Complaint:

1. That the November 15th story was unfair because it did not include his point of view – that the temporary clerk never conveyed the checks to him, and that he did not want the checks cashed until the assessments were certified, months later. He said the reporter had had no trouble reaching him at work when he ran for City Council, but on this missing check story tried him at home during the day, instead of calling his office.

2. That the headline (without the subhead) on the November 17 story (“Residents to pay assessments again: City lost checks, will pay stop payment fees”) could have easily misled readers into believing that Grant taxpayers were being billed twice for the road-paving assessment.

3. That the March, 2002, follow-up story, on partial rebates of assessments, did not forthrightly acknowledge the alleged shortcomings in the first two stories.

Response: The Pioneer Press said that the reporter thought under the circumstances leaving a message at his home was the best way to contact Keating. The inaccuracies cited in the complaint, it said, were accurate reports of what other Grant officials said. 

The paper claimed that with the subhead in the November 17th story was accurate and that the follow-up story was the best way to bring readers clear information about the situation, since so much time had passed. The paper said once it was aware of Keating’s concerns, it made a good faith effort to address his concerns.

Discussion: Many News Council members said Keating should have sought an immediate correction from the paper. He said he did not because he felt the paper was avoiding him, as he said it had done before, and he preferred to file a complaint with the News Council.

The Pioneer Press reporter, Amy Becker, said she had no reason to avoid him. She said she wanted his views in the story, but she acknowledged that she could and should have called him at the financial services office in Edina where he works. Instead, she left a voice message at his home the afternoon before the story appeared. He said he did not get it until after the 6 p.m. deadline her message mentioned. Neither Keating nor Becker placed a call to the other that night. The paper said it actually had until midnight to include his version.

Keating said the paper had had no trouble finding him in Edina when it wanted to question him during his unsuccessful run for city council last year. 
One media member said that if Keating had demanded a correction immediately, the story that appeared last month would have appeared in November, and the dispute would have been resolved.

Another media member, Reed Anfinson, publisher of the Swift County Monitor-News in Benson, Minn., suggested that this dispute reveals a basic flaw in the attempt of major metropolitan daily newspapers to cover complicated governmental issues in short stories.

Becker, the Pioneer Press reporter, said she covers 14 communities and the police and court beats for all of Washington County. She did not attend the Grant City Council meeting at which the missing-checks matter arose. She developed a story later, by phone.

Council member Jay Furst, managing editor of the Rochester Post-Bulletin, questioned the need to publish the story quickly, instead of waiting to include Keating’s comments.

Public member Neil Neddermeyer, a retired Hennepin County sheriff’s detective, said he agreed the reporter “should have gone the extra mile (to get Keating’s comments), but Keating also should have gone the extra mile (and called her even though the 6 p.m. deadline she told him about had passed). If I came home at 6 o’clock and got a message like that I’d be on the phone right away.”

Pia Lopez, editorial page editor of the Duluth News-Tribune, a media member, asked Keating: “How do you make a paper improve itself? Contact the paper (about errors) and make the story clear. It’s not clear to me that Mr. Keating was interested in that.”

Public member Karen Runyon, a forensics expert, said she thought a citizen should not be held to a higher standard than a newspaper is held to. She said the original story made the behavior of the city treasurer sound suspicious, and he deserved a chance to tell his side of the story.

The Vote:
Complaint 1: upheld (11-5)
Complaint 2: not upheld (10-6)
Complaint 3: not upheld (15-1)

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)

Bob Shaw and Nedra Wicks, former Council members, took part as public members in order to ensure a balance of public/media members. About a dozen people observed the proceedings, which took place at South Central Technical College in Faribault.

Background: On January 27, 1997, 18-year-old Casey Hanlon was stabbed in the chest while standing in the driveway of his uncle Dan’s home, where Casey’s father was residing at the time. Casey recovered, and his assailant was arrested and charged with attempted murder by Rice County Attorney Jeffrey Thompson. A month after the assault Casey’s father died from cancer.

In light of the difficulty of proving premeditated intent to murder and in exchange for his cooperation, Casey’s assailant was allowed to plead guilty to first-degree assault. The family attended all the hearings and accepted the plea.

