[Note: The News Council stressed the point at the hearing that this case was not about the legality or illegality of the meeting, but rather about the journalistic and ethical standards used in the reporting of the meeting.]

Complaint: The city then brought a complaint against the newspaper claiming:

1. that the paper unethically violated the confidentiality of a client/attorney conversation by publishing the story.

2. that the news story unfairly implied that the meeting was illegal by using language such as “hastily called [meeting];” “city officials huddled with attorney Larry Klun to plot their next move;” and “Another contentious point in city circles is the process that led to Tuesday’s closed meeting.”

3. that the article inaccurately suggested that the city was not threatened with a lawsuit, and that the city was not currently complying with EPA regulations.

City Council member Paul Kess also raised the question at the hearing about the methods used in accessing the information reported in the article and the newspaper’s rationale in keeping that information secret under Minnesota’s shield law. He claimed that the reputation of City Council members was harmed by the article, as was the case with the EPA.

Response: The Ely Echo responded that “journalists are under no legal, moral or ethical obligation to keep the secrets of government.” Tom Coombe, a reporter from the Echo, and the author of the article, said that the City Council’s decision to hold a closed meeting should not preclude reporters from doing their job and “to find out what the Council is doing behind closed doors.” He also questioned the City Council’s claim that confidential information was revealed.

The Echo also stood behind the language used in the article did not imply illegality or wrongdoing on the part of the City Council, but rather, Coombe said the meeting was in fact hastily called and there was a “contentious” disagreement in regards to the issues at hand.

The Echo said that it did not imply in the article that the city was currently in violation of the EPA regulations.

Q & A: In News Council questioning, public member Larry Kuusisto asked if the City Council found anything in the article inaccurate. Kess said he didn’t find inaccuracies, but rather bias in the article. Public member Cathryn Kennedy asked the Echo whether it normally would qualify quotes from an unnamed source, like those in the article, which were not attributed to a source. Coombe said it is judged on a case by case basis how to attribute the source of the quotes.

Media member Benno Groeneveld asked Kess if he would have quashed the story if given the opportunity. Kess said he didn’t know.

Media member Don Shelby asked Coombe if he could rewrite the story whether he would revise the statement that council members were “refusing to answer questions.” Coombe said he would say instead that a public statement was expected at the end of the week.

Deliberation: Media member Walker Lundy opened the deliberations saying he thought the story was terrific and a story that any paper would have run on its first page. “It’s stories like this that is precisely why the 1st Amendment is the 1st Amendment and not the 3rd, the 5th or the 8th.”

Media member Mike Parta said he was satisfied when Kess agreed that the story was accurate, while public member Tom Keller said he had some trouble with the language used, saying he did consider the EPA’s intent to litigate a real threat that the paper did not fairly acknowledge.

Public member Paras Shah asked Lundy what reasonable expectation of privacy the City Council should expect when they close a meeting to the public. Lundy responded, “if we can find it out and it’s the public’s business, then we should report it.”

Kennedy said she was troubled that the article quoted from a meeting the reporter did not attend without qualifiers.

Vote:

Complaint #1 was denied (14/0)

Complaint #2 was denied (13/1)

Complaint #3 was denied (11/3)

The complaint raises concerns over fairness and accuracy in three areas. The first concern is about publication of information attributed by an interested party to an authoritative source without the paper’s checking that source. The second concern is the manner in which inaccuracies should be or should have been corrected and the nature of a “letter to the editor” correction. And the third issue raised in the discussion broaches the question of the practice of printing news releases verbatim and when this is or is not appropriate.

Background: The two citizen consumer groups were formed to lobby the Public Utilities Commission seeking lower-cost phone rates from their rural area to the Twin Cities metro area. Connections, Etc., the service provider in the area attended the initial PUC hearing dealing with the review of phone-rate petition.

On October 7, 2000, the West Sherburne Tribune ran an article about that hearing. The article was based almost completely on a press release from the Big Lake/Zimmerman consumer groups. The end of the article paraphrased comments by George Wallin, general manager of Connections, Etc. regarding the hearing. The final paragraph read:

“Greg Doyle from the Department of Commerce said Zimmerman’s basic rate of $10.11 should be three times the rate is at now, Wallin went on to say.”

On October 9, 2000, Bruce Gordon, spokesman for the DOC, called Gary Meyer and pointed out that Greg Doyle did not say that the basic rate should be “three times the rate is at now,” but rather had said that the additional charge would be $1.71. He objected to the attribution of comments to Doyle by a third person and to the fact that the paper had not checked with the DOC to determine if Wallin’s comments were accurate. He also said there were two other factual errors in the story.

