After a Sept. 18, 2007 meeting, the Woodbury Bulletin published an editorial, “Councilman’s Antics Were Unnecessary,” and a similar letter to the editor that were critical of Afton City Councilman Joe Richter. The pieces allege that Richter treated another city councilmember disrespectfully during a dispute that occurred at the meeting.

“The Woodbury Bulletin portrayed me in a false light,” said Richter. “They took some facts and exaggerated them in duration and intensity in an effort to develop a false representation of me and what transpired.” The Woodbury Bulletin did not attend the hearing, but Editor Bob Eighmy told the Council that the paper stands behind its Sept. 26 editorial.

The Bulletin wrote that Richter “went into something of a tirade” and “took 20 minutes to argue his point,” after another councilmember made a request to have resident comments from a supplemental information packet read aloud. The editorial also stated that Richter was “waving his nameplate” in front of councilmember Nick Mucciacciaro’s face.

News Council members viewed video footage from the Sept. 18 Afton City Council meeting, and unanimously agreed that the editorial did not accurately portray Richter’s conduct. They expected to see theatrics, but only identified a few moments of lively give and take between Richter and Councilman Mucciacciaro.

In its deliberation of the second complaint, the News Council members discussed the standards of accuracy and fairness used in newspaper opinion pages. Public member Colin Sokolowski asked if editorials should be held to a higher standard of accuracy than letters to the editor. “There is a higher burden on editorials to ‘get it right,’” said media member Steve Schild, a journalism professor at St. Mary’s University.

“What I felt when I read the Woodbury Bulletin editorial was that I wanted everyone to know, ‘That is not me; that is not what happened!’” said Richter. “The News Council provided me with a forum where my real voice could be heard.”

Complaint: 

Complaint 1: The news article as a whole was unfair to Judy Peterzen
Peterzen’s complaint alleged: that the Sun-Post was unfair in its use of the word “breach” in reporting differences among school board members over the evaluation of the superintendent, implying that she violated her duty; that the Sun-Post’s inclusion of information on the Robbinsdale board’s evaluation of its superintendent was unfair because it did not explain the legal process the Robbinsdale board followed, and; that the article showed bias against Peterzen as school board chair by reporting five times that she had not provided a summary of the board’s evaluation of the superintendent.

Complaint 2: The editing of Peterzen’s letter to the editor as a whole was unfair.
Peterzen’s complaint alleged: that the Sun-Post was unfair in changing the language of her letter from “A report in the Sun-Post on July 24 was embellished to give an impression that I was in violation of my duty.” to “A report in the Sun-Post on July 24 may have given some the impression that I was in violation of my duty”; that the Sun-Post unfairly deleted from Peterzen’s letter her explanation of the Robbinsdale action; that the paper unfairly changed the language of her letter from “But if you look closely at that law, it states that a ‘summary of results‘ must be given . . .” to “But if you look closely at that law, I believe it states that . . . ” and; that the paper showed bias by deleting from Peterzen’s letter the following line: “A possible explanation for what I believe is highly charged and biased reporting is that the writer disagrees with the decisions being made and has lost a sense of objectivity.”

Response: The Sun-Post declined to take part in the hearing but sent a written response to the complaint. The paper’s response said that the law could be interpreted differently, so it felt the need to qualify her words with the insertion of “I believe.” The paper acknowledged that it would have done well to use brackets around the phrase, or some other device, to let the reader know the words were not Peterzen’s.

Discussion: Council members, representing both the news media and the public, felt strongly that when a person is the subject of aggressive reporting and editorializing, as Peterzen was, a news outlet should give that person a lot of freedom to defend herself and to criticize the news outlet.

“I think that when a paper is critical of a public official in print,” said Duluth News Tribune editorial editor, Pia Lopez said, “it should give the widest possible latitude for response after that.”
Council member Mike Parta or New York Mills, a former president of the Minnesota Newspaper Association, said, “It’s important for our readers to know we allow that type of open discussion” of a paper’s work.

Peterzen objected to the Sun-Post’s including in its story information about how differently the Robbinsdale district handles evaluation of its superintendent, since there was no discussion of that topic at the Osseo board meeting that was the subject of the story. St. Paul Pioneer Press executive Editor Vicki Gowler responded by saying, “Your comment [about a reporter doing independent gathering of data] is jarring to me. The role of a journalist is not stenographic. Our job is to make comparisons, give context and go deeper so the public can better understand an issue.”

Peterzen contrasted the Sun-Post story with a heavily edited and rewritten version that appeared a week later in a sister publication, the Osseo-Maple Grove Press. She said that version of the story was fair, as was the version of her letter to the editor that ran in the Press.
Council members agreed that a newspaper could do well to call a letter writer to clear changes before publication and, if a letter is considered too long, offer a writer the chance to shorten it while preserving its strongest points.

Brandt Williams, a reporter for Minnesota Public Radio, responded to Peterzen’s claims of bias. He said that the idea shouldn’t just be thrown out. While he couldn’t decide on the evidence of bias specifically, he said, “it would be a concern of mine.”

Vote:
Complaint 1: not upheld (13-4)
Complaint 2: upheld (17-0)

A handful of observers attended the hearing, including students from the University of Minnesota Student Chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists and, from the Silha Center for the Study of Media Ethics & Law, William Babcock.

Background: Nancy Barsness ran for a seat in the Minnesota House of Representatives in the 1998 election against the incumbent, Torrey Westrom. During the campaign it became known that the state Department of Labor and Industry (DoLI) had assessed fines against Westrom and his family for failure to carry workers compensation insurance in connection with a family-owned construction business [the fines have since been dropped]. The state DFL party brought attention to these fines just prior to election day in a news release and in an ad that ran in the Appleton paper. The ad was also submitted to the Morris paper, but was withdrawn at the request of Nancy Barsness. The editor wrote an editorial in response to that ad.

The newspaper editor said he believed the Barsness campaign knew of Westrom’s labor problems well in advance and withheld the information in order to spring it on voters late in the campaign to gain an election advantage. Barsness denied that.

Complaint: In her complaint, Nancy Barsness charged that the newspaper was biased in favor of her opponent, the paper’s endorsed candidate, Torrey Westrom, and that this bias showed itself in the following ways:

1. A 10/29/98 news story was biased, misleading, unfair and ended with an implied and false conclusion that Barsness had lied. The paper didn’t ask Barsness for her side of the story.

