courses in general, and not to the one course in specific.

Concurring: Barkelew, Cytron, Handberg, Kostouros, LeGrand, Parker, Parry, Pine, Pumarlo, Smith, Sorenson-Craig, Thompson, Wicks

Dissenting: Sellers, Seltzer

Abstaining: Anderson

Determination 2: The Council found in favor of the Star Tribune and did not uphold the Department’s complaint. Members felt that the paper had respected students’ privacy. They saw no subterfuge, and attributed the Department’s frustration to a difference of expectations about the nature of the article.

While they believed it fell short of “unethical behavior,” eight members expressed concern about the use of a reporter as an active participant in the class and about her leadership role. Public member Terry Thompson said, “It’s a slippery slope; allowing reporters in the classroom could have a chilling effect on academic freedom.” Parry said she would feel concerned if reporters couldn’t go into classes to report. “How many things involve writing about our experiences? I would be surprised if the Women’s Studies faculty hadn’t done the same.”

Concurring: Barkelew, Cytron, Handberg, Kostouros, LeGrand, Parker, Parry, Pine, Pumarlo, Sellers, Seltzer, Smith, Sorenson-Craig, Thompson, Wicks

Abstaining: Anderson

Determination 3: The Council found in favor of the Star Tribune and did not uphold the Department’s complaint.

Concurring: Barkelew, Cytron, Handberg, Kostouros, LeGrand, Parker, Parry, Pine, Pumarlo, Sellers, Seltzer, Smith, Sorenson-Craig, Thompson, Wicks

Abstaining: Anderson

Dissenting Opinion: Laurisa Sellers 

I am struck by what can happen when a news organization decides to give serious coverage to an issue and a community outside what Ray Suarez, host of NPR’s “Talk of the Nation,” referred to last week in Minneapolis as the “narrow band of reality” that news organizations cover. They look for something to make it newsworthy. If they happen to choose a controversy, that’s great. Until controversies within those outside-of-the-band communities are covered, we will just get the usual celebrations and festivities stories. But, given their infrequent (or non-existent) eye on these communities, I believe that news organizations must then look to see if they are providing enough information about the “new” community for readers, viewers and listeners to get at least some sense of the context of the community.

I would argue that the normal definition of fairness – was the story balanced, did both sides get a chance to present their viewpoint? – is inadequate. If I read, watch or listen to a story about term limits, about the Mideast, about education funding, health care, restaurants, or a proposed business merger, I can take the story in using the information and opinions gleaned from the dozens (or hundreds) of reports I have heard on those topics. When news organizations go out of the narrow band of reality, I believe they have a responsibility to build a context. As the News Council for all Minnesotans, I think we have a responsibility to raise the question of whether or not an adequate context exists for “fair” reporting.

We have to find a way for out-of-the-band voices to be heard. I was disheartened by what I perceived to be the patronizing attitude of some Council members. Too much of what I heard could be characterized as “Well, you really don’t understand how newsrooms work, the role of the media, what you can and can’t do with the media.” We told those “outsiders” that they don’t really have a voice because “there’s a system and that’s not the way it works and no, the rules aren’t up for discussion.” We basically said, “If you’re lucky we’ll decide to venture outside the normal band and tell something about your reality, but it will be on our terms.” Are we enforcers of the rules as defined by the media? Are we allowed to push for a review of the rules? Do we have any role in raising issues about how the rules impact those whose voices and whose lives are not a part of the “majority reality?” There are so many communities outside of the narrow band whose voices are distorted or muted because the majority community doesn’t know how to listen and doesn’t even know that it doesn’t know. The cost of our ignorance is piling up.

Attending the hearing were Crow Wing County Commissioner Paul Thiede (the complainant) and Roy Miller, editor, and Terry McCollough, publisher, of the Brainerd Daily Dispatch.

Response of the news organization: Editor Roy Miller, though he had originally denied soliciting letters, acknowledged at the hearing that his letter was a solicitation and defended his action, saying he was soliciting any letters on the subject, not simply letters favorable to his opinion. Editor Miller, a former participant in the Blandin Leadership Program, which trains community leaders to solve community problems, said he wrote a private letter to fellow graduates because the Blandin program emphasized off-the-record discussions during its training sessions.

