The Minnesota News Council denied a complaint today that the Bemidji Pioneer newspaper was unfair in running a news story about a same-day, full-page ad that said DFL politicians were buying votes from Red Lake Reservation residents by funneling state financial support to them. The vote was 10-3.

The News Council upheld a complaint that the page-one news story was unfair in not including views of those whom opponents of DFLers who were interviewed about the ad and who said, among other things, that critics of the relationship between the state and the reservation were racist. The vote was 9-4.

The complaints came from a group calling itself Citizens for Truth in Government. The group said it was non-partisan. The ad and news story ran on October 25, 2006, two weeks before the last election. The group said the newspaper was unfair charging it for ad space and then giving free expression in the news story to those the ad criticized.

The News Council strongly backed the newspaper’s right to exercise its judgment in doing a same-day story on an ongoing controversy. The Council also criticized the newspaper’s failure to do a balanced story. Several members said that the news story included a gratuitous editorial opinion that the ad’s indictment of DFL candidates “undermines its statement” that the group is non-partisan.

The Pioneer’s editor, Molly Miron, who wrote the news story, acknowledged that she “should have” allowed the placers of the ad to respond to accusations that they were racist. She said she called the head of the group but was not able to reach him.

Public member Tom Forsythe, a communications executive at General Mills, said the newspaper could have delayed publishing both the ad and the news story until the reporter could gather material that would provide balance.

Media member Dave Beal, retired business columnist of the Pioneer Press, said the news story served readers well by appearing on the same day as the ad: “It functions as an ad for the ad.” Several members said the news story stated the ad’s main points more clearly and briefly than the ad did. But public member Tom Peterson, a Minneapolis attorney, said that people who read the news story before reading the ad could come to the ad thinking it was filled with errors.

The News Council’s determinations carry no sanctions; they are advisory, and the hearing process is voluntary. The Council was founded in 1970 and is an independent nonprofit organization with 24 voting members, half of them journalists, half laypersons. All members represent only themselves.

Background: Tekautz served a one-year term on the Chisholm City Council in 1984. He ran for a seat on the city council in 1986 and lost by 54 votes of 2,638 votes cast for him and his opponent. Complainant first contacted the News Council on November 18, 1986, and decided to go forward with his complaint on March 11, 1987. The grievance was not heard in the fall of 1987, at grievant’s suggestion, because he was again running for city council. He was subsequently elected.

When Tekautz was narrowly defeated for Chisholm City Council in 1986, the Chisholm Free Press-Tribune Press printed an advertisement by his opponent Randy Schroetter and an opinion letter by Dave Andrews, both of which grievant says incorrectly reported his 1984 voting record. The ad and letter appeared in the Free Press-Tribune Press’s last issue before the election, not allowing complainant an opportunity to respond before the election. (The newspaper is published twice a week, on Tuesday and Thursday.)

Grievant complains that both the advertisement and the letter misrepresented his voting record and that the late placement did not allow him time to respond in the newspaper before the election. The open letter dealt with fewer alleged Tekautz positions than the ad, which specified nine votes by complainant. For this discussion, the Council concentrated on the 3-1/2″ by 8″ ad which stated:

• He Voted Against the AEOA Bus Service
• He Voted Against the Chisholm Ambulance Longyear, Inc. contract
• He Voted Against Sunday liquor sales 
• He Voted Against the Right to Know Seminar
• He Voted Against calling for bids and purchasing new squad cars for the Public Safety Dept. 
• He Voted Against IRRRB projects in 1984
• He Voted Against the Mobile Home Ordinance
• He Voted Against purchase of a new pickup for the city garage
• He Voted Against the Assessment Policy

Let’s not move backwards – let’s move ahead 

RANDY SCHROETTER your Councilman

Polls open Tuesday, November 4

 7 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.

 Thank you for your support

 Paid for by candidate in his own behalf.

Discussion: The newspaper did not endorse any candidate, and complainant’s position on the issues in the ad had not been the subject of general news coverage prior to the ad.

Complainant told the Council that when he placed his own ad in the Chisholm Free Press-Tribune Press, the publisher challenged his statement that his opponent had “consistently voted for increases in taxes and levies” and that in response he removed the word “consistently.” He complains that he was not told of his opponent’s ad and that his opponent “was apparently not asked to prove his statements the way I was.”