Donna Hanlon, Casey’s mother, received a call a week lafter the plea hearing from her brother-in-law, Dan, saying that he had just received a call from a woman who identified herself as court personnel and who asked him what he thought of the plea agreement. Since Dan had not attended any of the court hearings, he did not know of the plea agreement, but upon hearing it he gave the opinion that it was “nuts.” The woman asked for Donna’s name and phone number, which Dan gave her. Donna never received a call, but suspected that it was a reporter who had talked with Dan.

The next day, September 3rd, a story appeared on the front page of the Faribault Daily News with the headline: “Attempted Murder Charges Dismissed in Plea Agreement,” with the subhead “Parent of victim says he thinks it’s ‘nuts.’” Kelly Hanlon, Casey’s sister, went to the paper and demanded a correction for the misidentification of Dan Hanlon as their father, which the paper published the next day.

The family was not satisfied with the correction. It was very brief and did not approximate in size or substance other corrections they had seen in the paper for errors they judged to be of a similar magnitude.

In the process of resolving this complaint, the county attorney requested three things:

• That he be allowed to run a training session on court procedures for Daily News staff (which he did conduct on January 21, 1998);
• That he be allowed to write a column on the case for the editorial page, which the paper agreed to publish (but at Thompson’s request had not yet published at the time of the hearing);
• That the paper issue a front-page apology to the Hanlon family, which the paper declined.

The managing editor suggested the family write a letter to the editor, which they did. The letter the family submitted was unacceptable to the paper on several grounds, but the family revised it until only one problem remained: the family charged that the reporter had misrepresented herself as court personnel to Dan Hanlon. The paper said that was libelous and, lacking any evidence to support the claim, refused to publish the letter. With that, the parties reached an impasse and came to a public hearing.

Complaint: The family and the county attorney filed separate complaints about the same story. While the county attorney reports that his office had had numerous problems with this particular reporter, he said he would not have brought a complaint but for the harm it inflicted upon the Hanlon family. He expressed concern, as well, that the article would interfere with prosecution of criminals by undermining the trust of other crime victims in the office of the county attorney.

Thompson charged that the Daily News was unfair to the county attorney’s Office in the way it gathered and reported the story of the plea agreement:

• The first paragraph implied that the police had a confession when in fact the assailant had given an admission in support of a guilty plea;
• The writing style mixed news and opinion. For example, the first paragraph begins “Even though Travis Lee Beckjordan admits stabbing one local boy… prosecutors dismissed a charge of first-degree attempted murder….” implying that it was inappropriate to dismiss the attempted murder charge;
• The story did not explain that the plea bargain was based upon the prosecutor’s sense of the difficulty he would have in proving the assailant’s intent;
• The reporter did not contact the county attorney, the assistant county attorney or any member of the family who was party to the plea agreement before the story appeared;
• The article presented quotes from the judge, defendant and prosecutor in such a way that it seemed the reporter was present in the courtroom; she was not. She was reporting from the court transcripts. Because the reporter was not in court, she did not have all the facts.

The Hanlon family complained that the Daily News was unfair in the way it gathered and reported the story of the plea agreement and that its published correction was an inadequate response to their complaint:

• The reporter did not contact any member of the family who had been involved in the plea agreement and therefore misrepresented the attitude of the family toward the plea agreement (they fully supported the plea agreement);
• The reporter misrepresented herself when she spoke with the uncle, saying she was court personnel;
• The story inaccurately identified Casey’s uncle as his father, when in fact his father had recently died from cancer;
• The small, page-two correction was insufficient given the trauma the family suffered from the misrepresentation and in light of Page-One corrections and apologies the paper had given to people in other cases.

The text of the correction that ran on September 4 read:

In a story on page 1 of the Wednesday, Sept. 3 edition of the Daily News, Dan Hanlon’s relationship to Casey Hanlon was misstated. Dan Hanlon is Casey Hanlon’s uncle.

The Daily News regrets the error.

Response: The Daily News admits that the story misidentified Casey Hanlon’s uncle as his father,. Managing Editor Lisa Schwarz apologized in person to Kelly Hanlon when she came to the newspaper office, and the paper corrected the error the next day in accordance with its policy and past practices.

The paper says that previous stories misidentified the location of the crime as the father’s home and no one pointed out that error. When the reporter called that address and reached a Mr. Hanlon, she assumed it was the victim’s father.