2. A 10/29/98 editorial was inaccurate, misleading, implied that Barsness had lied, and attacked Barsness personally with sexist remarks. Further, the paper did not get Barsness’s side of the story.

3. The paper provided Westrom space on the editorial/letters page on 10/29/98, several days after the paper’s official letters deadline, but did not offer the Barsness campaign similar space.

4. The paper refused to print a letter from Barsness’s campaign manager.

5. The paper gave unfair advantage to Westrom with its policies and practices:

a) The paper let the Westrom campaign know what ads were being run so Westrom could respond in the same issue, but the Barsness campaign received no such notification.*

b) The paper sold Westrom the front page of The Advisor (the advertising circular) for his political ads for the last three weeks of the campaign.*

c) The paper failed to notify readers, on the front page of The Advisor, of Barsness campaign inserts, as they did with Westrom inserts.*

d) The paper did not print several letters to the editor in support of Barsness.

 

Ms. Barsness’s complaints were summarized in three questions submitted to the Council for a vote:

1. Did the Sun/Tribune news story of 10/29/98 show bias against Barsness?

2. Was the 10/29/98 editorial unfair to Barsness?

3. Did the newspaper’s letters column give her opponent an unfair advantage?

Response: The Morris Sun/Tribune denied that it was biased in its treatment of the Barsness campaign:

1. While the Sun/Tribune did not call Barsness when preparing its news story, the story relied upon the DFL party press release, which the editor believed presented her side of the story.

2. Of the editorial, Morrison said: “My editorial represented my best efforts to get at the truth. I knew nothing about the allegations against Rep. Westrom until the DFL news release reached my desk at 1 p.m. Monday, October 26, just a week before the election. Shortly thereafter, the DFL sent us a full-page ad based largely on the Hotovec and Jenson statements [the workers whose cases led to the DoLI investigation]. Based on our investigations, it seemed to me that the DFL release and the DFL ad constituted a classic example of an October surprise.” (The term “October surprise,” used in the editorial and objected to by Barsness, is a standard description of new charges that come out very late in a race.)

“[Barsness] keeps repeating the assertion that her campaign did not know of the DoLI investigation until late October. I have good grounds to question this. The Jenson sworn statement was dated September 22 and it contains five separate references to a state investigation of these matters…. This sworn statement was in (the Barsness campaign manager) Mr. Wojtalewicz’s hands no later than September 22, yet Wojtalewicz claims that he knew nothing about a state investigation. Our investigation traced the sworn statements to the office of Mr. Wojtalewicz. The statements were notarized by Jodi Sterud, a notary employed by Mr. Wojtalewicz’s law firm, on September 22.

“I operated on the reasonable assumption that Ms. Barsness, her campaign chair Brian Wojtalewicz, and [DFL party chair] Dick Senese were acting together on behalf of the Barsness campaign. I am convinced that most newspaper editors would have made the same assumption.

“Ms. Barsness calls our endorsement of her opponent a conflict of interest. However, I doubt that the Star Tribune, Pioneer Press or New York Times would be willing to forgo endorsements of races they cover. Like most papers, we rigorously separate our news and editorial functions. Newspapers have a basic right to express political opinions.”

3. Of the letters, Morrison said: “We certainly did not deny access to Barsness. The only thing we refused to print was her campaign manager’s letter to the editor – which he wanted us to print on Election Day. We announced our letters deadline early, repeated it often, and stuck to it. We printed every pro-Barsness or anti-Westrom letter to the editor that we received by deadline. However, we did not print some of the pro-Westrom letters we received because there were so many of them.”

Morrison explained that the only restrictions his paper places on letters to the editor are that 1) the letter may not be libelous and 2) the letter must be from a subscriber. He said no letters received after the deadline were printed. Eight letters received before the deadline were not printed – one critical of Barsness, three in favor of Westrom, four for other races – because the writers didn’t live in the local area, weren’t subscribers, or the letters were submitted to multiple newspapers simultaneously.

Discussion: Media member Lee Canning asked if the paper had given written procedures to candidates at the beginning of the campaign season. Morrison said it did not have a document, but the paper did print notice of the letters deadline repeatedly.

Media member Pia Lopez asked Morrison how he anticipated Barsness would have an opportunity to respond to the October 29 editorial. Morrison said there was no perfect solution to this situation. “I had intended no new letters or editorials, but when the charges came out, I felt it was very important that someone address them. As it turned out, that left no opportunity for response.”

Several Council members were confused by the nature of the Westrom response, appearing as it did in a box on the editorial page. Barsness referred to it as an ad. Morrison said he did not consider it to be an ad or a letter. He explained that the paper had called Westrom on Monday the 26th to ask for his response to the serious charges being raised by the DFL. Westrom’s response was received on Wednesday the 28th at 2:15, only minutes before press time, too late to get into the news story. The paper decided to put the response on the editorial page, even though it was received after deadline for that page. Morrison considered it an exceptional case.

Media member Dave Hage asked Morrison if Barsness was also offered an opportunity to respond to the new information. Morrison said she was not.

Media member Don Shelby asked Morrison to explain his role in the newsroom. Morrison said he works in news, not advertising. He is 1/2 owner of the family-owned paper, founded in 1898. He works closely with the news reporter, and he sets editorial policy and writes editorials. He said the staff is too small to allow for a separation between editorial and news functions.

Shelby asked Morrison if his advice to the reporter writing the news story might have been tinged with editorial color. Morrison said it was not. Shelby asked if Morrison had directed the reporter to get both sides. Morrison said he had not, but in retrospect that would have been the prudent thing to do.

Media member Nancy Conner asked Morrison if he had tried to reach Barsness before writing the editorial. He said he had not. He said he assumed that the state DFL was acting in concert with the local campaign. Lopez pointed out that the ad and the press release were both from the DFL party, not the Barsness campaign. She asked Morrison what evidence there was that the local campaign was working in concert with the state party. Morrison said he had no evidence.

Media member Kathleen Stauffer asked Morrison what investigation was conducted and referred to in the editorial. Morrison said he investigated the origin of the sworn statements and the role of campaign manager, Brian Wojtalewicz, in obtaining the statements. “The campaign treated the sworn statements as God’s truth. The public may not understand what a sworn statement is. They assume it must be true. I think most people here (at the hearing) realize it may or may not be true.”