On assignment by the chairman, the Council’s executive director Tom Patterson met with Tekautz and publisher Ponikvar in Chisholm on March 2. He also interviewed Tekautz’s 1986 opponent Randy Schroetter about the ad and examined the voting records for Chisholm City Council meetings in the official Minutes.

The position of the publisher has been that the ad was accurate or essentially accurate. The Council found that for the nine items in the ad, complainant had either voted “no,” as the ad indicated, or his voting record on the issue was subject to interpretation. On AEOA bus service, Tekautz was present for both city council votes on the issue in 1984. In the first instance, he made a motion to approve a $3,000 city subsidy for the service when $6,300 had been requested. Both his opponent and the publisher considered this a “no” vote because they did not expect the service to continue without the full subsidy. At the later vote, the earlier motion to approve $3,000 was amended to raise the amount to $6,300 and Tekautz voted in favor of the motion. While it does not appear that Tekautz voted against the AEOA bus levy, the News Council felt that interpretation of the votes could support an argument that “technically” the ad was correct or “technically” the ad was incorrect.

Similarly, on the Right to Know seminar, Tekautz voted “yes” on a seminar held in Eveleth and “no” on one held in St. Paul. While Tekautz had voted in favor of most IRRRB (Iron Range Resources and Rehabilitation Board) projects, he did vote “no” on one. It was incorrect that he voted against letting bids on new squad cars. He voted for the squad cars. But he did vote “no” on a motion to sell an old squad car. (He wanted to keep it for the city nurse.) Since selling the old squads was part of buying the new, even this vote is subject to interpretation.

The Council then considered Tekautz’s position that because the ad ran in the last edition of the newspaper before the election, he was not permitted an opportunity to defend his voting record. The News Council has previously been asked to consider complaints of last-minute attacks in political elections, and the Council has recognized this as a troublesome area for both publishers and candidates. Such ads affect reputations and, especially if timed for publication immediately before an election, when there is little time for effective rebuttal, can affect election results. Publishers would be wise to have policies for dealing with late introduction of new issues into a campaign. The need to offer response time was particularly important in this case, where it could be argued that some “no” votes referenced in the ad were really “yes” votes. Some newspapers choose to solve this problem by not allowing political letters to the editor or political ads which introduce new issues at a time when an opponent cannot respond. Some newspapers make it their policy to tell an advertiser that a last-minute political ad will be accepted only with the understanding that the newspaper will show it to the opponent and offer the opponent an opportunity to respond in the same issue of the newspaper.

Decision: The Council finds the ad and open letter ambiguous with respect to accuracy, and the complaint of inaccuracy is denied. The complaint is sustained with respect to the unfairness of publishing these new attacks without adequate time for complainant to respond in the newspaper.

Concurring: Ashmore, Beaulieu, Bednar, Casey, Chucker, Falkman, King, Parrish, Persons, Ryan, Simonett, Stone, Warder

Dissenting: Larson - Although a newspaper editor should have some type of policy regarding election material presented, whether close to election time or not, it seems that a voting record is not necessarily a new issue. Voting records are just that: records. To remind people of that record would not seem to be a new issue unless the candidate is insisting he/she has been voting another way than the record shows.

• That Hoese’s political advertisements were consistently placed in the three newspapers in poor locations, indicating a bias against Hoese;
• That a letter to the editor on behalf of Hoese was improperly edited and that a news story misquoted a Hoese supporter;
• That an editorial in the November 1, 1984, issue of the newspapers criticized a Hoese campaign brochure without giving the Hoese supporters an opportunity to reply to the criticism; and
• The newspapers refused to print a letter to the editor on behalf of Hoese which rebutted a claim made by the McDonald campaign committee in its advertising.

District 35B is so laid out that, according to the parties, the only cost-effective local political advertising is in a newspaper. Four newspapers serve the district. Three of them, the three involved here, are owned by James D. Berreth, the publisher, who resides in Watertown. Each of the three newspapers has its own editor. The Carver County News is located at Watertown; the Waconia Patriot at Waconia; and the Norwood Times at Norwood.