The paper did not issue a front-page apology because the length of time between the publication of the original story and the requested apology would have necessitated providing context and repeating the error that caused the family such distress. It is the paper’s policy not to repeat errors.

Discussion: “How could you let him off after he tried to kill your son?” That was the response Donna Hanlon said she encountered from everyone she met for many weeks after the article appeared. She said people didn’t understand what the issues were or that she and her children were intimately involved in the court case.

Donna Hanlon said no one from the paper ever contacted her or any of the children to get their opinion about the plea bargain. She questioned why the reporter would quote Dan Hanlon when he obviously was uninformed of events: he had told the reporter he wasn’t in court and didn’t know of the plea bargain.

Council members asked Dan Hanlon exactly how the person identified herself; he said he couldn’t remember exactly but that she said she was with the court system, that she never once mentioned the Daily News.

Schwarz said she had never before received a complaint about the reporter misrepresenting herself and she didn’t believe it had happened. She said she asked the reporter about it, and the reporter denied it. Schwarz said she could find no evidence to support Dan Hanlon’s charge. She said all reporters at the paper are trained to properly identify themselves and to say they are from the Daily News.

Public member Laurisa Sellers asked Schwarz if it was usual for a reporter to quote from a court transcript as if the reporter were actually at the event. Schwarz said reporters cover many beats and can’t always be in court. She did not believe the writing style was inappropriate or unusual.

Bauerlein asked the county attorney if the reporter had called him for comment. Assistant County Attorney Cashman said there was a call from the reporter on his answering machine when he got home at 8:30 p.m. on September 2 but the message didn’t say what she was calling about or mention a deadline. He didn’t return her call that night. He didn’t work on Sept. 3, but saw the headline in the paper that day. He tried to call the reporter on the 4th when he got back to work.

Thompson said the plea hearing took place on August 27th so they would have no reason to suspect the reporter was calling about that hearing. He questioned the need to publish the story so quickly – before the relevant parties had an opportunity to give comment – given that the hearing had taken place eight days earlier.

Schwarz said it typically took a week for a court transcript to become available, so the reporter was writing her story at the first opportunity. Thompson denied that, saying that the reporter could have talked to the court reporter and, if there were great public interest, could have secured the transcript within a few days. And any time during the intervening seven days she could have called the county attorney’s office for comment.

Media member Trish Van Pilsum asked Schwarz what she thought of the correction. Schwarz said any inaccuracy is a big deal and the paper had responded promptly and fairly when notified of the error. She said Page 2 is arguably the most read page of the paper: it contains corrections, lottery numbers and obits. Van Pilsum asked if she considered including the immediate family’s opinion of the plea agreement in the correction. Schwarz said no, she did not consider doing so.

Schwarz said after she apologized to Kelly Hanlon and made the correction, the paper did not hear from the family again for some time, until it received a letter from the county attorney. By that time the issue was no longer in the public eye and to publish a more substantial correction would have required including context and repeating the error, which is against paper policy. Schwarz said that if the paper had known earlier that the family was not satisfied, it could have done more.

Thompson said the complaint about the September 3 article was filed on October 8 and a luncheon meeting between the parties was scheduled for October 28. On October 25 the paper ran a story about the sentencing of the assailant; the paper did not use that opportunity to provide more context.

Schwarz said she felt the proper place to handle the family’s complaint was behind the scenes.

Public member Craig Shulstad asked why the family had the county attorney contact the paper. Donna Hanlon said she asked for his help. She said she had scheduled meetings with Schwarz several times and for various reasons they were canceled. Public member Neil Neddermeyer asked Thompson why he complained about this story and not about the many previous stories that Thompson contended were erroneous. Thompson said he had complained to the paper before, he had written commentaries and had repeatedly asked that reporters contact his office for information.

Cashman pointed to the repeated error identifying the location of the stabbing as the “family home,” when the plea hearing transcript (which the reporter worked from when she wrote her story) clearly stated it was the uncle’s home where the father was living after he separated from his wife.

Deliberation: “If I were an editor, I would’ve asked the reporter, ‘Did you contact the family?’” said media member Dave Hage. “It was a grievous error (misidentifying the uncle), but it appears the reporter tried to contact the family. ‘Did you try to contact the county attorney’s office?’ If the answer is no… you need to make a greater effort to contact them.”

