Background: On January 17, 1984, in the Sid Hartman sports column of the Minneapolis Star Tribune, there appeared an item about the Minnesota Twins’ payroll, which included the statement: “Of the $1.8 million the Twins lost last year, about $600,000 was for legal expenses, including a lawsuit against Spectrum, the cable television enterprise.”

The statement was incorrect. The lawsuit, which was well-publicized, was in fact brought by Midwest Radio and Communications, Inc., against the Minnesota Twins and the North Stars, and Spectrum was brought into the suit as an additional party. Spectrum protested the error and the next day the paper published a correction, phrased precisely as requested by Brisbine, stating that the $600,000 legal expenses incurred by the Twins included “costs to defend the team and Spectrum, a broadcast pay television company, in a lawsuit brought by Midwest Radio and Communications.”

Spectrum’s complaint concerned the placement of the correction. The paper put the correction in its Corrections space on page 3 of Section A; Spectrum contends it should have appeared in the sports section, either in or near the Hartman column, because of the wide readership of the column. Spectrum contended that many of those who read the erroneous statement in the January 17 column would not have seen the correction of the error the next day in a different section of the paper.

Response of the News Organization: The newspaper agreed that a fair correction policy requires that they be placed to catch the attention of the readers. The paper believes this policy is best served by having corrections appear as a standard feature in the same location in the paper each issue. For the past eight years, the paper has allotted the Correction space on page 3A for this purpose, and it always appears, whether or not on a particular day there are any corrections to be made. The newspaper believed this procedure was a fair and adequate means to inform its readership of corrections.

While conceding that the Hartman column is a popular column with a devoted readership, the newspaper justified its requiring column errors to also appear on page 3A in order to further consistency in its corrections policy. The requirement also reflects the paper’s philosophy that when an error occurs, it is the newspaper’s error, for which the paper assumes responsibility.

Determination of the Council: The Council appreciates that the standard corrections feature that the newspaper has carefully thought out has valid policy reasons to support it. In this instance, considering the nature of the Spectrum error and the circumstances, this Council believes that placement of the Spectrum correction was appropriate and adequate. The complaint against the newspaper is not upheld.

Having said this, the Council believes further comment is warranted. Generally speaking, corrections should be phrased within a meaningful context and be placed to come to the attention of the media’s readers or listeners. With respect to the newspaper’s corrections policy, it seems that there may be occasions when correction on page 3A of an error that appeared in a popular column will not be adequate. Exceptional situations may require exceptions, and the Sid Hartman column is an exceptional column. The stubborn fact is that a large, specialized audience reads the column and that many (it seems safe to assume) do not read or are unlikely to read page 3A. Moreover, while readers who are looking for a correction may turn to page 3A, a reader who has read an erroneous statement not knowing it to be erroneous has no reason to turn to page 3A. We encourage the paper to consider the advisability, when an error occurs in a popular column, of including the correction in or near the column itself, as well as on page 3A.

In this particular case, however, we note that the reference to Spectrum litigation was only peripheral to the subject matter being discussed, that the error caused no demonstrable harm to Spectrum, and that the error apparently was unintentional and made in good faith. In this connection, the grievant points out that Hartman is also employed by WCCO Radio, which is owned by Spectrum’s competitor, Midwest Radio and Communications, Inc. This relationship, we observe, is open and well-known, and it is not seriously claimed that this relationship in any way prompted the error in the Hartman column. It was stated by the newspaper that under the guild contract Hartman is permitted to work for a radio station as well as for the newspaper. There is nothing in the evidence to suggest that Hartman’s column of January 17 posed any conflict of interest.

The grievant’s complaint in this respect is not upheld.

Concurring: Bednar, Brooks, Casey, Forsythe, Gilson, Graven, Higgins, Myers, Persons, Ryan, Selby, Simonett, Staples, Ziegenhagen

Concurring in Part, Dissenting in Part: Chucker, Pearce I agree with the majority decision to deny the complaint on both points; however, I disagree with some of the language of the determination. The newspaper is attempting to adhere to a consistent corrections policy. This policy is commendable. It is a mistake to recommend exceptions. I do not know how to define “exceptional situations” as a loophole to that policy, nor do I know by what standards a column’s popularity is judged.