Barsness reiterated that she had never seen the ad, or the press release prior to Friday (the 23rd), and had not had anything to do with the creation or placement of either of them. Members asked Barsness what the relationship was between herself, her local campaign and the state DFL party. Barsness said this was her first campaign with political party endorsement and that she had received no money from the state DFL, but only attended a training session in July. She had been paired with a mentor, with whom she rarely spoke. She had never spoken with Dick Senese. She said that the state party had no input into her local campaign, or her local endorsement.”They concentrate on state officers, not local races,” she said.

Hage asked Barsness how the state DFL party came to know about the Westrom incident and to issue the press release. Barsness said she did not know; her campaign manager, Mr. Wojtalewicz, had probably given them a copy of the sworn statements. She believed her campaign chair may have been in contact with the state DFL and that he may have known about the ad submitted to the Appleton paper, but she did not. “I suppose they thought they were assisting me, but I didn’t want that.” Barsness said that when she knew (on the 26th or 27th) that the ad had been submitted to the Morris paper, she asked that it be pulled because she believed it was too negative for her campaign.

Public member Bill Diaz asked if the DoLI ever formally announced the fines. Barsness said it did not. The Herman Review had heard of the fines and Barsness gave that paper a copy of the statements, but they did not do a story about it. The Willmar paper had done a story. Barsness said she did not give the Morris paper a copy of the announcement because of a run-in they had had previously over ads.

Media member Monika Bauerlein asked Barsness in what way the Morris paper had made it look like she was lying. Barsness said that by inference, if the paper said her campaign manager, Brian Wojtalewicz, knew about the charges, then she knew. They could have called her, or Mr. Wojtalewicz’s office, to confirm who knew what and when.

Public member Willie Johnson, inquiring into Barsness’s complaint of sexist remarks, asked Morrison why he chose the word “shrill” to describe Barsness. Morrison said he looked up synonyms for strident, a word used in a prior story.

Deliberation: Bauerlein said she felt a great deal of sympathy for the struggles of a small weekly paper working with limited resources, especially when called upon to cover breaking news events. “Having had similar experiences, I’ve become very careful about carrying anything in the paper when there is no time to respond.”

Her recommendation to avoid charges of bias: “Draw the line and stick to that line.”

Shelby asked the Council to consider what it takes to show bias. He pointed to numerous stylistic problems in the articles, such as the quote marks around the term “October surprise,” which is unattributed. Stauffer pointed to unusual use of quote marks around the term “farm ‘crisis’,” in an earlier article about Barsness, implying that it is a matter of opinion whether there really is a farm crisis. Hage felt these inconsistencies did not rise to the level of bias but were examples of “extremely lazy reporting.”

When does sloppiness rise to the level of bias? Shelby pointed out that most of the third and fourth columns of the news story were lifted from Westrom’s defense statement. “The paper went to great lengths in defense of Westrom and, it seems, to explain (the problem) away.”

Further, Shelby believed the Sun/Tribune “failed the test of journalism and, in essence, libeled Hotovec and Jenson, by saying they lied under oath” when the paper quoted Westrom’s attorney saying some of Westrom’s political opponents have given false sworn statements. “Did you reach out to Hotovec and Jenson to ascertain if it was true?” Shelby asked.

Hage was concerned that the paper raised the issue of the “October surprise” in such a way that it served the interests of the Westrom campaign against Barsness, but he believed that it was an issue any reporter would feel the need to raise.

Media member Tony Carideo asked the Council to consider the package as a whole. The paper went to great lengths to allow Westrom to make a response, which they carried verbatim on the letters page, “but they didn’t go to extraordinary lengths for the [Barsness] campaign.” Carideo found the policy of publishing letters only from subscribers to be odd. Canning conceded it was a strange rule but had no problem with it as long as it was applied evenly.

As to the letters column, Canning told the paper he believed it owed its readers an explanation for bending its normal rules for printing letters. Conner agreed: “I don’t see why, if you ran Westrom’s response, you couldn’t run another response solicited from Ms. Barsness…. If you’re going to endorse candidates, it’s very important to be scrupulously fair in your letters column and in your news coverage.”

Public member Rachel Quenemoen, a rural sociologist from Dawson, Minnesota, commended the Sun/Tribune editor for tackling the issue. “Most small town papers avoid controversy like the plague, especially when time is critical…. How can we nurture every little paper across this state to be the wary watchdog that we need them to be?”

Bauerlein agreed: “I’m impressed that the Sun/Tribune tackled the issue. Your instincts on the timing were solid instincts. I’m troubled [by the publication of Westrom's response above], but I don’t quibble with the news story.”

Canning was similarly impressed: “The news story went far beyond most news stories in small papers. It was handled well, given the short time frame that the paper had to deal with. I would have felt better, however, if the paper had called Ms. Barsness.”

Canning was not so impressed with the editorial, however. “I am grossly disappointed by the language of the editorial. Where is your proof of these allegations? … You characterized Ms. Barsness in ways that were grossly unfair. As a member of the media I would apologize to [Barsness] in person.”

Further, Conner noted that if small papers don’t have enough staff or resources to maintain the desired wall between news and editorial, they should create hurdles between the two departments to ensure absolute fairness.

Closing Statements of Complainant and Respondent:

Barsness: Morrison said they had a policy of not attacking a candidate in the last issue, but that’s exactly what they did. My name was in the headline, not the DFL or Dick Senese. We – my campaign – had something to say. The paper needed to make an extra effort to get both sides, not just the side of their endorsed candidate.

Morrison: Nancy Barsness was responsible for the conduct of her campaign. If she didn’t approve of the actions taken by her campaign staff or the state DFL she should have disavowd it. She did not. She made no effort to distance herself.

“I don’t regret attacking the actions of the DFL. Ours is a minority position. If you look at the context of all the papers in our area, ours is the only one who took this point of view. Can this state handle one Republican columnist?”

 Determination:

1. On the question of whether the Sun/Tribune news story of 10/29/98 was biased against Barsness, the Council voted 9 to 9, neither upholding nor denying the complaint.

Voting to Uphold: Carideo, Conner, Costello, Diaz, Johnson, Keller, Shelby, Stauffer, Tilley
Voting to Deny: Bauerlein, Canning, Hage, Lopez, Neddermeyer, Quenemoen, Reister, Shulstad, Vang
Abstaining: Bailey
Recused: Schroeder
Presiding: Stringer

2. On the question of whether the 10/29/98 editorial was unfair to Barsness, the Council voted 14-4 to uphold the complaint.

