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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Vote:

Complaint #1 was denied (14/0)

Complaint #2 was denied (13/1)

Complaint #3 was denied (11/3)

Background: In early 1999, WCCO began investigating a story on deficiencies in the state Health Department’s ability to monitor complaints about the quality of care in nursing homes. The series focused, initially, on the complaints of a niece of an Alzheimer’s patient; the niece contended that St. Therese nursing home neglected her aunt’s care and that the Department of Health failed to investigate her complaints promptly and adequately.

WCCO took an undercover camera into the nursing home and videotaped residents in a common area of the dementia unit. One resident, Charlie Winkler, drew the attention of the reporter because he had a bruise on his face as a result of an accidental fall days earlier. The photographer documented his injuries on video that was later used in the broadcast series, which aired July 22 and 23.

Winkler’s daughters were upset to see their father on television, without their knowledge and approval. Winkler’s daughters sent a letter to the Council in support of the position of the nursing home, but did not join in the complaint. 

Complaint: Bredenberg charged that WCCO:

1. Entered the nursing home (a private residence) and photographed a (vulnerable adult) resident without permission, thus invading his privacy.

2. Produced a story that was inaccurate and misleading and resulted in a picture of the nursing home as providing inadequate care:

a) Presented the complaints of the niece without mentioning the results of Health Department investigations that denied the accuracy of those complaints;

b) Created the impression that two residents had died as a result of neglect when they had, in fact, died from natural causes;

c) Reported that a 96-year-old resident had had a significant weight loss without reporting that weight loss often accompanies the dying process and that the nursing home had taken steps to minimize her weight loss.

Response: WCCO responded:

1. The station appropriately reported on Winkler’s condition after discovering that the state had cited the home for negligence in connection with his fall. The producer of the series had extensive phone conversations with one of Winkler’s daughters. The station says the daughter told the producer she believed her father’s fall contributed to his death and said she thought all nursing homes should have surveillance cameras to document such incidents. The station did not, however, report this opinion, but instead relied upon the documented findings of the state.

2. The series was not inaccurate or misleading and did not create a misimpression of the nursing home, despite Bredenberg’s refusal to grant an on-camera interview (he did participate in off-air phone interviews):

a) The niece brought to the station many complaints about her aunt’s care, but the station broadcast only those in which a public record supported her claims. The story accurately reported results of several state investigations and included statements that St. Therese Home does not have a history of serious violations and that the state did not consider the nursing home to be a “chronic poor performer.”

b) The series did not characterize the deaths of the two residents as caused by inadequate care, but only reported the complaint process in chronological order and the fact that both residents in question died shortly after the Health Department investigative reports came out.

c) There is ample documentation to support the niece’s contention that her aunt experienced a significant decline in body weight, including an April 2 Health Department report. While the nursing home now says this weight loss was the result of the dying process, in April it denied a significant weight loss had occurred and then attributed the problem to incorrect calibration of scales. 

Addenda: The daughters of Winkler responded to WCCO’s response by sending a letter, dated October 20, to the News Council in which they wrote, in part:

“[The News Director] stated that WCCO did not violate Mr. Winkler’s privacy by taping him. Mr. Winkler was not in a public place. He was at his home! Your reporter was not given permission to take pictures inside St. Therese. She would not make it known [that she was there videotaping] before the report aired because she knew it would not be allowed by the family.

“We want to make it clear that we believe the incident [that was reported] about our father was an unfortunate accident. We never had any intention of filing a complaint against St. Therese. We were not told about or asked about filming our father by anyone from WCCO-TV. We are greatly offended by this invasion of privacy.”

Discussion: Bredenberg took issue with WCCO’s statement that it videotaped Winkler in a public space within the nursing home. He said the nursing home is a private residence and there is no public space within a private residence. While visitors are welcome, he said, all are asked to sign in and out (though it is not mandatory) and neither the reporter nor producer signed in. He said the home would have asked the reporter to leave the premises if it had known she was there.

Bredenberg said residents have a legal right to privacy in long-term care facilities and it is part of St. Therese’s mission to protect the privacy and dignity of its residents. Jim Williams, Director of Communications for the Minnesota Health & Housing Alliance, speaking on behalf of the nursing home, said a vulnerable adult (a legal designation) has rights that a nursing home has a duty to protect, including a right to privacy. He said that no one can film within a facility without permission.

Bredenberg said negative stories about nursing homes are common and follow a pattern that the WCCO story also followed. They typically employ a visual analogy to a prison: grainy, out-of-focus, black-and-white images; shots down long corridors; images shot through fences or closed doors or with fences in the background (chosen to suggest prison bars), repeated shots of wheelchair wheels. He pointed to one scene in which the reporter is holding a copy of the Health Department report that for no apparent reason has shadows like bars falling across the page. He pointed out that all positive statements made by the reporter during the report were immediately followed by rebuttals.