Concurring in Part, Dissenting in Part: Ashmore, Brommer The determination seems inconsistent because it denies the complaint but then affirms, at least in part, the principle upon which the complaint is based. It gives the paper a confusing message. Whether or not the mention of Spectrum was peripheral, caused Spectrum injury, or was an intentional error, the readers of Hartman’s column were misled. Having established in the determination that the paper should consider placing corrections concerning individual writers’ columns within those columns, the importance, injurious nature, or malice of the particular error might be very difficult to prove. The determining factor should be whether or not an error was made within such a column. In this case, it is universally agreed such an error was made. The newspaper should have printed the correction in Hartman’s column, not to soothe Spectrum’s possible injury, but to properly inform its readers. Hartman’s long-standing relationship with the other party to the lawsuit does not indicate a conflict of interest, but should make the paper all the more eager to correction any misconceptions caused by the error.

Background: Specifically, Shely complained that the paper:

1. Failed to cover a march by the local freeze group because the paper’s publisher is opposed to the freeze movement;
2. Unfairly associated freeze proponents with radical leftists in an editorial;
3. Unfairly denied pro-freeze letter writers access to its letters column to respond to the editorial, and unfairly attached editor’s notes to the two pro-freeze letters it did publish;
4. Distorted news about the Stillwater City Council’s consideration of a nuclear freeze resolution.

Determination of the Council: 1. Finding on the paper’s decision not to cover the march. Shely alleges that the paper did not cover the march because, when he went to inform the paper that the march would be taking place, the editor told him he did not believe in the freeze movement and would not devote news space to the march. When Shely later protested by phone that this was unfair, the editor dismissed him by saying the paper belonged to him and that he had no further time for Shely. However, the paper did publish a notice on the front page of the paper that the march was going to take place. And, in a news story on the Stillwater City Council’s decision not to vote on a freeze resolution, which appeared 10 days after the march, the paper also briefly mentioned that the march had taken place.

Clippings submitted to the Council showed that before and after the march the paper published a variety of stories and letters to the editor on disarma-ment issues, including the freeze. The newspaper also addressed the freeze issue in it own editorial columns and notes attached to letters to the editor. It decided not to publish a story on the march itself because it felt the march was staged simply to dramatize the freeze movement, added nothing to the public understanding of the issues involved, and was therefore not newsworthy, according to the newspaper editor, who said he attended the march.

Countless special interest groups seek to popularize issues by staging events for the benefit of television cameras and the print media. These groups are clearly entitled to seek media attention, but they cannot always expect it as a matter of right. At the same time, news media editors must have wide discretion to determine what stories to report on and how to report them, provided, their decisions are unbiased and made in good faith. In this case, although the publisher’s remarks to Shely before the march tend to bring into question the editor’s subsequent claim that he simply found the march not to be newsworthy, the paper did cover the nuclear freeze issue before and after the march. The Council can find no clear showing of editorial bias in the paper’s decision not to cover this one event.

This part of the complaint against the newspaper is not upheld.

Concurring: Brommer, Brooks, Graven, McCollough, Pearce, Simonett, Staples

Dissenting Opinion: Allen, Early, Fairbanks, Gilson, Peek, Ziegenhagen – We are cognizant of the problem staged events can present to the media. Manipulation by both sides – media and demonstrators – is always possible. In this case, however, both parties to the dispute agree that such a march was an unusual event for Stillwater and that nothing like it had taken place in that city for at least five years.

The Washington County Commissioners and Stillwater City Council members were about to vote on a nuclear freeze resolution. Approximately 500 local people had signed a petition of support, the St. Croix Valley Ministerial Association had held a number of weekly meetings on the issue, and between 75 and 100 persons did turn out to demonstrate in the streets of downtown Stillwater. The newspaper itself considered the freeze issue important enough to cover and speak out on in its editorial columns, and with notes attached to letters to the editor. Clearly, this was a matter of significant local interest. Two other area newspapers thought so and covered the march.