Concurring: Bauerlein, Canning, Carideo, Conner, Costello, Diaz, Hage, Johnson, Keller, Lopez, Quenemoen, Reister, Tilley, Vang
Dissenting: Neddermeyer, Shelby, Shulstad, Stauffer
Abstaining: Bailey
Recused: Schroeder
Presiding: Stringer

3. On the question of whether the newspaper’s letters column gave her opponent an unfair advantage, the Council voted 16-2 to uphold the complaint.

Concurring: Bauerlein, Canning, Carideo, Conner, Costello, Diaz, Hage, Johnson, Keller, Lopez, Neddermeyer, Quenemoen, Schroeder, Shelby, Shulstad, Stauffer, Tilley, Vang
Dissenting: Canning, Reister
Abstaining: Bailey
Recused: Schroeder
Presiding: Stringer

Background: On October 31, 1996, the Fairlawn Mansion and Museum hosted a Murder Mystery Dinner. Guests were asked to dress and act as if it were 1918 and they were attending a Mother Goose costume party at the home of a wealthy widow, played by Martin. One woman attended the party in blackface and, as part of the evening’s program, recited the nursery rhyme “Ten Little Nigger Boys.”

On Thursday, November 7, News-Tribune reporter Chuck Frederick called Martin to ask about the Murder Mystery Dinner. Martin answered several of his questions, then asked why he was interested one week after the event had taken place. Frederick said the paper had received a complaint from one of the guests about the guest in blackface and he was working on a potential story.

On Friday, November 8, the News-Tribune published a story describing the Murder Mystery Dinner and reporting that a guest had attended in blackface and had won first prize for her costume. The story also reported that some guests and community members were offended by what they perceived as a racist incident. After reading the story, Martin faxed the paper a letter to the editor apologizing to anyone in the community who was offended by the guest’s blackface costume.

On Saturday, November 9, the News-Tribune published a follow-up news story about the event that contained quotes from Martin’s as-yet-unpublished letter to the editor. The same day, the paper ran an editorial denouncing the event at Fairlawn.

On Sunday, November 10, the News-Tribune published Martin’s letter to the editor. The paper published numerous other letters on the subject during the two months that followed the event, and stories about the controversy were published in papers around the country.

The Museum’s board of directors issued a press release on November 19 apologizing for the situation, but supporting Martin. On November 22, the News-Tribune published a story reporting that the NAACP was considering asking for Martin’s resignation. Two days later, the paper published an editorial criticizing the incident at Fairlawn, but saying Martin should not lose her job.

Complaint: Martin complained that the first news article was inaccurate and inflammatory, and that the ensuing coverage was unfair to her personally. She cited two errors as most damaging: the story’s lead paragraph reported that the guest in blackface won first prize when, in fact there was no first prize, every participant won a prize; and the version of “Ten Little Nigger Boys” quoted in the story was a different, more violent version than the one read at the event. She said the Duluth News-Tribune sensationalized and exploited the event at Fairlawn, causing great suffering to the community, to her organization, and to her professional reputation.

Martin also said the story lacked balance because it did not make clear that the guest’s actions were out of her control and that she did not know that a guest in blackface would be attending. She also complained that the story did not give her credit for upholding the guest’s First Amendment rights. Martin said that it was unfair that she, rather than the guest in blackface, became the focus of the coverage and that she was the subject of personal attacks in editorial cartoons. She rejected the paper’s contention that she became the focus because she declined to release the guest list; she said it was not her responsibility to do the paper’s reporting.

Martin also complained that her letter to the editor was used without her permission as part of the follow-up news story of November 9 and not published in full until November 10. She said she had no idea something like that could happen and was furious when it did. Martin said she submitted the letter to be published as her full statement to the community about the blackface costume, not to be presented in parts to suit the newspaper’s needs.

Response: The Duluth News-Tribune responded that it did not intend to hurt Martin personally or professionally, and denied that it sensationalized the story. Rather, the paper said, it was trying to find out the truth about a situation it deemed newsworthy, especially in the context of what it called its concerted effort to cover “subtle racism” in the Twin Ports area.

Managing Editor Gemoules said the paper placed the story on the front page because there had been a great deal of public discussion that summer about racism in the area, which has a population that is 97% white. The News-Tribune said it tried to keep the focus off Martin, but that was difficult because she kept the guests’ identities from the paper and she took responsibility for the incident by offering a public apology.

The News-Tribune said it took extra time to report this story because it was more important to be fair and accurate than to beat the competition. The paper said it received the call of complaint about the guest in blackface one week before it published the first story about the incident. The News-Tribune said the reporter used that time to develop the story and to put the incident in the context of local concerns about subtle racism and the national debate about dealing wiyth historical racism. The paper said it took the highly unusual step of reading the story to Martin prior to publication to ensure accuracy.

Regarding Martin’s complaint about excerpting her letter to the editor in the follow-up news story, the News-Tribune said the reporter called Martin for her comments for the follow-up news story. Martin declined to comment for publication, but said she was composing a letter to the editor that she would fax to the paper later that day. The editors’ considered the information contained within the letter so significant to the story that it would have been unfair to Martin not to include it in the story. The News-Tribune did not then run letters to the editor on Saturdays (the day the news story ran) and felt that it would be wrong to do so with her letter because readers would not know to look for it. Further, instead of allowing for the usual lag time between submission and publication of a letter, the paper said it spent extra time and money recomposing the Sunday editorial pages to publish Martin’s letter. Even more beneficial for Martin, it said, the paper’s Sunday circulation is significantly larger than on other days of the week.

Discussion: Council member Carol Pine asked Martin if she had reviewed the first news story before publication as the paper had claimed she had. Martin said she had not seen the story in full, but that when Frederick called back after interviewing her on November 7 to confirm that a story would appear on the next day’s front page, he read to her only the parts that quoted her. Council member Mollie Hoben asked theNews-Tribune when it had let Martin review the story in full. Frederick said that he let Martin read the story when he interviewed her in her office in the afternoon of November 7, he remembered, because it was the only time they had a face-to-face meeting. Martin disputed Frederick’s answer, saying that when he came to her office, he said he still did not know if the paper would publish a story.