NOTE: The Dispatch provided the Council with background of a longstanding political battle between several county commissioners and the Dispatch, and accused Thiede of carrying on a vendetta against the paper. The Council chose to limit the complaint to the question of the ethical conduct of the editor in writing the private letter. It did not hear information pertaining to political issues.

Discussion: Council members examined what aspects of this solicitation might be considered unethical and how this solicitation differed from other kinds of editorial solicitations a newspaper might use.

Editor Miller told the Council that this was the first time in his 30-year career that he had written such a letter, but that he was so upset with the county board’s actions and with his Blandin colleagues’ silence that he appealed to them to become more involved. Miller’s letters display his expectations of and loyalty to this group. In his response to Thiede’s complaint he wrote that he was “determined on a personal level to let my fellow Blandin alums know I thought they should show other community people that they care. I had several people over the years make fun of the Blandinites… because they never seemed to do anything. I shared that concern.”

He also said he wanted to determine if the Blandinites had been subjected to harassment or feared retaliation if they took a more active stance in the debate.

Council members asked about the private nature of the letter: why Miller didn’t show it to the publisher or make a public call to action in the paper. Miller said he didn’t show it to the publisher because the publisher was not a member of the Blandin group and might not like the strong language he used. He said he didn’t issue a public call to action to the group because he didn’t want to “take them to task in the paper.”

Thiede accused Miller of using the weight of his position as editor to coerce a response and said that this endangered the nature of an open forum because readers would not know whether a published letter was solicited or unsolicited. Public member Ann Barkelew noted that, when applicable, letter writers are identified as having some special interest in the issue (which often has the effect of negating what the letter writer has said). She said this is particularly so in a small community where readers assign a letter more or less credibility because they know the writer. “A lot of people in a small community look at who a letter is from, and if there is no indication that the letter was submitted in response to a request, it’s not fair to the stakeholders of that community.” Council members asked what harm might be done if a solicited letter were published from a writer who believed what he/she was writing. Thiede said the private nature of the solicitation made it impossible for any claim regarding the solicitation or nonsolicitation of a letter to be proven.

Council members were unable to ascertain what actual harm might be done, but there was concern about using a letters column to advance the personal sentiments of the editor. They asked Thiede how he would view different solicitation situations:

• Would it be appropriate to telephone a variety of people to ask for their opinions on a contentious issue? Thiede felt they should be labeled as solicited.
• What if a private citizen solicited people to send letters? Thiede said that’s not a reasonable comparison, because individuals are not in the business of selling opinion.

Thiede said he would have had no problem with Miller writing a personal letter on plain white paper and signing it, Roy Miller, but he had a problem with a signature, Roy Miller, editor. Miller responded that even if he used plain white paper and left out his title, everyone would still know he is the editor of the small town paper and any abuse of office that might be present would still be present.

Council member and Star Tribune editorial writer Kate Stanley said the Star Tribune solicits people to write commentaries expressing points of view that haven’t been seen in the paper and they are not labeled as solicited. Thiede said he would prefer that such pieces were identified as solicited, but that he didn’t have a problem with the Tribune’s procedure.

WCCO-TV reporter and media member Trish Van Pilsum said the difference between the Star Tribune’s solicitation and Miller’s is that Miller was trying to generate a specific opinion and that he was not open about it. While Miller maintained that he was only soliciting letters, not a specific point of view, media member Ron Handberg pointed out that in Miller’s solicitation letter he characterized the county commissioner’s actions as “shocking” and appealed for support. Handberg also noted that Miller said the Blandinite group was very close and he (Miller) believed he knew them and their feelings on the issue.

Media member John Kostouros pointed out that this highlighted the question of what the role of the journalist ought to be in the community. “Many believe it should be only through the pages of the newspaper – let others act, while the paper only observes. Some say that’s too narrow. Miller thought so, so he went an extra step, but he did it after writing an editorial ripping the county board. Trying to get people to write letters to the editor was awkward, but there was nothing wrong with it.”

Public member Carol Pine found Miller’s actions to be an example of poor judgment, but not an ethical breach. Van Pilsum supported the right of the paper to solicit opinions but questioned Miller’s lack of openness. “I ask myself, ‘Am I willing to disclose what I have done and how I am doing it?’ You weren’t, not even to your publisher.”