Given all the circumstances, we believe the paper exercised poor news judgment in failing to cover the march. With the current debate over the freeze issue, at the national and local levels, the paper would have done well to cover the march and let its readers decide the merits of it themselves. We are also concerned with the appearance of bias engendered by the editor in his initial confrontation with Shely. Readers have a right to expect newspaper news pages to be as accurate as professional journalists can make them. When news judgment appears to be influenced by the personal bias of a publisher, the credibility of the paper, and of the news media in general, is undermined.

Finding on the paper’s March 7, 1983 editorial The Council finds the March 7 editorial on the freeze movement to be well within the bounds of acceptable editorial opinion. The newspaper is entitled to express whatever opinions it likes in editorials, as long as those opinions are anchored in facts. In this case, the paper did not go beyond the facts. This part of the complaint is not upheld.

Concurring: Allen, Brommer, Brooks, Early, Fairbanks, Gilson, Graven, McCollough, Pearce, Peek, Simonett, Staples, Ziegenhagen

Finding on the paper’s handling of letters to the editor: The Council finds the paper’s handling of the letters to the editor to be a reasonable exercise of editorial discretion. In this case the newspaper did not overstep the proper bounds of professionalism, either in the number of letters it published in response to the March 7 editorial, or in the editor’s notes it attached to the letters. Whether an editor chooses to respond to letters with editor’s notes, editorials, or signed opinion pieces is up to the individual taste and judgment of the editor. This part of the complaint is also not upheld.

Concurring: Fairbanks, Gilson, Graven, McCollough, Pearce, Peek, Simonett

Dissenting Opinion: Allen, Brommer, Brooks, Early, Staples, Ziegenhagen – It is not possible to determine whether the paper had handled letters to the editor fairly or professionally because the Council was given no specific figures on the number of letters received and no indication of the letters’ content. Three letters published by the paper were submitted as evidence. The first, published on March 4, the day before the rally, asked the Washington County Board and Stillwater City Council to support the freeze. The second, published on March 10, criticized the March 7 editorial and supported a freeze. The third, published on March 15, opposed the freeze. Thus just one of the three dealt with the editorial.

It was testified at the hearing that a “flood” of letters was sent to the paper on the subject of the editorial. Publication of one letter hardly seems representative of a “flood.” It is, of course, the editor’s privilege to publish as many or as few letters as he wishes. But professionalism dictates that a balance be struck among letters on various issues.

The letter of March 10 was accompanied by an editor’s note of unnecessary length and editorial quality. It would have been more professional for the editor to point out, briefly, that the readers have misinterpreted the editorial. It is unprofessional for editors to chide readers or to lecture them in such a format as a note appended to readers’ letters.

Finding on the paper’s March 16, 1983 news story: Finally, the Council finds that the paper’s March 16 news story on the city council’s consideration of the freeze resolution to be judgmental and inaccurate. While the complainant took objection to the headline, the Council finds that it is not objectionable since it can be easily understood in the context of what the city council did, and in fact, the city council took no action on the resolution. But the lead paragraph is misleading. It was and is clear that the nuclear freeze movement is not dead in Stillwater. The refusal of the city council to act on the resolution is only one small phase in the active freeze movement. This may have been clear in the context of the rest of the story, but the article’s implication that somehow the city council’s lack of action was a death-dealing blow to the nuclear freeze movement would seem to be going beyond the facts. To this extent, the Council finds this complaint to be unwarranted.

Concurring: Fairbanks, Gilson, Graven, McCollough, Pearce, Simonett, Staples

Concurring in part, dissenting in part: Allen Brommer, Brooks, Early, Peek, Ziegenhagen – I concur with the determination on the March 16 news story, but I think the headline is also misleading. The city council did not let the nuclear freeze die. It let the nuclear freeze resolution die.

Background: MADD was formed in December 1978 after the Metropolitan Sports Facilities Commission gave final approval to build a domed stadium in downtown Minneapolis. MADD contended the papers’ coverage of the issue was inadequate and unfair because it relied excessively on official sources, such as legislators and sports facilities commissioners, and did not adequately cover organized opponents. Potential problems involved in the downtown stadium site were treated as “obstacles,” MADD said. In general, the group charged, the papers published news stories in a manner that promoted the downtown Minneapolis site rather than completely examining alternatives.