Council member Don Smith asked Martin if she agreed that the event was newsworthy, and if so, how she would have liked to see it reported. Martin said she did not think the incident itself was newsworthy, but that it presented opportunities for good journalism — opportunities the newspaper missed. For example, she said, the paper could have explored the First Amendment rights of the guest in blackface who paid to attend the event in a public building, or what the private, non-profit organization hosting the event could have done had it considered the guest’s costume inappropriate, or how to present parts of history that offend people.

Council member Terry Thompson asked Martin to explain her reaction to the guest in blackface. Martin said that blackface offends her deeply, as she is a strong proponent of civil rights. She said that while she was horrified by the costume, she also had a job to do. Martin said that in keeping with her character, she asked the woman which nursery rhyme she was representing and the guest responded by showing her the copy of the poem, which was not the same as the one quoted in the paper.

Council member Dave Hage asked the News-Tribune if the version of the nursery rhyme quoted in the story was shown to Martin prior to publication. Frederick said several lines of the nursery rhyme were contained in the story that he showed to Martin, but conceded that it was later edited. He said he obtained that version of the nursery rhyme from the library and read it to the guest who complained and to the two anonymous sources, all of whom agreed that that was the poem the guest in blackface recited at the event.

Martin responded that Frederick did not read to her excerpts of the poem contained in the story, that he said only the title of the poem and asked her if that was the poem the guest in blackface had read. She responded yes because she did not know there were different versions of the poem until she read the paper the next day.

Council member Nedra Wicks asked the paper if it had sought out a spokesperson other than Martin; for example, the president of the Museum’s board of directors. Frederick said that he contacted as many board members as he could, but none was at the party or knew about the incident, and they referred him back to Martin.

Council member Tom Keller asked the paper why, if it took an entire week to ensure the accuracy of its report, it led the story with the inaccurate fact that the blackface costume won first prize. Frederick said the paper maintains that fact is accurate because the guest who complained told him that the guest in blackface had won a prize for best costume; a fact that he said two anonymous sources and Martin all corroborated.

Council member Laurisa Sellers asked the paper to explain its policy on using unnamed sources. Managing Editor Gemoules said that generally the paper frowns on using unnamed sources but may use them if they have first-hand knowledge of the information they’re providing and if he knows the sources’ names. Gemoules also pointed out that this story did not quote unnamed sources, but used them only to corroborate information given by on-the-record sources.

Council member Maureen Reeder asked the News-Tribune if it traditionally excerpts parts of letters to the editor in news stories. Editorial page editor Jim Heffernan said that that issue doesn’t come up very often, but that it has happened before. On the infrequent occasions when he receives a letter to the editor pertaining to a hot news item, he said, he will take it to the news editors for their consideration and possible use. Reeder then asked the news editors if they traditionally ask for a writer’s permission to use a letter to the editor in a news story. City Editor Aggergaard said that during his years with the News-Tribune this was the first time he was faced with such a situation. Heffernan added that the paper considers anything written to it usable on receipt, and that readers understand that letters may be edited for style and syntax.

Martin responded that she never would have expected her letter to the editor to be used in the news pages. Having said that, Martin said that Heffernan had told her it usually takes several days before a letter to the editor is printed, and she appreciated that he made the effort to publish it in Sunday’s paper.

Council member Syl Jones asked the paper if, in the future, it would excerpt letters to the editor in news stories without a writer’s permission. Gemoules answered yes, and clarified that in this case, when the reporter called Martin for her comments for the follow-up news story, he reasonably interpreted Martin’s statement that she was submitting a letter to the editor to mean that her comments could be taken from her letter.

Council member Ann Barkelew asked the paper if it considered other ways of running Martin’s letter to the editor on the news page, such as running it in full in a separate box, as the Star Tribune had done recently with a letter from Louise Erdrich about a story on her late husband Michael Dorris. Gemoules answered that virtually all of Martin’s letter was quoted in the story, though not together in one place. He said at the time they didn’t feel obligated to run the whole letter but, in retrospect, they could have.

Council member Jim Pumarlo told Martin he appreciated that she did not expect to see parts of her letter to the editor in the news story, but asked her what harm it had done. Martin responded that it was unfair for the paper to excerpt her letter because in so doing, it ceased to be a complete statement by her, but rather was used by the paper to fit its needs.

Deliberation: Wicks said that she would have liked the paper to expand accountability for what happened at the Fairlawn event. Reeder agreed, saying the paper placed the blame for what happened only on Martin when it could have asked why other guests or employees didn’t speak up at the event. Barkelew countered that when Martin refused to release the guest list or the name of the guest in blackface, she allowed for fewer sources that could have taken the focus off of her.

Smith said he felt the incident was a news story that needed to be printed. “I don’t believe the article itself was inflammatory, I think it’s an issue that inflames the public,” he said. “You can’t write about it without reaction, and I’m impressed with the balance in the coverage.” Council member John Kostouros agreed: “This was one of the better jobs I’ve seen in a long time,” he said. “These things stir up a hornets nest.”

Jones said that as a person of color (he is African-American), he found it frightening that a situation like this had happened. “It’s also frightening that the paper can’t even identify who did it, and that parts of the community, including you, Ms. Martin, cover up who did it.” Jones acknowledged that the paper was trying to do a good job of covering the issue, but was handicapped by not having more people of color on staff to inform its discussion.

Sellers said that while she didn’t think the news coverage was unfair, she also didn’t think it was a great story. She said the paper missed a lot of opportunities, as Martin had pointed out.

Kostouros said that although he could understand why Martin wanted her letter published it its entirety, he could not see the problem with how it was used, considering it quoted her letter accurately. Smith agreed, saying its use actually made a stronger argument for fairness in that her statement was published twice. Hage said he has worked in both news and editorial departments and is “troubled by leakage through the firewall.” In this case, however, he was satisfied that the paper was acting in good faith.

Pumarlo said he could understand how the reporter could have interpreted Martin’s letter to the editor as comments for publication. However, had the situation occurred at his paper, the Red Wing Republican Eagle, he said he would have published the full letter alongside the news story on Saturday and would have disclosed that it would appear in the letters-to-the-editor section on Sunday.

Other members were troubled by the use of Martin’s letter to the editor in the follow-up news story. Reeder said that readers think of the news and editorial departments as separate entities. “I know if I’m not happy with the news, I can go to the editorial page,” she said. “It lessens my trust in the editorial page if I think my opinions may be shuffled over to the news department.” Reeder added that she would not be so bothered if the news editors had obtained Martin’s permission.