Determination: The Council found that it was poor journalistic practice for the editor of the Brainerd Daily Dispatch, in his official position, to use a restricted mailing list to privately solicit letters to the editor to support his own position. However, the Council did not find that the editor acted unethically.

Concurring: Denny, Barkelew, Handberg, Hoben, Parker, Pine, Pumarlo, Reeder, Seltzer, Thompson, Van Pilsum, Vargas, Wicks

Dissenting: Kostouros

Abstaining: Anderson, Cytron, LeGrand, Smith, Stanley

Response of the news organization: Editor Carr responded that there were indeed errors of wording in the story but that they were corrected within the story; that Farley, the reporter, did not rely upon a hostile source for her background information but did her own background work from the extensive public record available about Ellis Olkon’s past; and that the Reader had not mischaracterized the disposition of the lawsuit. He said he believed that it was unnecessary to contact Ellis Olkon because Nancy Olkon had given adequate responses when she was interviewed for the story and that sources friendly to the Olkons had been interviewed (although they were not included in the story).

Discussion: Council members explored whether the errors in the article were substantive enough to qualify as defamatory and whether Ellis Olkon should have been interviewed before publication. Regarding contact prior to publication, Carr said the Reader did not need Ellis Olkon’s input because there was an extensive public record of his history, including his disbarment from the practice of law for five years. Olkon said he had been pardoned in 1992, and complained that even though the Reader knew this it didn’t include it in the article.

Olkon pointed to the practice of reporters’ repeating errors in drawing from stories that have run in other newspapers and magazines. Council member Parry asked if Olkon had contacted the Star Tribune, which he said had run several incorrect stories about him over the years, to ask that the public record be corrected, and he said he had not.

Council members noted that in terms of space and graphics the Reader story was about both Olkons and they questioned why, given that focus, Ellis was not interviewed. Carr acknowledged that the story needed Ellis Olkon in it to make it interesting and that “maybe it was not best to just leave it to Nancy” to comment.

On the matter of defamation, Olkon said he was never accused by federal officials of having a financial interest in the Bunny Hutch. Carr admitted this was an error but said that the sentence immediately following it (saying Ellis was never charged with any crime related to the Bunny Hutch) corrected the error. The second page noted that Olkon’s involvement was unsubstantiated rumor. Olkon questioned why the Reader was repeating “unsubstantiated rumor.”

On the third complaint, of inaccurate characterization, Olkon complained that the Reader’s choice of the term “thrown out,” had a different meaning from the term “dismissed,” which was stamped on the court document. Carr said the Reader is prone to use vernacular and that he considered the terms interchangeable.

Olkon also complained that the Reader showed bias by not publishing a letter pointing out errors in the article until after the election, although it was received in time to have run it before the election. Carr acknowledged that the letter defending the Olkons had run late, but denied bias. He said the letter was ready to go in the issue before the election, but somehow didn’t get in: “It’s non-defensible. I can explain it, but I can’t excuse it.”

Determination #1: The Council sustained the complaint that the Reader was unfair in failing to give Ellis Olkon a chance to comment on his own behalf. Dissenting council member Stanley said that, given the fact that the public record had stood uncorrected for 15 years, it would have been admirable to contact him, but not reprehensible not to.

Concurring: Denny, Graham, Handberg, Hilger, Hoben, Kostouros, LeGrand, Peterson, Pumarlo, Sellers, Seltzer, Smith, Thompson, Vargas

Dissenting: Parker, Parry, Sorensen Craig, Stanley

Abstaining: Anderson

Determination #2: The Council voted to dismiss the complaint that the Reader defamed Ellis Olkon. Parry said that the errors showed no malice, and Stanley said there was no serious misimpression created by the errors in details.

Concurring: Denny, Hoben, Kostouros, Graham, LeGrand, Parker, Peterson, Pumarlo, Sellers, Seltzer, Smith, Thompson, Vargas

Dissenting: Hilger, Peterson, Pumarlo

Abstaining: Anderson, Handberg

Determination #3: The Council voted to dismiss the complaint that the Reader unfairly characterized the Olkons’ lawsuit against Andrew.

Concurring: Denny, Hoben, Kostouros, Pumarlo, Smith, Graham, LeGrand, Peterson, Sellers, Seltzer, Thompson, Vargas

Dissenting: Handberg, Hilger, Parker, Pumarlo

Abstaining: Anderson