The biased coverage was caused, in part, by a conflict of interests on the part of the newspapers’ publisher, MADD claimed. The group called for a thorough examination of the Star’s and Tribune’s stadium coverage in 1978 and 1979 during which the newspapers’ publisher was active in promoting a downtown stadium and invested in the site. This sponsorship of the downtown stadium operated in a subtle – not open – manner to inhibit aggressive and fair coverage of the stadium issue by the Star and Tribune reporters and editors, according to MADD.

In response to the complaint, the Star and Tribune submitted all their coverage of the issue – hundreds of articles from 1970 through March 1979 – and urged that the entire coverage be examined. The newspapers denied MADD’s allegations. After filing its original complaint, MADD filed a supplemental complaint against the Star because the newspaper failed to publish a letter to the editor from MADD. The letter responded to excerpts the Star had published of its response to MADD’s complaint. The Star objected to certain portions of the letter that addressed the stadium issue rather than the Star’s published response. The newspaper said it felt MADD had been given ample space to present its views on the stadium issue in an opinion piece that the Star had published. The Star told MADD it would publish the letter only if the portions it objected to were deleted. MADD refused and the letter was not published.

Determination of the Council: Examination of the Star’s and Tribune’s stadium coverage from 1970 through March 1979 indicates that their readers received a reasonably fair, accurate, and balanced reporting of events and issues surrounding the ongoing controversy. No serious distortions, no major omissions, and no clearly discernible pattern of bias could be detected.

Nevertheless, MADD has raised a serious question when it alleges that the newspapers relied excessively on official sources for facts and for interpretations of those facts. While in this case all sides of the matter were found to have been covered adequately, it should be noted that all newspapers must be sensitive to the need to cover all points of view in a debate and to seek out sources that may or may not be as readily available as public officials and professional lobbyists. Without these special efforts, readers would be denied important information with which to make decisions on public policy issues.

No evidence could be found to sustain MADD’s contention that Star and Tribune publisher’s sponsorship of a downtown stadium site influenced, either directly or indirectly, the judgments of the newspapers’ editors and reporters in covering the stadium issue. It cannot be recommended here that the owner of a newspaper should not take part in community affairs, or that a publishing corporation should not become financially involved in community projects.

However, as the National News Council has noted, such a situation can damage a newspaper’s credibility, as it has here. When an owner or publishing corporation places a newspaper in a position where the public may perceive a conflict of interest, the editors should undertake special steps to ensure fair and aggressive news coverage. For example, the editors of the Star and Tribune could have, in this case, established a task force of staff members and the public to monitor coverage and suggest improvements. Such a group could help to improve a newspaper’s credibility and performance in the community.

The complaint against the Minneapolis Star and Minneapolis Tribune is not upheld.

However, the Star should have published the letter to the editor from MADD. It is difficult to see how MADD could have responded to the Star’s rebuttal of the complaint without also addressing the stadium issue. After all, MADD’s complaint – the subject of the Star’s published response – is about the coverage of the stadium issue. The Star’s refusal to publish MADD’s letter effectively denied readers the opportunity to read a different view of the complaint. The Star’s action also deprived the letter writer of the opportunity to respond to statements affecting his reputation.

The supplemental complaint against the Minneapolis Star is upheld.

Dissenting: Shaw, Fairbanks and Rodriguez By proposing a “task force” to “monitor” a newspaper’s performance – certainly an unworkable remedy for conflict of interest – the Council has sidestepped the most important issue involved here: Is it ethical in the first place for publishers to become involved in the same events their newspapers cover as news? I say it is not. They both make it more difficult for news staffs to work, and create a perception of conflict of interest where very little conflict may be present. The image of a newspaper publisher should be one of single-minded devotion to producing a newspaper, the standards and objectivity of which are beyond question. That should not only be the appearance, that should be the fact.

Concurring in Part, Dissenting in Part: Spielman While I cannot agree with the sweeping dictum of (dissenting opinion) Bob Shaw that persons in the news business should be social eunuchs and have no other affiliation or participation in community affairs, I do agree with his dissent that the publisher’s appearance of conflict of interest seriously damaged the credibility of the newspaper. This is particularly true because of the dominant position of the Minneapolis Star and Tribune Company’s newspapers throughout the state.