Present for the grievant were Marcy Waritz, Chairperson of the DFL Committee, Henry Helgen, and Barb Hoese. Present on behalf of the three newspapers was Rod S. Shilkrot, who was editor of the Waconia Patriot at the time of the events involved here.

1. Ad placement: The Hoese committee claims that its ads were consistently placed in disadvantageous locations in these newspapers, suggestive of a bias against Hoese. Specifically, the grievant claims that McDonald’s ads were usually placed close to the front pages of the newspapers, while the Hoese ads were relegated to the back pages.

The three editors have made a careful review of the issues of their newspapers involved and have compiled a summary of the McDonald and Hoese ads that were published and the location of each ad. It appears, first of all, that the McDonald campaign did considerably more advertising than the Hoese campaign. In some issues of the newspapers there were no Hoese ads. Whether forward placement of ads is better than placement in the back pages, as Hoese argues, is uncertain.

Assuming that forward placement is better for readership purposes – and research is inconclusive on this – a careful review of the record shows that there were a total of 19 issues of the three newspapers in which ads were published for both candidates. In nine of these issues, the Hoese ads were placed before the McDonald ads; in eight issues, the McDonald ads were placed before the Hoese ads; and in two issues the ads of both candidates were in the middle of the newspapers. We do note that the McDonald ads appear to have received more forward placement in the Carver County News. The News Council, however, can find no bias favoring the McDonald campaign in the placement of the ads, nor can it be said there is any consistent pattern of ad placement favorable to either candidate.

We might add that the Hoese ads were usually submitted to the Carver County Herald at Chaska (not a paper owned by Berreth) and prepared there. These ads would then be given to Berreth’s three newspapers under a shared-exchange arrangement. While, for example, the Waconia Patriot would receive notice of the ad insertions and the sizes of the ads, this information did not always arrive in a timely manner and, in some instances, depending on the weekly page composition schedule at the Waconia office, might unintentionally affect placement of the ads. McDonald ads, on the other hand, were submitted in Watertown and prepared in Waconia at the Patriot.

The grievance of biased ad placement is denied.

2. Improperly edited letter: Joel Kamerud submitted a four-paragraph letter to the editor on behalf of Hoese, referring to the candidate’s effective skills as a communicator, which was printed in several papers. The Carver County News published a one-paragraph letter from Joel Kamerud which was simply a generalized endorsement of Hoese. The two letters are completely different and clearly the one-paragraph letter cannot be an “edited” version of the first letter; indeed, one wonders if Joel Kamerud, who did not submit testimony, may have written two different letters or if some mix-up in letters occurred. The newspapers state they did no editing.In any event, the News Council lacks sufficient information to make a judgment on this grievance.

Grievant claims that the chairperson of the Hoese Campaign Committee was misquoted in a news article about the campaign. The writer of the news article testified the quote used was as written in his notes and that he believes it fairly reflects what was said. Here again, the News Council, on this record, declines to make a judgment.

The News Council declines to resolve the factual disputes on the Joel Kamerud letter and the alleged misquote, and these grievances are dismissed.

Editorial: Before the election campaign started, the Berreth newspapers were concerned about their “vulnerability” to any claims of bias because of a longtime friendship between the publisher Berreth, and candidate McDonald. Consequently, the publisher and editors established a policy that the three newspapers would not endorse a candidate for the District 35B seat.

The newspapers state they made every effort to report the election campaign fairly, and it is significant that, with the exception of the one alleged misquote, there is no claim by the Hoese committee that the news coverage was not fair. However, in the November 1, 1984 issue of the newspapers, the last issue before the election, an editorial appeared criticizing a promotional brochure that had just been distributed by the Hoese supporters. The brochure quoted from an editor’s column critical of McDonald that had appeared in the Waconia Patriot four years earlier. It was, of course, unfair for the Hoese committee to use a four-year-old quote of a former editor to suggest that such was the position of the newspapers in 1984. The newspapers, quite properly, responded with an editorial to correct this mistaken impression. The editorial, we might add, even while making the correction, did not make an endorsement, but only clarified the newspapers’ own position.

The grievance on the editorial is denied.