Sellers said she was troubled by the first-hand-account quality of the reporting, but understood why the paper would want to use the livelier style of direct quotes.

Council members discussed the possible misrepresentation, but made no definitive statement since there was no evidence either way. They affirmed that the paper was responsible for its reporter’s behavior.

As to the apology, Council members felt it was inadequate. “The paper was obligated to ask the right family members, ‘What do you really think?’” said Van Pilsum.

“We do our duty by publishing corrections like these, but it does very little to make the community involved feel better,” said Bauerlein.

Determination: 1. On the question, “Was the Faribault Daily News unfair to the Hanlon family in the gathering and reporting of the September 3, 1997 story about the plea agreement?” the Council voted to sustain the complaint.

Concurring: Bauerlein, Hage, Neddermeyer, Pumarlo, Sellers, Shaw, Shulstad, Stauffer, Van Pilsum, Wicks
Dissenting: Bailey
Recused: Keller
Presiding: Tomljanovich

2. On the question, “Was the Faribault Daily News unfair to the Rice County Attorney’s Office in the gathering and reporting of the September 3, 1997 story about the plea agreement?” the Council voted to sustain the complaint.

Concurring: Hage, Pumarlo, Sellers, Shaw, Shulstad, Stauffer, Van Pilsum, Wicks
Dissenting: Bailey, Bauerlein, Neddermeyer
Recused: Keller
Presiding: Tomljanovich

3. On the question, “Was the Faribault Daily News’ published correction an inadequate response to the Hanlon family’s complaint?” the Council voted tosustain the complaint.

Concurring: Bailey, Bauerlein, Hage, Pumarlo, Sellers, Shaw, Shulstad, Stauffer, Van Pilsum, Wicks
Dissenting: Hage, Neddermeyer
Recused: Keller
Presiding: Tomljanovich

Scott Vreeland, chairman of the board of the Cedar-Riverside Project Area Committee (PAC), a neighborhood governing body of elected, unpaid members, complained that an August 4, 1988, article about the neighborhood in the Star Tribune was “bad journalism.”

Background: The article appeared on page one, with the headline “Cedar Riverside finds itself in a midlife crisis.” Grievant complained that the article did not contact “firsthand sources,” that some sources were described generally as “neighborhood activist” and “key official,” etc., rather than by name, that the article contained untrue statements, that the reporter was “hoodwinked” by factions in a political dispute, that the article was not front-page news, that alleged problems with the article were “covered up” by an inadequate correction of an error in fact and a follow-up article which dealt with only one issue, a lawsuit, and failed to report a significant comment by the judge in dismissing the lawsuit, and finally, that the article was “intellectually sloppy” for use of terms such as “left winger,” “hippies,” “insiders,” etc., and the “midlife crisis” metaphor of the headline.

Discussion: The Council discussed all aspects of the complaint but concentrated primarily on the allegations of factual inaccuracy, attribution of comments as to source, and the suggested “cover-up” of the article’s alleged problems in a correction and a future article. The article stated that “the whole thing is ludicrous to me,’ said Tim Mungavan, a longtime staff person at the Cedar-Riverside PAC, who now serves as a consultant to it. Mungavan, who with his wife lives in a three-bedroom remodeled cooperative unit in Cedar Riverside, is one of the neighborhood leaders who have come under criticism for allegedly altering policies that previously gave the largest living units to large families. He denies he benefited from decisions made by the organization.” A complaint to the newspaper about the reference to just Mungavan and his wife in the three-bedroom unit resulted in the following correction published by the Star Tribune on August 4, 1988:

“An article in Thursday’s edition said Tim Mungavan and his wife (Dorothy) live in a three-bedroom remodeled cooperative unit in Cedar-Riverside. Mungavan, the article said, has been criticized for allegedly altering policies that previously gave the largest living units to large families. The article did not say that Ann Jacobs, daughter of Dorothy, lives with the Mungavans.”