Background: Locey charged that the paper’s coverage, including inaccuracies and omissions as well as poorly timed and inadequately presented corrections, reflected an editorial policy deliberately designed to support the paper’s corporate goals. (As a litter-producing organization, the paper would be taxed under the litter tax provision.)

The complaint focused specifically on: a misleading headline and lead paragraph on a Minnesota Poll story that inaccurately indicates most Minnesotans favored a mandatory deposit on beverage containers; inaccuracies and omissions in an editorial supporting the deposit, including failure to mention the paper’s financial stake in the outcome of the controversy; inaccuracies in news story and headline; and inadequacy of corrections printed. Some corrections did not appear until several weeks after the error; some corrections were made, not directly through a specific announcement of error, but obliquely through different information in an editorial.

Locey complained in general about what he considered the ill-defined role of the news media as advocates of legislation, and recommended such regulatory action as registration of editorialists as lobbyists, to curb the advocacy power of the media.

Determination of the Council: Evidence verified the factual errors alleged by Locey; the newspaper in part admitted its errors. Locey’s complaint that the inaccuracies and errors of omission were inadequately corrected with respect to timing and presentation is accepted. The correction and clarification procedures in practice by the paper at that time were tardy, nonsystematic and generally inadequate.To this extent, the complaint against the newspaper is upheld.

There was no evidence to support Locey’s complaint that editorial pressure or corporate conflicts of interest affected the integrity of the paper’s coverage of the bills in question. The Council rejects any form of government regulation of the press, and defends a newspaper’s constitutional right and responsibility to impartially and accurately report the news, and without restraint to state its opinions in editorials. The Council strongly opposes Locey’s proposal that editorial writers be required to register as lobbyists.

Therefore, the complaint is accepted in part, rejected in part.

Aspects of the complaint concerning the letters column included allegations that the newspaper altered a letter to significantly change the meaning and give respectability to the writer, refused to print letters disagreeing with the editor’s viewpoint, published an overabundance of anti-fluoride letters and a minimum of pro-fluoride letters, and published letters that violated the paper’s stated policy. Further aspects of the complaint charged the newspaper with printing editorials that admitted the paper’s anti-fluoride position on the issue, publishing inaccurate information in editorials, allowing editorial bias to determine placement of news articles on the issue, and failing to maintain the watchdog role of the press.

Background: The period encompassed by the Brainerd fluoridation controversy ranged from 1961, when the city held its first referendum on the issue, to the time of the complaint (1977). In 1967, the Minnesota Legislature passed, and the governor signed, legislation requiring the State Board of Health to set fluoridation levels for all municipal water supplies in the state. At the time the complaint was filed, Brainerd was the only major community in the state that had refused to comply; in 1961 and in 1974, Brainerd voters had rejected fluoridation, state law notwithstanding.

Much of the complaint centered on the paper’s coverage of the 1974 referendum and on a series of legal proceedings that had fueled the controversy in subsequent years. The letters-to-the-editor column became an important and influential forum for debate between a small group of local dentists and others who favored fluoridation, and community residents opposed to fluoridation. The paper did not establish or publish consistent policy guidelines for its letters column; it did, however, print occasional restrictions, presumably in response to immediate circumstances. As the fluoridation issue became more heated, for example, the paper announced that it would restrict letters from outside the circulation area, unsigned letters, letters not addressed specifically to the letters column, letters containing personal attacks or repetitious information, and lengthy letters. In addition, the paper reserved the right to correct gross spelling and grammatical errors without altering content. Never during the fluoridation controversy did the paper openly take sides editorially. It refused to argue the medical evidence, and said that it considered the central issue not fluoridation, but home rule (the right of the community to counter state or federal law by means of a referendum on an issue of local significance).

Determination of the Council: Some of the policies regulating letters printed in the paper’s letters column were unduly restrictive (prohibiting letters from non-residents of the newspaper’s circulation area and letters not specifically addressed to the letters column), giving credence to the charge that the paper refused to print letters disagreeing with the editor’s viewpoint. These restrictions are unwarranted in that they accomplish no objective that would not be served by the exercise of editorial judgment on each letter intended for publication. The implication is inescapable that casual readers of the paper in the Brainerd area, as well as all of those who live elsewhere, were effectively foreclosed from the letters column, whatever the nature of their ties to the community, their interest in its public life or their capacity to contribute to the resolution of public issues.