Refusal to print letter: On October 25, 1984, the McDonald supporters published an advertisement in which it was stated that McDonald had high ratings from the Farmers Union. The Hoese supporters obtained a letter from Willis Eken of the Farmers Union stating that McDonald, in fact, had a very low rating from the Farmers Union. The Hoese supporters asked that this letter be published in the November 1, 1984, issue of the newspapers as a letter to the editor. This request was refused as an attempt to raise a new issue at the last minute.

It would seem that the Hoese committee could have responded to the statement of Farmers Union support in the McDonald political ad with an ad of its own. It chose, however, to attempt a response in the letters to the editor column. The News Council believes that the Eken letter should have been published. It did not raise a new issue at the last minute but only responded to an issue that the McDonald committee had raised on October 25, and the issue of Farmers Union support was one of substance. We think better practice would have been to publish the Eken letter.

The grievance on the Eken letter is sustained.

Concurring: Ashmore, Casey, Chucker, Earley, Falkman, Graven, King, Persons, Ryan, Selby, Simonett

Partial Dissent: Ziegenhagen joined by Peek and Sundin – We dissent from the majority decision as it relates to the Carver County News. In that newspaper, there appears a clear and consistent pattern of front-of-the-paper placement of ads for K. J. McDonald and the IR party, and a clear pattern of back-of-the-paper placement for Hoese, the DFL candidate. Only on weeks when Hoese bought no ads did McDonald’s ads appear toward the back of the papers.

Most egregious was the favorable placement of K. J. McDonald’s ad along with one for the IR Party on the front page of the voter’s guide, perhaps the most important edition of the newspaper for those running in the election. In that section, Hoese’s ad appeared on page 2 and additional IR and McDonald ads appeared on page 3. Local candidates in districts such as those served by the Carver County News must depend almost entirely on the community newspaper to reach their voters. It is the only mass media available at a cost candidates can afford and still meet the spending limits set by law. For that reason, publishers should enact procedures that give oversight to fairness in not only political campaign reporting but also in readers’ access to the paper and to advertising placement. This extra effort enhances a newspaper’s acceptance in its community as a fair and impartial medium, one vital to the practice of democracy.

Background: Mary Jane Rachner was a candidate for the Fourth District congressional seat in the November, 1984 general election, running against the incumbent, Bruce Vento. She submitted two advertisements to the St. Paul Dispatch and Pioneer Press. Both were rejected. Descriptions of the two ads follow:

For some time the newspaper had been running its own advertising campaign promoting the reading of newspapers and using prominent St. Paul community leaders to explain the importance of newspapers in equipping them to fulfill their responsibilities in the community and as citizens. Rachner submitted an advertisement which was a parody of this concept, using herself as the prominent public figure.The second ad was entitled, “Vote the R-Team,” Reagan for President, Rudy for Senate, Rachner for Congress. The ad displayed a passport photo of Rachner.

Response of the News Organization: Tom Golden, advertising director for the St. Paul Dispatch and Pioneer Press, appeared on behalf of the newspaper. As to the parody ad, he said its acceptance would have prejudiced the substantial investment the newspaper had made in its own promotional program. As to the “R-Team” ad, he stated that Rachner was requested to supply written authorization from the Reagan and Boschwitz Campaign Committees for the appearance of these candidates’ names in the Rachner ad, and that these authorizations were never supplied. Indeed, the newspaper had been advised by the public relations firm handling the Boschwitz account that its candidate’s appearance in campaign ads of others required authorization.

Discussion: As already stated, the newspaper had a substantial and legitimate investment in its own promotional ads which it could not be expected to prejudice by publishing the parody ad.

The “R-Team” ad is more interesting. One supposes that a candidate might publish an advertisement stating he or she supports the policies of Mondale or Reagan. Neither Mondale nor Reagan could, supposedly, object, and the advertisement’s contents explain to the reader something about the candidate’s position. This, however, is not the gist of the Rachner ad. It refers to Reagan, Boschwitz and Rachner as a “team,” the implication being not only that Rachner supports Reagan and Boschwitz, but that Reagan and Boschwitz support Rachner. In this context, the newspaper was justified in requiring some assurance that the two other candidates named in the Rachner ad had authorized the use of their names. Not receiving this assurance, the newspaper was justified in rejecting the ad.