Gordon asked for a correction or clarification. Meyer urged Gordon to call the reporter, Naomi Lindberg. Gordon called, with Doyle joining him on speakerphone. Lindberg interviewed Doyle at the time and told him and Gordon that she would fax them a pre-publication copy of her follow-up article for their review.

Gordon faxed the piece back, with what he termed “suggested revisions.” The piece ran on October 14 on the Letters to the Editor page, with the following headline and editor’s note.

State official contradicts information

The following story was submitted by Greg Doyle from the Minnesota Dept. of Commerce in response to the story in the West Sherburne Tribune.

Miller and Gordon objected to the placement of the piece in the Letters to the Editor page and to the headline, which Gordon said may have led readers to assume Doyle was reversing his own position. Miller and Gordon also claimed that a Dec. 23 article included inaccuracies and unfairly relied on only one source, Wallin, from Connections, Etc.

Complaint: Miller complained that:

1. The West Sherburne Tribune’s news coverage of the telephone rate issue was inaccurate in the following ways:

• the first article cited misled readers by allowing the phone company’s Mr. Wallin to misstate the position of the Department of Commerce.
• the December 23 article says that the phone company would charge a flat rate to all customers in their service area “at the suggestion of the Minnesota Department of Commerce.” Complainant says the DOC has not, in this case, proposed spreading costs over the entire customer base.
• the December 23 article misrepresents the DOC position on what the phone company should be allowed to charge.
• the December 23 article says citizens have until January 14 to make comments to the DOC on proposed rate changes; the actual date, says the complainant, was January 4. As a result, the complainant contends, citizens who banked on the paper’s citing Jan. 14 may have lost an opportunity to make comments if they waited until after Jan. 4. (A Dec. 15, 2000 notice published by the PUC states the date as Jan. 5.)

2. The paper’s news coverage of the rate issue was unfair in the following ways:

• it was unfair to publish an interview with the phone company executive and allow him to state the DOC’s position, and not to call the DOC or the Big Lake/Zimmerman consumer groups for comment.
• the Dec. 23 story relied on one source – the phone company executive – and thus distorted the issue. The complainant says paper should have called other sources for balance and completeness.

3. The paper’s response to requests for corrections was inadequate in that:

• the information published in the letters column was not a letter from the DOC, but a device constructed by the paper to set the record straight without taking responsibility for having misinformed readers.

Response: Publisher Gary Meyer wrote a letter of response to the complaint in which he cited his own and the reporter, Lindberg’s, explanations. Regarding the October 7 article, Meyer explained that had the paper not secured comments from the “other side” (i.e. Connections, Etc.’s Wallin), the consumer groups’ press release would have been printed on the editorial page, which is reserved for commentary. The reporter explained that, knowing her editor wanted comment from the other involved parties, she spoke with Wallin late Thursday afternoon and “left it at that,” because the paper went to press the next morning. She also explained that she expected a backlash from the consumer groups if she didn’t go to press with the piece right away.

Regarding Wallin’s characterization of the DOC’s position on rates, Meyer said that it was “unfortunate” and that the paper should have called the DOC for comment. Meyer said he remembered speaking to the DOC after the article appeared and saying that if the DOC submitted corrections they would be published

Lindberg said, “We put Mr. Doyle’s comments in the letter to the editor column because he basically wrote a letter to the editor. We also did so because we wanted to make sure nothing was misquoted. The citizens group did not complain to us about this.”

Regarding the Dec. 23 article, Meyer said that in retrospect, the paper should have contacted state officials for comment, but that it couldn’t have gotten the other side of the story from the citizens’ group. Lindberg explained that the group had told her it would not be sending any more press releases or information, because the paper had misquoted Doyle. Meyer wrote, “It’s interesting that the local citizens group cuts off our staff writer from further information, yet still expects equitable news treatment.” Meyer contended that the published date by which the public had to make comments regarding the issue to the DOC was correct.

Q&A: Miller contended that the actions the paper took to clear up reported inaccuracies in the October 7 article “didn’t really solve the issue, but only made it even muddier.”

Gordon explained that the DOC acts as an advocate for consumers in front of the PUC. He said it was alarming to see the mistakes in the October 7 article, that the reported amount of a proposed additional rate charge was not a couple of pennies off, but was off by $2, “a substantial amount.” After calling the paper to ask for a correction and retraction, Gordon said, he expected the piece he received for review to be a news story, not a letter to the editor.

Council members asked if Gordon had called the paper after the October 14 piece was printed, or if he had submitted a letter to the editor responding to it. Gordon replied that he had not. Miller said he called the reporter the next morning to let her know that it didn’t seem right to him that there was no retraction. Gordon said that at that point, the DOC was on to other things. He said that since the paper had not gotten it right the first time or the second time, he was “at the point of diminishing returns,” and he said he felt it was time to cut his losses.