Grievant complained that the correction treated a false implication “like an error in math.” He also said that the policies were never altered and that persons who would know that they were not altered were not contacted by the reporter. The Council recognizes the potential problem of corrections being “out of context,” but believes that the interested reader either makes the proper connection or seeks an explanation. In this instance, the Council believes the correction properly set the record straight as to the number of persons living in the Mungavan unit. Grievant’s several references to the policies not having been changed also lack merit because the newspaper only said that it had been “alleged” that the policies were rewritten and that PAC had been “accused” of rewriting them, which is the case.

The Council noted that the article attributed most quotations to a named source and agreed that a name was not essential in the few instances where the article referred to sources in more general terms. The newspaper used several sources for the article and the Council finds no fault with the newspaper for not using some of the sources complainant would have chosen.

A January 19, 1989, article in the Star Tribune reported that a Hennepin County district judge said that the lawsuit against PAC was not properly before the court because the petitioners had not exhausted their administrative remedies. The judge further said in her order that “plaintiffs are unlikely to prevail on the merits of this case.” Grievant complained to the Star Tribune reader representative that the January 19 story did not report the judge’s comments about the merits of the case. Reader Representative Lou Gelfand wrote in his column of Sunday, January 22, 1989, that the reporter said he agreed the comment should have been in the story, and Gelfand added his opinion that “the judge’s statement that the plaintiffs are unlikely to prevail was almost as significant as her refusal to hear the case. That should have been in the newspaper.” The Council recognizes and appreciates the reader representative’s role of reviewing complaints and sometimes criticizing the newspaper, and believes that the newspaper’s willingness to print the criticism is ample demonstration, along with its earlier correction of the only significant error in the story, that there was no effort to “protect” the first story.

The Council found the original article to be an interesting historical perspective and update on an interesting and sometimes controversial community. The article did not deal only with a lawsuit against PAC but with many changes in the continually developing area. The Council is hesitant to second-guess an editor’s decision about what is or is not a front-page story and we see no reason to challenge the newspaper’s decision of front-page placement in this instance.

Complaint denied.

Concurring: Casey, Chucker, Falkman, Graham, Hanley, King, Orwoll, Parrish, Pennock, Simonett, Stauffer, Stone, Swain

Abstaining: Givens

Dissenting: Larson

Background: The morning edition of the June 21, 1984 edition contained a front-page story under the headline “Mahnomen police abuse probe sought.” The article stated that a complaint of law-enforcement harassment by a man and his son had been discussed at a county board meeting and that this complaint involved the sheriff’s office, a state trooper, and “a city police officer.” The Mahnomen city police were not involved in the incident, which the paper discovered later the same day. In its evening edition, it changed the headline on the story to read “Mahnomen board seeks abuse probe” and deleted the reference to any city police officer. The next day, the paper also published a correction stating it had been given incorrect information about city police involvement and that “No police officers were involved.” The correction appeared, in accordance with the paper’s long-standing policy, on the jump page, page 14, the back of the newspaper’s first section.

Response of the News Organization: The paper’s news editor responded in a July 3 letter to the Mahnomen mayor that, “The error was not intentional nor was it malicious in any way,” stressing that the paper did strive to be fair and accurate.

Determination of the News Council: The newspaper admits its mistake. It also acted swiftly to correct the error. The only issue is whether the correction that was published on the jump page the next day was adequate. We believe it was. It was not necessary that the correction appear on the front page. As we stated in our recent Spectrum decision, it is important that a newspaper have an established, prominent location for news corrections, a place where the readers can expect corrections to appear. Here we think the location on the jump page is a good one.

The complaint against the newspaper is not upheld.

It is unfortunate the mistake was made, and it is clear that proper reporting practice could have avoided it. The erroneous headline only compounded the problem. We understand and appreciate the concern of the Mahnomen City Council and its police chief over the false accusation of “police abuse.” We think the published correction was in itself an apology, as was the news editor’s letter to the mayor. We can only add that in news stories so sensitive to a community, where the hurt is never really completely undone, it would not be inappropriate for the paper to take some additional steps, depending on the circumstances.

Concurring: Ashmore, Bednar, Brooks, Casey, Chucker, Falkman, Forsythe, Gilson, Graven, Higgins, Peek, Persons, Ryan, Selby, Simonett, Staples

Special Concurrence: Bednar - I agree with the News Council determination involving the correction, I would only add that the City of Mahnomen might be more persuaded of the sincerity of the newspaper’s apology if a representative of the newspaper, notwithstanding the inconvenience involved, had attended the News Council hearing.