In the fall of 1983, Rachner had run an ad in the Twin Cities dailies asking for contributions to “Women for Reagan.” The ad listed names of supporters and was signed by Rachner as District 65B I-R Secretary. I-R officials said that the ad was unauthorized by the party, and there were other objections to its message and claims by some signers that use of their names had not been authorized. With this history, the newspaper had added reason to exercise caution with the “R-Team” ad submitted by grievant.

The grievance is denied.

Concurring: Ashmore, Bednar, Brooks, Casey, Earley, Falkman, Forsythe, King, Myers, Pearce, Persons, Ryan, Simonett, Sundin and Warder

Partial Dissent: Graven - I dissent in part from the majority determination. There are two basic complaints by Rachner against the St. Paul Dispatch-Pioneer Press. The first had to do with a parody ad. I agree that the St. Paul paper and its advertising director were certainly within their rights to refuse to publish a parody ad which made fun of an apparently substantial promotional program of the paper. It is certainly a matter of judgment, and Rachner was obviously guilty of lese majeste. There is no reason why conscientious, fair, competent advertising departments and promotional teams need have a sense of humor when their own interests are involved.

As to the R-Team decision, I do dissent. I appreciate the majority’s position and the manner in which it chooses to emphasize the facts. One assumes from the majority that what is involved here is only misleading advertising, and an advertising department does have some obligation to police the precincts. But I don’t think that’s what’s really involved here and I see the majority sustaining what I consider a fairly insidious and dangerous practice in Minnesota. Let me elaborate.

The bald facts here are that Rachner is not and was not the Republican establishment’s favorite. The Republican party chose not to endorse anyone against the obvious and apparent winner, Vento, in the Fourth Congressional District. Rachner chose to run in the Republican primary and won. She was the Republican candidate for Congress. This presented a possible embarrassment to other Republicans, and apparently to Senator Boschwitz who was making a statewide race which was, at least at that point, clearly not in the bag. He probably had not yet even started composing his now-famous memo on how to win elections. But the two-party system means that each party has a broad umbrella or tent, and politics makes strange tentmates.

The fact is the St. Paul Pioneer Press squelched an ad by a legitimate candidate for Congress who had the greatest credential in the world to be running; that is, she had won the primary fair and square. Whether the powers that be wanted her to win or not is another question. She did and she claimed to be a Republican, and she sought to purchase an ad which emphasized certain similarities between her and people that she perceived to be much more popular than she, namely Boschwitz and Reagan. They do have certain similarities. Their first or last names begin with an R (a key political point). Secondly, they were all running on the Republican ticket. Boschwitz’s advertising agency vetoed the ad.

Rachner, for better or worse, claimed to be supporting Boschwitz and Reagan and wanted people to elect her because she was. In the context of most political advertising, her claim that there was a “team,” that is, Republicans duly nominated by their parties by law for high Federal office sharing a common letter of the alphabet and perhaps even common principles seems to me to be not misleading. I think the majority makes too much of the word “team.” It says that Rachner’s claim to be part of the Reagan team implies that Reagan wants her aboard that team. That narrow, crabbed reading might be possible in academic halls, but in the context of robust political debate and hyperbole it is clearly, in my judgment, fair comment by Rachner, who after all wanted to get to Congress to help (as she said) Reagan’s program and Boschwitz’s program. The fact that Reagan didn’t know, and had probably written off Minnesota anyway, is immaterial. Letting Boschwitz’s ad director squelch the ad (the Pioneer Press basically gave them the option to let the ad run or not by asking for their consent to the use of the Boschwitz name) strikes me as being bad policy for a newspaper in this state.

If the Ku Klux Klan wanted to come in Minnesota and run an ad in support of Walter Mondale, it seems to me they have a perfect right to do so, even though it might, in fact, embarrass Mondale, or for that matter Joan Growe, and I don’t think the paper should go to Mondale’s ad director to see if Mondale objected to the use of his name. I assume that if the Mad Fascists for Boschwitz had declared their support for Rudy he would have taken great and public delight in repudiating the support. The question of what to do with Rachner’s support – she being viewed as a political loose cannon on the deck – was more dicey, however. After all, she had won a primary and she had some support. The Boschwitz campaign was spared the disagreeable task of facing up to the Rachner issue, because the St. Paul Pioneer Press advertising department decided to give Boschwitz what was, in effect, veto power over what kind of ad Rachner could run. I think this was wrong, and we ought to say so.