Bredenberg said that Winkler’s accident was an unfortunate incident that the nursing home had itself reported to the Health Department (as part of mandatory reporting procedures); the daughters had not made a complaint. As such, it was unrelated to the purpose of the news story, which was to examine lax investigation of complaints to the Health Department.

Gary Gilson, the Council’s executive director, summarized the position of WCCO, that the story was not about St. Therese home, in particular, but was really about the state’s inability to adequately monitor all facilities, which is clear from the many quotes the station gathered from state officials admitting as much. The station says that it did not sensationalize the story, but eliminated opinion from the piece and relied purely upon documented reports of lapses of care that led them to question some of the nursing home’s contentions. Further, WCCO said, its reporting of the story was hampered by the fact that Bredenberg declined to be videotaped.

Bredenberg said he refused to go on camera because he didn’t trust the station and he thought the producer would bring in a hidden camera to videotape the facility when she came to interview him. He said he did spend 20-30 minutes on the phone with the producer and tried to put the incidents in question into context. He said when the producer initially called to tell him she was doing a piece on the Health Department and wanted a local perspective he said no. She called three or four times, giving him different reasons why he should appear on camera, and he would not agree. At no time did she tell him she had entered or would enter the building to videotape. Bredenberg said he never spoke to a reporter, only to the producer.

After the series aired, the nursing home checked the logs and did not find any WCCO sign-ins. No one on the staff or in the dementia unit knew when the station’s staffer might have been there. Some Council members found it troubling that the nursing home did not know who was in the facility. Bredenberg said the staff does not scrutinize visitors, that the nursing home is a home and they want it to have a comfortable, welcoming atmosphere. He said there had been times when people had acted inappropriately and had been asked to leave, but a reporter’s mere presence on the premises does not constitute inappropriate behavior.

Media member Nancy Conner asked if camera use, per se, was allowed. Bredenberg said the home had written guidelines: taking pictures of relatives is not a problem, but when taking pictures of anyone outside the family the photographer would have to get permission and a signed release form and have to explain how the photograph would be used.

Bredenberg was asked if Winkler was capable of communicating his consent. Bredenberg said Winkler was on the dementia unit and no one on that unit is in a position to give informed consent.

Williams was asked how St. Therese home compared with other nursing homes in Minnesota. Williams said that there have been well publicized cases of troubled homes, but that St. Therese is not among them. Media member Dave Hage pointed out that the Health Department had upheld three complaints against St. Therese home in a short period of time. He asked if this was unusual. Williams said no, it depended upon the deficiencies, that some are more significant than others. Bredenberg explained the Scope and Severity Scale by which every deficiency is measured and said that the St. Therese home deficiencies were not severe.

Media member Pia Lopez asked Bredenberg and Williams to step outside their own experience for a moment to consider how, if a news organization wanted to do a report on nursing homes and state regulations, it might do such a story and get images.

Williams said he has 10 years of experience working extensively with the media, but this was the first time he’d known of a station “violating people’s rights… If a person with decision-making authority says, ‘Come on in and film,’ then they have the right to do so. It’s no different from a private home under the law.”

Bredenberg said he had worked with two film crews at previous nursing homes doing different kinds of stories and that they had had good working relationships, so he had allowed them to come in.

Council members asked Bredenberg to clarify aspects of the three Health Department reports. Bredenberg said the reports were quoted accurately in the news story, but that the findings were not as significant as they might seem to someone who did not understand the complex and legalistic language used by the Health Department. For example, he spoke to the producer at length about the definition of “significant weight loss,” which state regulations define as a loss of five percent within one month or ten percent within six months. The resident had a seven percent weight loss in three months, which the surveyor decided to judge as a violation, although the nursing home contends that it was legally in compliance and it had documented efforts to help the resident maintain her weight.

Public member Rachel Quenemoen asked if a delay in the Health Department’s investigation was an issue in any of the cases cited in the report. Bredenberg said it was not (Bredenberg disagrees with the niece’s belief that her 96-year-old aunt died from poor care; the death certificate lists the cause of death as natural causes).

Public member Jon Schroeder asked Bredenberg and Williams to comment on WCCO’s contention that this story had a different purpose from the typical nursing-home exposé: to help people with vulnerable relatives who need to move into a nursing home decide on a home, and explain to them how to file a complaint if there are problems with care.

Williams said the station got that aspect of its story right: complaints to the Health Department do take too long to be investigated and resolved. There are new federal mandates to shorten that period but the Department simply does not have the number of people it needs to conduct investigations within the time the new legislation requires. Williams agreed that there was some public service value to the series and said he could understand why the station needed examples to illustrate its story.

Bredenberg said he had no doubt that the story had public service value and he had no complaint with the second part of the series, except that many people didn’t see it and focused on the first part, the St. Therese portion.