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: The article at issue was an opinion piece entitled “Cheap shots on the air” published in the August 9, 1982, issue of the Minnesota Daily, the student newspaper of the University of Minnesota. It commented on a radio debate between then Attorney General Spannaus and former Governor Rudy Perpich, who were opposing each other in the September Democratic gubernatorial primary election. Spannaus subsequently lost the election to Perpich. In the opinion piece, the writer accused Perpich of taking a “cheap shot” at Spannaus when he claimed during the debate that the attorney general had been “‘harping’ about guns and had spent 12 years in office “talking about guns and polarizing the people of the state.”

Elsewhere in the article the writer stated: “Spannaus, of course, was the driving force behind the state’s current gun control legislation. During his first six years as attorney general, it was his top priority. In the six years since it passed, however, Spannaus has not pushed for more legislation. He is satisfied, he says, that Minnesota has the handgun legislation it needs.”

The group contended that Spannaus had, indeed, pushed for more legislation, pointing out that the attorney general proposed a new firearms measure in 1981. Under a draft of the proposed bill, dated February 10, 1981, anyone injured by a pistol could sue anyone who had transferred the gun in violation of existing state gun laws. “Intervening transfers shall be no defense to the claim,” the bill draft stated. This measure would have extended current liability for illegal gun sales perpetually. It thus amounted to a new firearms measure.

Response of the news organization: The paper maintained that the opinion piece was accurate, contending that what Spannaus proposed in 1981 was crime control, not gun control. It claimed that the average reader probably takes “gun control” to mean putting limitations on who can buy or carry guns, noting that the proposed bill dealt with stiffening penalties. Neither the writer nor the paper was aware of the proposed bill, but even if they had been, they said, the story would not have been written or edited any differently.

The paper believed the gun group’s request for a correction was inappropriate, since this matter involved a difference of opinion, not a question of fact. The paper said that it would still be happy to print a letter from the group, but that a correction was not warranted.

Determination of the Council: This marks the first time the Council has reviewed a complaint against the Minnesota Daily. Although it is a student newspaper, it is a publication of recognized influence in the community. By agreeing to participate in the proceedings, the Daily has shown a desire to be judged by the same standards that the Council applies to general circulation newspapers.

The Council believes that the questions of whether or not Spannaus “pushed” his proposal and whether or not his proposal was “more” gun control legislation or expansion of the existing law are matters of differing interpretation. The Council thus acknowledges the semantic ambiguities in the documents of this case, but it believes these are not central to the case.

The fact is that Spannaus did make a proposal – officially designated as a new law – dealing with penalties for those who transfer handguns that are used to injure persons. It is a matter of record that the proposal was aired in public and put into legislative language even though it was not introduced in the Legislature.

The Council finds that the paper’s failure to mention Spannaus’ activities resulted in an incomplete and therefore inaccurate statement. In the last analysis it is the reader who counts, and in this case the reader did not get the information that would have qualified the paper’s statement.

Furthermore, the paper should have promptly published a correction on the matter when it was brought to their attention.

The complaint against the newspaper is upheld.

Concurring: Allen, Brommer, Fairbanks, Forsythe, Hedberg, Higgins, McCollough, Miles, Peek, Ryan, Selby, Simonett, Ziegenhagen

Dissenting Opinion: Kramer and Staples It is a matter of differing interpretation regarding the question of whether or not Spannaus “pushed” new gun control legislation. We believe that the attorney general could have had powerful authors introduce a bill in the legislature if he had wanted to “push” his proposal…. Thus, while others disagree, we do not believe he “pushed.” The author may not have been aware of Spannaus’ proposal because no bill was introduced. Despite what some people believe should be the case, editorials and opinion articles often lack facts that may be relevant to an issue. We believe the offer by the paper to run a letter to the editor was a fair response. Since the story at issue was an opinion article, the opinion of the Minnesota Gun Owners’ Political Victory Fund would have been shared with readers on the same pages. In our opinion, there was not a misstatement of fact, but there was omission of information the author did not know about because no bill was introduced. Therefore we dissent from the majority opinion.