The issue is not partisan. Do the Republicans really think the Star and Tribune (to select a paper at total random) ought to check out with Gary Hart or Ted Kennedy’s advertising gurus whether or not some DFL candidate for Congress can run an ad claiming to be a Hart Democrat or a Kennedy Team Player?

Partial Dissent: Chucker - Harold Chucker associates himself with the Graven dissent, particularly with respect to the paper letting Sen. Boschwitz’s ad director squelch the R-team ad, giving the agency, Graven points out, the option to let the ad run or not by asking their consent to use of the Boschwitz name, and sparing the Boschwitz campaign the task of facing up to the Rachner issue.

1. Failed to adequately cover several incidents concerning incumbent Sheriff Wayne Goodnature’s record in office which reflected negatively on the incumbent’s competence;
2. Unfairly demanded changes in several of the committee’s political advertisements and refused to publish one ad;
3. Unfairly denied Bartlett supporters access to the newspaper’s letters-to-the-editor column; and
4. Failed to give proper coverage to the election results.

Background: During the fall 1982 campaign, Bartlett repeatedly challenged the competency and integrity of the incumbent sheriff. Contrary to the grievant’s position, it appears the paper did report about the various challenges in its news stories. While the paper might have reported the incidents in more detail, the Council cannot say that the extent of the news coverage of these items was not within reasonable editorial discretion.

One of the challenges raised by Bartlett concerned the sheriff’s approval of “on-call” pay for one of his deputies, which was subsequently struck down by the county board, which ruled the deputy was not entitled to the supplemental pay. The Bartlett committee claimed it submitted a political advertisement to the paper in which it referred to the “on-call” payments to the deputy as “illegal” payments. After consulting with the county auditor, the newspaper refused to print the ad unless the word “illegal” was changed to “unauthorized.” Other papers did publish the ad, and the committee refused to make the change requested by the Herald. The News Council finds that it was not unreasonable for the newspaper to refuse to publish the political ad without the requested change.

More troublesome is the grievant’s claim that the paper refused to publish other political ads because the advertisements, in referring to Bartlett, used the words “tall,” “trustworthy,” and “honest.” He claimed the ads were rejected because these phrases would reflect adversely on Bartlett’s opponent. The newspaper editor denied any such ads were refused and said they would have been accepted. To refuse to publish such ads for the reasons alleged would be wrong, but since copies of the rejected ads were not furnished to the Council, it does not have sufficient evidence to make any judgment on the newspaper’s conduct and finds the charge not proven. Also troublesome is the claim of lack of fair access to the letters-to-the-editor column. On September 30, people from the Bartlett committee submitted a letter protesting the destruction of their lawn signs by Goodnature supporters. Because the editorial page had already been “made up” for the day, the newspaper published the protest as a front page news story. Two days later the paper published a front page denial and countercharge on the lawn sign issue by Goodnature. This, in turn, prompted a flurry of letters to the editor. On October 4, Janet Marsden, a Bartlett supporter, submitted a letter, sworn before a notary, stating she had witnessed Goodnature “willfully” destroying Bartlett signs at the county fair. The editor refused to print the letter on the advice of counsel, saying that this was a legal matter for the county attorney. At the Council meeting, the editor explained that he did not want a “trial by newspaper.”

Under the circumstances, the Council believes it was not unreasonable for the paper to refuse to publish this letter. During the remainder of October, the newspaper did publish other letters commenting on the lawn sign issue, mostly from Goodnature supporters. Bartlett asserts that other letters from Bartlett supporters were rejected by the paper. The newspaper says this is not so, that it did publish whatever was submitted.

It may well be that these other pro-Bartlett letters, if submitted, should have been published. Again, the Council is unable to resolve this dispute of fact without examining the rejected letters. The editor says these letters, if not like the Marsden letter, would have been printed. If such letters had been submitted, the Council believes, under the circumstances, that it would have been unfair not to have published them. On this record, however, the Council finds this complaint of lack of access to the paper not proven.