Hoben sympathized with Martin and other news sources who submit letters to the editor. She said after cooperating with a paper’s agenda and pace, she could understand why news sources would want their letters to be published in full as their statements, separate from the confines of news stories.

Sellers agreed with Hoben. “I think of the editorial page as the place where I have my say,” she said. “I appreciate the paper’s good faith, but I assume (that page) is for me.”

Determination: The Council voted to deny the complaint that the Duluth News-Tribune’s coverage of the Fairlawn event and its aftermath was unfair to Rachael Martin, director of the Fairlawn Mansion and Museum.

Concurring: Amaris, Barkelew, Hage, Hoben, Jones, Kostouros, LeGrand, Pine, Pumarlo, Reeder, Sellers, Smith, Thompson, Wicks
Dissenting: Keller
Abstaining: Anderson

The Council voted to uphold the complaint that it was unethical for the Duluth News-Tribune to quote in a news story from Martin’s as-yet-unpublished letter to the editor.

Concurring: Amaris, Barkelew, Hoben, Jones, Keller, Reeder, Sellers, Thompson
Dissenting: Hage, Kostouros, LeGrand, Pine, Pumarlo, Smith, Wicks
Abstaining: Anderson

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dissenting: Kostouros

Abstaining: Anderson, Cytron, LeGrand, Smith, Stanley

The St. Paul Port Authority complained that a June 30, 1993 article:

• Misled the public through disregard for technical precision on matters of public financing in general and the Port Authority in particular. The article repeatedly misinformed and misled readers about the prospect of a bond default and improperly used legal and financial terminology. The article stated that a bond default was imminent and that the Port Authority was doing nothing to solve the problem. And it continually linked the future of the 876 bond fund to that of the Port Authority at large, and failed to distinguish between the two.
• Presented an unbalanced, alarmist and snide view of the agency and an irresponsible report of the City of St. Paul’s financial exposure as a result of Port Authority activities. The 876 fund has no impact on the City of St. Paul, its borrowing capacity, or bond rating. The City is not obligated to repay the bonds and no tax money has been lost or spent on repossessed projects or on efforts to restructure the 876 fund. The Port Authority contends that the article was the journalistic and moral equivalent of yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater just to watch the reaction.
• Contained numerous factual errors, specifically:
  • Paragraph 6 statement that negotiations had not yet paid off.
  • Paragraph 23 implication that the Galtier Plaza retail center was unloaded at a loss.
  • Paragraph 35 statement that the Port Authority wanted large investors to take hefty cuts in interest payments and to write off some of the principal on their investments.
  • Paragraph 39 statement that bondholders should be prepared for a default with no interest and no refund of principal.
  • Paragraph 48, which quoted Mayor Scheibel that the Port Authority had turned the corner, providing no justification for the conclusion reached later.
  • Paragraph 54 makes clear for the first time that the main bond fund is not the Port Authority as a whole, and that a default of the 876 fund may not bring down the entire organization.
• The Port Authority complains that its letter to the editor was cut so drastically as to be unrecognizable.

Response of the news organization: City Pages asserts, in general, that its article was correct and that disagreements could have been avoided had an official of the Port Authority granted the reporter’s requests for an interview. (The Port Authority said it declined requests for an interview because it was in the midst of negotiating with bondholders of the 876 fund and did not want to compromise that process.)

City Pages responses to the specific complaints: “The default scenario has been discussed by investors, politicians and Port Authority officials since at least the late 1980s. Last year the main bond fund rating was lowered to CCC (a rating bond traders characterize as “among the junkiest of junk bonds”) specifically in response to concerns of default. The story does link the future of the 876 fund to that of the Port Authority, but it is hardly the first time this connection has been made. The 876 fund makes up the vast majority of the Authority’s portfolio, and practically every story published about the P.A. for the last five years treats 876′s future as the most important issue facing the Authority as a whole.

“The story never claimed that the city was legally obligated for repayment of the bonds, but it would be disingenuous not to acknowledge the political and economic impact the Port’s situation has had, and will continue to have, on the City as whole. Back in 1991, City Council member Bob Long proposed a council takeover of the Port because, as the Star Tribune put it, ‘the Port Authority might have to levy a tax to raise operating funds in the near future. Having a non-elected board levy a tax, Long said, amounts to taxation without representation.’

“The Port Authority is taking umbrage at issues that are neither new nor implausible. If City Pages is guilty of yelling “Fire!” in a crowded theater, so are many other reporters, politicians and observers.”

Specific errors:

• Paragraph 6: “It’s public knowledge that the first restructuring proposal was flatly rejected by bondholders. A second proposal was being negotiated at the time the article appeared; specifics did not emerge until November 10, 1993. Since Port Authority officials would not speak to us, all we had to go on in characterizing the negotiations was information from bondholders and experts, who assured us that no agreement had been reached.”
• Paragraph 23: “The article does not say that the Port lost money on the retail portion of Galtier Plaza. It specifically distinguishes between the retail and housing parts of the project, in paragraph 24.”
• Paragraph 35: “It is not a misstatement of fact to say that the Port wants institutional investors to take cuts in interest and principal. Whether both were included in the Port’s original plan or not, the plan eventually put forward by the Port had three options, which included cuts in interest, cuts in principal, or both.”
• Paragraph 39: “According to our sources… there is no way to establish for sure just what any given bondholder’s ‘allocable distribution of cash flow’ would constitute….. Few of our sources feel there would be sufficient reserves to pay out a great deal of principal, and some claim there might not be enough for interest payments either….. We would have been happy to include the P.A.’s own predictions for the default scenario; unfortunately, that was not possible due to the Authority’s refusal to grant our reporter an interview.”
• Paragraph 48: “The Port’s disagreement with the sources’ and the writer’s conclusions would have been properly addressed through your making comments in the article itself.”
• Paragraph 54: “…Investors perceive the fate of the P.A. and the fate of 876 as linked, officials do, reporters do, and even P.A. managers probably do. According to the latest financials we had access to, 876 makes up close to $300 million, or 68% of the P.A.’s total $441 million in outstanding loans. That’s why it is typically referred to as ‘the Port’s major bond fund.”

Managing editor Monika Bauerlein said that the letter the Port Authority sent to City Pages was eight single-spaced, typewritten pages… longer than their entire letters column. She didn’t feel the complaints were substantive enough to deserve the entire column, but she did try to edit it to preserve the essence of the complaints.