Media member Don Shelby asked if the Oct. 14 opinion-page item-the so-called letter to the editor-was accurate, and if it fairly stated the DOC’s position. Gordon said that the information in that piece was correct. Shelby asked if, other than the placement, Gordon objected to its content. Gordon said that the headline (State official contradicts information) could have been interpreted to mean the DOC was reversing its own statements. He also pointed out that the final paragraph reported the position of the phone company.

Media member Pia Lopez asked if anyone from the DOC or the citizens group had asked for a correction or written a letter to the editor in response to the December 23 article reporting only the phone company’s position. Miller said that the group didn’t feel like it was their place to do so, that a January 8th press release addressed issues in the article and that he wasn’t sure, but didn’t think he and the reporter were on speaking terms at that point.

Media member Jay Furst asked Gordon and Miller if they had spoken to Meyer after the Dec. 23 article. Miller said he hand-delivered his letter of complaint to Meyer after having called and e-mailed requesting an appointment, without response. Miller said Meyer then agreed to schedule a meeting with him, but, he said, Meyer cancelled the meeting the following day.

Public member Jon Austin remarked that the Dec. 23 piece resembled a press release. Council members asked why Miller objected to the Dec. 23 story being from one source, the phone company, when the citizens groups’ press release was printed in full on October 7. Miller responded that the final paragraph of the story including his press release reported comments from the phone company. Miller also pointed out that another press release the groups submitted was printed on January 20th, but in the letters to the editor section.

Deliberation: Public member Willie Johnson asked other council members if printing verbatim press releases is common practice. Lopez, editorial page editor of the Duluth News-Tribune, responded that in small town weeklies, it is common. Media member Mike Parta, publisher of the New York Mills Herald, circulation 1,860, said that it would depend on the subject matter and that, with controversial subject matter, his paper would probably use the release as only part of a story.

Media member Benno Groeneveld noted that the December 23 piece, with Lindberg’s byline, included a phone number-the phone company’s-to obtain the address to the PUC. He said the reporter should have listed the PUC address and not steered readers to the PUC through an interested party.

Williams, a Minnesota Public Radio reporter and former weekly newspaper editor, said his experience was to rewrite releases, especially if using a byline. He said he would have asked Meyer about that practice, had he been present. Austin disapproved of publishing news releases verbatim and then bylining them. Media member Kathleen Stauffer suggested that a public relations writer has one kind of goal, while a reporter has another, and it is important to the reader to know who is doing the talking.

Public member Larry Kuusisto asked Council members if it was common practice for newspapers to write a piece, have it reviewed by the interviewee and then publish it as a letter to the editor. Various Council members answered that it was not.

Williams suggested that the October 14 piece, which ran in the Letter to the Editor section, should have appeared prominently, quoting Doyle. Shelby asked members if the editor could get off the hook because he ultimately gave the correct information. Parta said he was sure that is what Meyer and the reporter were trying to do, but that the initial story warranted a correction.

Lopez said she felt torn because, regarding the October 7 article and its inaccuracies, ultimately the correct information was published. Regarding the December 23 article, she pointed out that there was no call for corrections to the inaccuracies in this story. She said that while the Council expressed concern about the bylining of press releases, the paper treated both sides fairly in that.

Media member Walker Lundy, editor of the St. Paul Pioneer Press, said that being unfair at different times to both sides did not equal fairness. He said that members might be putting too much of a burden on the consumer group for preparing a correction in the right way. He said, “Being fair to one side one day and one side the other day doesn’t necessarily add up to fairness.”

Lundy likened the Tribune’s reporting the DOC position on phone rates to “calling the Democrats to ask them to explain the Republican platform.”

Media member Nancy Conner wondered how the citizens in the community, the readers, could make sense of the issue. “This paper is in all cases not serving its readers very well at all.”

Furst said he thought the paper made a good faith effort to correct inaccuracies, without bias.

Lopez said, “I think the way the paper did its so-called correction is so grudging as to be not a correction.”