Finally, Bartlett complains that in a front page story the day after the election, the paper reported a separate tally of the city vote in the sheriff’s race but not a separate tally of the rural vote. This was important to the Bartlett people because their candidate carried the rural vote. The paper points out, however, that it did report a complete detailed breakdown of the sheriff vote, in box score forms, on page two. In other words, the full story on the voting patterns was reported and it was not improper for the paper, in its editorial discretion, to place the story on its pages as it did.

As a closing observation, the Council questions whether the newspaper’s coverage of the Goodnature-Bartlett dispute was as complete as it might have been. It appears that the neighboring Rochester Post-Bulletin, as well as the more distant Minneapolis Tribune, provided more comprehensive coverage.

The complaint against the newspaper is not upheld.

Concurring: Brommer, Brooks, Forsythe, Gilson, Graven, Higgins, Kramer, McCollough, Pearce, Ryan, Selby, Simonett, Ziegenhagen.

Background: On May 10, 1979, the newspaper published a Thursday Food section story on Mother’s Day chocolates. The reporter assembled “eight of the most serious chocolate lovers” – all unnamed – for a “blind tasting” of chocolate products from six Twin Cities candy stores, including Regina’s. The tasters rated one-pound candy assortments and solid chocolates on a numerical scale for “taste, freshness, texture and overall appearance.” Regina’s candies were ranked fifth by the tasters, in part because they criticized the company’s chocolates for being waxy.

Calling the rating system unscientific, Regina’s complained that the paper failed to identify the tasters or their qualifications, or to explain adequately the tasting method. The test results were skewed, Regina’s claimed, because the tasting of solid chocolates was based on a commercial coating the company buys for resale but does not use in its manufactured assortments. Criticism of the chocolate as “waxy” was also misleading, Regina’s said, since wax is not used in chocolates and Regina’s does not use compounds or stretchers. Lastly, Regina’s complained that the article was unfair to the candy industry as a whole because it contained several unsupported statements that indicated a general decline in the quality of American candy.

Regina’s contacted the paper’s reader’s representative and asked that a correction or clarification of the article be printed. The paper did not feel that such a response was warranted.

Response of the news organization: The paper said the article was clearly labeled as a blind tasting, distinguishing it from a scientific survey. The newspaper likened the article to a traditional restaurant or wine review, with the tasters acting as reviewers. The paper also said that use of the term “waxy” did not mean Regina’s chocolate contained wax, but was like wax in that it did not melt quickly. Although the paper acknowledged that its reporter had purchased a non-Regina’s product for the tasting of solid chocolates, it said the mix-up occurred because of poor package labeling. Finally, the paper said its overall coverage of the candy industry was balanced inasmuch as it had published other articles favorable to Regina’s and the local candy industry.

Determination of the Council: The article appeared to be based on a scientific survey; the paper should have clarified the tasting methodology to its readers and identified the tasters and their qualifications. The reader’s representative himself, in a column published May 27 in the paper, said: “The failure of the judging method was that it masqueraded as science. It lumped the subjective judgments of unnamed people with unknown qualifications into an ostensibly objective number measurement of an unregulated mixture of ill-defined characteristics.”

The newspaper should have published a clarification when Regina’s informed it that its reporter had purchased the wrong product for the tasting of solid chocolates. Additional clarification was in order because characterizing Regina’s chocolate as “waxy” may have misled readers to believe that the company adds compounds or stretchers to its chocolate coating.

On the whole, the article should be characterized as consumer reporting rather than as a restaurant or wine review. In those types of reviews, the reviewer is identified and his or her qualifications are generally known to the reader; also, a numerical rating system is not used.

Finally, the paper’s overall coverage of the candy industry cannot be regarded as fair in view of the other articles it cites. Previous or concurrent coverage that may balance the overall coverage does not obviate the responsibility to be accurate and thorough in each article.

The complaint against the newspaper is upheld.

Background: CCA was formed to oppose the building of an abortion clinic by Planned Parenthood of Minnesota (PPM) in a St. Paul neighborhood. To elicit support for its cause, CCA composed an advertisement encouraging people to contact clinic supporters and persuade them to change their minds on the issue. The ad listed the names of officers and sponsors of Planned Parenthood as the names appeared on PPM stationery, along with their home addresses and phone numbers.