Evidence indicates that the paper clearly violated its own policy of not allowing personal attacks in letters when it published a letter containing attacks on another dentist. The unduly restrictive nature of the letters policy was demonstrated when the newspaper initially refused to print the dentist’s rebuttal because he lived outside the paper’s circulation area. The paper unfairly altered one letter (changing the word “chloride” to “fluoride”), giving increased credence to the letter writer. This action clearly overstepped the newspaper’s policy of correcting only gross errors in grammar and spelling without changing the writer’s intended meaning.

Further, the newspaper fell short of desired journalistic standards in its overall news coverage of the fluoridation controversy by adopting a passive role. It is apparent from the evidence that the dispute was characterized by extreme statements against fluoridation, by allegedly scientific attempts to link fluoride with cancer, and by repeated allusions and direct suggestions that opponents may have resorted to violence if fluoridation would take place in Brainerd. Faced with such an extraordinary challenge, a newspaper has an obligation to assemble the most authoritative evidence available to attempt to focus the complex public debate and to take steps to balance provocative comment with objective information.

The complaint against the newspaper is upheld.

Uppgaard and Echternacht provided insufficient evidence to demonstrate that the paper published factual inaccuracies in editorials or allowed editorial bias to determine news placement. Following its own guidelines, the Council did not judge the paper’s editorial opinion.

Background: In the spring of 1976, Sikorski entered the state senate race in District 51 as DFL candidate. In mid-August, the incumbent Republican senator announced he was retiring, and David Mills entered the race as a Republican candidate. Phil Easton, the newspaper’s publisher, served on Mills’ campaign committee and helped underwrite Mills’ campaign expenses with a $5,000 personal loan.

Following publication of a letter criticizing Sikorski in the spring, the paper refused to print a letter in Sikorski’s support, citing a policy of not publishing letters naming political candidates or officeholders. A second letter was rejected on the same grounds, and an announcement of the letters policy was printed on the letters page.

Several weeks later the paper disregarded its own policy and began printing letters critical of Sikorski. Seven anti-Sikorski letters were printed, including several containing serious allegations regarding his previous activities as campaign manager for a United States representative. The paper printed two letters from McDonough refuting the charges, but no other letters supporting Sikorski. The paper also refused to print an authorized but unsigned letter from a U.S. representative defending Sikorski.

Determination of the Council: Newspapers must impose reasonable controls over letters columns as to the frequency with which some topics are discussed, fair representation of all viewpoints, letter length. But application of the control policy must be fair and consistent, and the policy must be made clear to the public. In the past, the Council has suggested that periodic reiteration of such policies, in print, would serve as the best means of clarifying these policies to the public.

It is acceptable for newspapers to adopt blanket policies prohibiting publication of candidacy support letters during election campaigns as long as the policy is announced to the public, as the newspaper’s policy was. However, if the policy changes, the change should be clearly announced to the public. And if candidacy letters are to be printed as letters to the editor, the editor must be fair to all candidates in publishing such material. Good journalism requires that letters columns be open to views contrary to those of the publisher’s.

The newspaper changed its policy without fairly advising the public and then manipulated its policy, causing the paper to discriminate against Sikorski’s candidacy. Application of the new policy was not fair to him. A far greater number of letters in favor of Sikorski’s opponent or against him as a candidate were printed than vice versa. If candidate letters are printed as letters to the editor, the editor must make every effort to be fair to all candidates in publishing such material. The fact that the publisher helped to underwrite Sikorski’s opponent’s campaign expenses and chose not to publicly report his financial involvement until late in the campaign only serves to reinforce his obligation of fair and equal treatment for his candidate’s opponent on the use of the letter-to-the-editor space.

If a newspaper has an open letter-to-the-editor policy, it should make sure that the letters it publishes represent fairly the diversity of opinion on each issue. Good journalism requires that letter-to-the-editor columns be open to views contrary to those of the publisher. Since letters attacking Sikorski were printed, Sikorski’s staff and supporters should have been allowed to respond to the allegations being made against him.

The complaint against the paper is upheld.