The Vote:

1. On the complaint that: The West Sherburne Tribune’s news coverage of the telephone rate issue was inaccurate.

Voting to uphold the complaint: Austin, Cleary, Conner, Groeneveld, Johnson, Kennedy, Kuusisto, Lundy, Neddermeyer, Parta, Scales, Shah, Shelby, Stauffer, Williams

Voting to deny the complaint: Furst, Gade, Lopez

Presiding: Stringer

2. On the complaint that: The paper’s news coverage of the rate issue was unfair.

Voting to uphold the complaint: Austin, Gade, Groeneveld, Johnson, Kennedy, Kuusisto, Lundy, Neddermeyer, Scales, Shah, Shelby, Stauffer, Williams

Voting to deny the complaint: Cleary, Conner, Furst, Lopez, Parta

Presiding: Stringer

3. On the complaint that: The paper’s response to requests for corrections was inadequate.

Voting to uphold the complaint: Austin, Cleary, Conner, Furst, Gade, Groeneveld, Johnson, Kuusisto, Lopez, Lundy, Neddermeyer, Parta, Scales, Shah, Shelby, Stauffer, Williams

Voting to deny the complaint: Kennedy

Presiding: Stringer

Council Members’ Amplifications on votes:

Question 1

Affirming Opinion: [Parta] The reporter did not to the follow through to get accurate information from all parties. She also did not follow through to correct information that was proven wrong. [Stauffer] The paper failed to summarize the issues for its readers and correct inaccuracies in a timely and equitable manner.

Dissenting Opinion: [Furst] The Oct. 7 story was incompetent and contained errors, but in the end the correct facts were published. This story seemed to be the focus of the complainant’s issue with accuracy.

Question 2

Affirming Opinion: [Shelby] Fairness is an issue not only for the parties, but for the reader. The readers were unfairly treated. [Johnson] There was no attempt at balance, just a seemingly wanton regurgitation of submitted information. [Austin] The standard of coverage used in the Oct. 7 story-to publish a press release essentially verbatim with additional reporting appended-should have been applied in the Dec. 23 article.

Dissenting Opinion: [Cleary] Close call, but more ‘negligent’ (inaccurate) than ‘unfair’ (intentional).

Question 3

Affirming Opinion: [Kuusisto] Very poor showing of responsibility for error. How can this build trust with readership? [Conner] The reader could not have deciphered that the item (Oct. 14 piece) was a correction or what in fact was the accurate information, only that it was contradictory. [Neddermeyer] The Editor’s Note indicates that the letter to the editor was “submitted.” It was not.

Dissenting Opinion: [Kennedy] Agree that it could have been done better, but that it was adequate from testimony given.

The County Board had, in fact, authorized exploration of the school purchase, and not the purchase itself. The Board then complained about what it saw as an accusation of wrongdoing that could cost its members re-election, fines or removal from office.

The editor wrote another editorial the following week in which he said he still didn’t know if an illegal meeting had been held. That further angered the board, which said that he should have checked the facts and had plenty of time to do so.

Complaint: The County Board of Commissioners contended that:

1 The two editorials unfairly said or implied that the January 9 meeting was illegal.

2 The newspaper’s response to the board’s objection to the editorials was inadequate.

Response: The Winona Post responded that the editorials never said anything about a specific meeting, but instead called into question how the county board was doing business. The editor and owner, John Edstrom, said the second editorial, titled “Stoltman [county chairman] has a right to be annoyed,” was a clarification in response to the Board’s complaint that should have satisfied the Board. He said that the editorial’s question, “If this transaction seems crazy to you” was within the Post’s right to ask in an editorial. He said that he did not make a direct accusation of illegality, but instead surmised that any such meeting that would have produced the decision he read about in the Winona Daily News would have been illegal.

Q&A: In News Council questioning, media member Benno Groeneveld asked if the Board had considered sending a letter to the editor to straighten out the confusion. Dave Stoltman, county board chairman, said that they had tried letters to the editor in the past, but they had been discredited on the same page in an editor’s note. So, they did not submit a letter.

Media member Pia Lopez asked if the Post was incorrect to say a decision to buy the school would have been illegal. County Administrator Bob Reinert said, “The insinuation was there. That is what I consider to be the most egregious.” He said the average reader would have made the assumption that some wrongdoing was involved.

Deliberation: Media member Kathleen Stauffer suggested that if there was a complaint, it should have been against the Winona Daily News, which ran the initial incorrect report. Public member Tom Keller said that the editorial’s statement that Stoltman had denied that a decision had been made, and the words, “and well he should,” left the clear implication that he was covering up and lying. “This is a personal liability on the board members,” Keller said.

Media member Jay Furst suggested that Editor Edstrom was trying to say that the meeting would have been illegal, not was illegal, but that he didn’t phrase things as clearly or carefully as he thought he did. Media member Don Shelby said that Edstrom was bound in his follow-up editorial to clear up the misunderstanding, and he didn’t.

Media member Pia Lopez said that she didn’t see any factual errors, and that the editor was within his rights to state his opinion in an editorial. Public member Jon Austin asked if editors have a responsibility to write clearly. “I don’t think I can make that leap,” he said.

Vote:

Complaint 1: upheld (10-9  one abstention)

Complaint 2: upheld (12-7  one abstention)