The two newspapers refused to publish the ad as submitted: The newspapers objected to printing names, addresses and telephone numbers of those who were not officers of PPM, and asserted that the addresses given for the officers should be the PPM business address unless prior consent was received for using home addresses. The newspapers offered to print the ad with those changes. CCA refused to make the changes and complained that the reasons for the ad’s rejection were arbitrary.

Determination of the Council: A newspaper has the legal right to accept or reject any advertisement, but the paper should establish fair and reasonable standards for advertising and should apply these standards uniformly.

The newspapers did not clearly define their standards regarding the definition of “private persons” whose right to privacy should be protected in advocacy advertisements. The publisher’s claim of right to privacy for the PPM sponsors, as distinguished from the organization’s officers, is rejected: The sponsors’ names appeared with the officers’ names on the organization stationery, and when citizens take a public position in support of an organization functioning in the public arena, they must expect to accept whatever praise or criticism this position brings from members of the public. To this extent, the complaint against the newspapers is upheld. The CCA, however, should not have arbitrarily used the male spouse’s name without discretion. By so doing, they unduly implicated the spouses of women who participated as individuals, and whose husbands were genuinely private persons as regards PPM.

The first complaint against these newspapers is upheld, the second complaint is not upheld. 

Background: When Blahauvietz tried to place a quarter-page advertisement for his candidacy, he was told a Minnesota state law prohibited newspapers from carrying such advertising in an issue likely to be circulated in significant numbers on election day. The editor told Blahauvietz that no political advertising would be carried in the issue. However, a smaller ad for one of Blahauvietz’s rivals did appear. Neither candidate won the election.

Response of the news organization: The editor explained to Blahauvietz’s wife, and later to the Council, that the rival candidate’s advertisement appeared because of an error by staff persons unfamiliar with the paper’s policy. Political considerations did not enter in, he said; the ad appeared because of a mix-up in office routine. The editor regretted the unintended discrimination. Following an apology by the editor to Blahauvietz, the complainant chose not to press the matter further.

Determination of the Council: The complaint points up the need for every newspaper to draw up definite rules governing the publication of political advertising to assure fair and equal treatment of all candidates. All newspaper employees and, where possible, all candidates and their campaign committees should be made familiar with the rules to avoid misunderstandings of this type.

The Council also notes the possible unconstitutionality of the Minnesota Statute 211.15 prohibiting political advertising on election day. This is a matter for determination by the courts, not the Council. It might be appropriate for newspapers to arrange a test case of the statute so the question may be decided.

The complaint against the newspaper is upheld.

Dissenting Opinion: Gerald – The Council is correct in denouncing the bad public policy in the state statute prohibiting political advertising on election days, but also condemned should be the private rules the majority recommends without respect to the content of political advertising, for those private rules burden political freedom just as surely as official actions.

Response of the news organization: The paper rejected the ad citing its policy of accepting political ads only from labor-endorsed candidates.

Determination of the Council: A newspaper has considerable latitude in establishing policies governing acceptance of advertising, both because of its status as a private business and because it assumes some ethical responsibility to its readers for the integrity and propriety of the matters advertised. Any newspaper would be wise to clarify and publish its advertising acceptance policies, most particularly as to political advertising, if only to avoid the misunderstandings illustrated in this case.

The acceptance standards for political advertising are peculiarly subject to a newspaper’s moral obligation; a standard under which only advertising of political candidates approved by the publisher are accepted would be patently offensive to fundamental principles of fairness and accuracy. However, this paper is not a general newspaper but a special-interest publication for the sponsoring organization, and it functions basically as an appendage of the AFL-CIO. Although its format is that of other newspapers, the paper is, in fact, a private publication devoted to advancing the interests of a particularly defined constituency and presenting news aimed at the (primarily) economic self-interest of that constituency. The paper does not accept the obligation to function as a general newspaper or to be bound by the conventions usually associated with general publications. When the grievance was considered in that light, the Council concluded, with regret, that the paper’s advertising policy must be accepted.

The complaint against the newspaper is not upheld.