Discussion: The financial matters under discussion in this article were very technical. The reporter had prior business experience and contacted numerous sources, but did not receive an interview from any Port Authority official. Strand said that he offered to send background material to the reporter’s home and offered help with technical matters but would not go on the record. He said he never heard back from the reporter once he turned him down for the interview. Bauerlein said that the reporter understood that there would be no discussion, on the record or off. There appeared to have been a miscommunication between the Port Authority and the reporter.

Strand was asked if it was the Port’s public obligation to give information. He replied that as a quasi-governmental organization, it is required to make information public in a timely and appropriate manner. In this case, an absolute information blackout was in place until negotiations were complete.

The Port Authority charges that the story focused on ancient history and ignored positive recent steps. City Pages was asked what steps it had taken to ensure balance and to get rebuttal. Perry said the paper didn’t feel that it needed “he said, she said” rebuttal on this kind of story. It was analysis, not investigative news reporting. While fairness is still important, so is the analysis. “This is what we do… it’s news with an attitude.” He pointed out that the article did include a paragraph about new directions. City Pages did, in the next issue, correct an error regarding Bandana Square after it was cited by the Port Authority.

Strand was asked if he really expected his entire lengthy letter to be published as is, and he acknowledged that he did not, but he said he did expect better. City Pages publishes four letters a week, averaging 300 words, but does not publish a letters policy. When Bauerlein was asked if it would not have been more appropriate to return the letter and ask for a shorter version she said that that would have been a good idea.

Determination: Complaints 1, 2 and 3 - misleading the public, presenting an unbalanced, alarmist picture, and publishing specific errors of fact – were combined. The Council voted unanimously to deny the grievance that the article was unfair in presenting the role and financial status of the Port Authority. Council member Barry Cytron found the headline “The Junk Bonds that Ate St. Paul” to be inaccurate because it referred to St. Paul and not the Port Authority. It was generally agreed that the silence of the Port Authority contributed to the likelihood of errors occurring.

Concurring: Cytron, Graham, Handberg, Hoben, Keirnan, Kostouros, Parker, Pennock, Pumarlo, Reeder, Smith, Sorensen, Stanley, Thompson, Wicks

Abstaining: LeGrand

Determination on Complaint 4: The Council voted to uphold the grievance that the letter from the Port Authority in response to the article was treated unfairly. A significant article needs space for a rebuttal. Council member Kate Stanley, Star Tribune editorial writer, said that papers run letters columns very differently and that City Pages’ standards were reasonable and not unfair. Council member John Kostouros, freelance writer, suggested that the best way to deal with a very long letter is to send it back to the writer and request a shortened version. Editor Bauerlein agreed that this was a good alternative, particularly considering the time and effort it required to edit the eight-page letter.

Concurring: Cytron, Graham, Handberg, Hoben, Kostouros, Parker, Pennock, Pumarlo, Reeder, Thompson, Wicks

Dissenting: Keirnan, Smith, Sorensen, Stanley

Abstaining: LeGrand

Attending the hearing were Brooklyn Center City Council candidate Dan Reiva, and the NorthWest News editor, Roxana Benjamin and publisher Pat Milton.

Background: Dan Reiva was a candidate for the City Council of Brooklyn Center in the 1992 election year. He remained in the race through the primary, but lost in the general election.

In a letter attacking Reiva, published in the last issue before the election, the former mayor of Brooklyn Center, Dean Nyquist, said, in part:

“Back in May of 1989, three people, two of them being acknowledged atheists, appeared before the city council to demand that invocation before council meetings be abolished. One of those three is one of the present candidates for council. Dan Reiva stated, ‘I guarantee this will be an election issue if you don’t stop doing this now.’”

Reiva, a Roman Catholic, acknowledged that he did indeed oppose the invocations in 1989, but said it was because the mayor limited it to his own religion. In the years since the mayor left office, invocations have come from diverse clergy and Reiva has no objections. Reiva contended that the NorthWest News knew he was not an atheist and so was unfair in allowing the letter to run and in not clarifying his true position. He said citizens slammed the doors in his supporters’ faces, saying they’d never vote for an atheist. He also objected to the publication of the letter because it raised a new issue at the last minute and he had no opportunity to respond.

Media outlet’s response: Editor Roxana Benjamin acknowledged that the letter was vague and could be misinterpreted, but pointed out that between the primary and general elections she had published a letter from Reiva stating that he was a Christian and expressing his views on the issue. She denied that the Nyquist letter raised a new issue, saying that the issue dated back to the 1989 dispute over the invocation.

Benjamin told the Council that she does not edit letters except when she finds false statements. Publisher Milton said that Nyquist’s letter arrived just before press time and in the flurry of activity, and with only a one-person editorial staff, the letter did not get the attention it needed.

In response to the complaint of the “hostile” editor’s note, Benjamin said that adding a response is her right. The letter addressed the newspaper directly and required a response.The editor said the NorthWest News does not publish all letters received, and tries not to duplicate letters that are published in another newspaper circulated in the same area. She contended that the paper did not, in fact, receive the number of letters in support of Reiva that he said were sent (12). She acknowledged not publishing some letters sent by Reiva and his supporters for lack of space and duplication in a competing paper. The editor said she chose to delete information critical of Nyquist, and it was her editorial prerogative to do so. She said the issue had no bearing on this complaint.

Discussion and Determination Complaint 1: On the complaint of unfair practices by publishing a misleading letter to the editor on the eve of the election when the candidate had no time to respond, the Council upholds the grievance. Several News Council members said that they had worked for small papers and sympathized with the challenge such outlets face, particularly as an election nears, but said that Nyquist’s letter should have alerted any editor to danger.

“Calling someone an atheist in a community where religion is so controversial is a serious matter,” said Council member John Kostouros, a freelance writer. “You’re getting some hard lessons on the big role a small paper can play.” He encouraged Benjamin to announce a policy on letters and not to publish attacks that candidates have no time to answer in print before an election. Council member Donald Smith, editor and publisher of the Monticello Times, said, “A policy that you run unedited letters is dangerous. But when you do change a letter, the writer has a right to know how it’s going to be published.”

Andy Hilger, Council member and radio station owner in St. Cloud, dissented from the majority opinion, stating, “I’m uneasy about editors (tampering) with free expressions, as in Nyquist’s letter. The paper made an effort to (provide) balance” (with Reiva’s later letter).

Council member Kate Stanley, editorial writer at the Star Tribune, said that her paper’s policy on letters is this: It ends critical letters on Friday before an election, reserves Saturday for responses to attacks, and keeps out such letters through election Tuesday.

Concurring: Hoben, Kostouros, Larson, Parrish, Smith, Stanley, LeGrand, Orwoll, Pennock, Pine, Simonett, Swain, Tanick

Dissenting: Hilger, Parker

Complaint 2: On the issue of overall bias in campaign coverage, the News Council denies the grievance. The Council felt that the paper had made an effort to balance the controversy. While there was some uneasiness with coverage before the primary, particularly with the letter mentioned above, coverage after the primary was generally fair. Here, the grievance is denied. 

Concurring: Hilger, Hoben, Kostouros, Larson, Parrish, Smith, Stanley, LeGrand, Orwoll, Parker, Pennock, Pine, Simonett, Swain, Tanick

Background: The Tri-County Record, located in Fillmore County, serves the communities of Rushford and Peterson, which have a combined population of about 2,000. For some years this weekly newspaper has devoted one of its inside pages to a religious column and church announcements. At the request of the editor, the pastors of the various churches in the area have taken turns writing a religious message, which at times is quite doctrinal in content. Many of the churches in the area are Lutheran, but there are churches of most denominations, and the pastors of all have been invited to submit columns. The religion page is supported at least in part by advertisers.

At Thanksgiving, Christmas, and Easter, the newspaper has devoted its front page, or a large part of it, to the significance of the day, using art work in color, and featuring a religious message from one of the local pastors.

Charles H. Jones, a local resident, claims the newspaper promotes a “one-sided” religious message in an “ostensibly secular newspaper,” and that this one-sided emphasis is offensive to those readers in the area who either are not religious or who entertain differing non-Christian religious beliefs.

On November 30, 1989, a column appeared in the newspaper written by a local Baptist minister entitled “Being a fanatic for Christ.” Jones responded with a letter to the editor taking sharp issue with portions of the column. The Tri-County Record published this letter on December 28, 1989, with an editor’s note, “Mr. Jones states he has a masters degree in human development counseling, and a masters degree in applied theology.”

On February 8,1990, the newspaper published a column by a local Lutheran pastor entitled “Love.” A week later Jones submitted a two-page letter to the editor disputing – respectfully but vigorously – the point of view expressed in the column. His letter, for example, cited the views of a noted theologian Martin Buber on the meaning of love. Not until June 7, 1990, four months later and after some prodding, did the newspaper publish Jones’ letter with the headline, “Writer disagrees with Biblical interpretation.” Alongside the letter was also published a response by the author of the column, with the headline “Pastor offers refutation using the same scripture.” Jones objects to the long delay in the publishing of his letter as well as the publishing of a rebuttal giving the pastor the last word.

Discussion: First of all, grievant claims that the newspaper has published “only a very few” of his letters. Jones had submitted seven letters. The Council does not believe a newspaper is required to publish all letters submitted to it by a particular writer, particularly when they are on the same general subject. Much is left to editorial discretion. We do not think it can be said here that Jones was denied reasonable access to the letters-to-the-editor portion of the newspaper to express his views. To put it another way, the newspaper was not required to make the grievant, in effect, a guest columnist to contend with every article written by its regular columnists.

The editor’s note to Jones’ letter stated Jones “states” he has two master’s degrees. Jones contends, rightly we think, that the editor’s use of the verb “states” suggests that the newspaper doubts the writer’s educational credentials. The editor assures us that he intended to be complimentary. The use of the verb “states” was inept, but we are satisfied no harm was intended. If an editor is in doubt about a writer’s educational degrees, it seems to us either she editor should verify the information as correct or incorrect and so state, or omit mention of the matter entirely. In this case, we repeat, Jones’ educational degrees are not questioned.

It is within an editor’s discretion whether to accompany a published letter with a response from the person criticized in that letter. This should be done in a fair manner. In this case we think the exchange of views published in the issue of June 7, 1990, was a fair exchange and of reader interest. It was not proper, however, for the newspaper to delay publishing Jones’ letter for four months. The editor points out the delay was occasioned by the pastor’s tardiness in submitting his response and that the subject matter of Jones’ letter had not lost its timeliness because of the delay. Even so, the editor has acknowledged he should not have delayed publication of Jones’ letter and he has apologized.

Finally, the grievant contends that the newspaper gives undue prominence to the Christian religion, particularly to certain Christian doctrines. One effect of this, says the grievant, is to isolate persons of other religious beliefs or those with no religious beliefs as a distinct minority within the community. Because religion is such a personal matter, he also contends overemphasis of one particular viewpoint can be uncomfortable to others of different faiths.

Newspapers in this country are not state-owned and, therefore, are not subject to the constitutional doctrine of separation of church and state. The Tri-County Record is privately owned and published. While it considers itself to be a newspaper for general circulation, it is free to publish whatever religious messages it chooses. Significantly, the Tri-County Record prints the religious columns on a separate page, separate from the general news reports. The newspaper does have, we think, a responsibility to be sensitive to the deeply felt religious concerns of all its readers and to provide a forum for the expression of different views.

Not every newspaper would give religious columns the prominence given by the Tri-County Record. It appears, however, that the newspaper generally reflects the interests of the community it serves. The religious messages, we are told, have a high readership. The columns themselves make clear that they represent the views of the author, not necessarily that of the newspaper. The special front page issues at Thanksgiving, Christmas, and Easter, says the editor, “serve as a desirable contrast to the normal malaise of government, sports, and meetings; we do not have murder and mayhem in Rushford.” Finally, we are persuaded that the editor is sincere in his efforts to publish a newspaper that is fair and ethical and sensitive to the diversity of personal beliefs in the community. We do not understand Jones to complain so much about the Tri-County Record publishing religious messages, but rather he believes the content of these messages should be more diverse. The two published letters of Jones, even though one was quite long, were published intact. This evidences, we think, the editor’s sensitivity to the views of others which may differ from the more prevailing views in the community. The editor states he is aware of Jones’ concerns, and, within the bounds of responsible editorial discretion, we believe he has given Jones access to the letters-to-the-editor page.

Subject to the comments expressed above with respect to the delayed publishing of Jones’ letter and the editor’s note about the letterwriter’s credentials, the grievance is denied.

Concurring: Ashmore, Chucker, Dornfeld, Givens, King, Larson, Pennock, Simonett, Stauffer, Swain, Tanick, Warder