Bredenberg said the impact of the story increased over time. Within an hour of the report airing on July 22, the nursing home received a bomb threat from a person who mentioned seeing the WCCO story, and the residents had to be evacuated. A few days later, a doctor told Bredenberg that a family had decided to place an elderly member at a different home, one that the doctor had not recommended, because they saw the report. Later, when the nursing home engaged in fundraising for the dementia unit, it received several angry responses to its appeal, all mentioning the WCCO story.

Bredenberg said he brought the complaint on the part of the family of Mr. Winkler, the staff of the nursing home and the other residents. “It’s our duty to protect our patients. I’m just trying to do the right thing.”

Deliberation: Media member Elizabeth Costello, a television reporter, questioned the use of a hidden camera: “I’m not saying the story shouldn’t have been done… but the hidden camera is different… Using a hidden camera in a nursing home is much different than in a Food Lion case. A nursing home is someone’s private home. I know, as a journalist, that you can’t take a camera into someone’s home. That’s what concerns me.”

WCCO’s contended that it did not create an impression that the incidents in the complaints against the home caused the residents’ deaths. Costello disagreed. At least in one incident, she felt the report did imply that was the case. She also said it was clear to her that the family did not give permission for their father to be taped.

Media member Tony Carideo asked if it was possible to invade the privacy of a dead man. Monika Bauerlein, another media member, pointed out that while privacy is a new right in Minnesota, that is a legal discussion and the News Council is concerned with the ethics of the case, not the law. “Our decision is made on our own moral judgment and our professional standards, which may be different from what the courts would say.”

Bauerlein said she did not feel the story was sensationalized: it had no scary music behind it and it did not show people in embarrassing private moments.

Pia Lopez asked if the images couldn’t have been gathered in another way, for example, as Williams suggested, by asking the Winkler family for permission. But Rachel Quenemoen wondered what the point was in seeking the images [of Winkler] in the first place. The focus of the story was on tardiness of investigations of complaints, but there had been no complaint filed in the first place, only an incident report.

Public member Tom Keller was concerned that the nursing home’s deficiencies were not put into context within the nursing home industry or within the context of that one facility.

Media member Kathleen Stauffer believed WCCO was justified in examining Winkler’s case: “I’m troubled that he was a vulnerable adult. The community needs to look out for vulnerable adults… For someone to be in the visiting room and not be asked who they were or why they were there, that’s a problem. They could be there to do damage.” She also thought that Winkler was portrayed in a dignified way.

Public member Neil Neddermeyer thought it made a difference that Winkler was filmed in the dining room or day room and not in his bedroom or bathroom. “An argument could be made that because the people coming in to film were not stopped, that they might have felt it was a public place.”

Neddermeyer said, “WCCO was not unfair or inaccurate. They pointed out some things that can happen. The hidden camera was used respectfully and he was not victimized.”

The Vote:
1. On the complaint that WCCO invaded the privacy of a nursing home resident, the Council split event, 10-10. the complaint was not upheld.

To uphold the complaint: Bailey, Cleary, Costello, Diaz, Hage, Neddermeyer, Quenemoen, Reister, Schroeder, Shulstad 
To deny the complaint: Bauerlein, Carideo, Conner, Groeneveld, Johnson, Keller, Lopez, Scales, Stauffer, Williams
Presiding: Stringer
Recused: Shelby

2. On the complaint that WCCO created an inaccurate and misleading impression of the nursing home, the Council voted 13-6 to deny the complaint.

To uphold the complaint: Bailey, Diaz, Keller, Quenemoen, Reister, Shulstad 
To deny the complaint: Bauerlein, Carideo, Cleary, Conner, Groeneveld, Hage, Johnson, Lopez, Neddermeyer, Scales, Schroeder, Stauffer, Williams
Presiding: Stringer
Recused: Shelby

Attending the hearing was the complainant, Dr. L. David Mech, a biologist specializing in wolf research with the National Biological Survey. Accompanying Mech were Walter Medwid, director of the International Wolf Center (IWC), and Nancy Gibson, an associate of Mech’s at the IWC. Representing the Star Tribune were Pam Fine, managing editor, Tom Meersman, reporter, and Marilyn Hoegemeyer, story editor.

Background: The Star Tribune said the story originated when the paper received information that Mech and the International Wolf Center had been sued by a former IWC employee. Meersman interviewed more than two dozen people and interviewed Mech twice. On July 23, 1995, the Star Tribune published a copyrighted article on page one, above the fold, with the headline, “Is wolf expert above the rules? Incidents raise ethics questions.”

Mech complained to the Star Tribune, asking for almost two dozen corrections; the paper made two. Mech also asked for rebuttal space on the Commentary page with a front-page referral; the paper gave him 36 inches with no front-page referral. Mech remained unsatisfied with the Star Tribune’s response because he felt the paper had not taken responsibility for what he considered irresponsible journalism. Also, Mech said the original article was circulating on the Internet and had spawned articles in other publications that repeated and distorted its charges. Therefore, Mech asked the Minnesota News Council to review his complaint.

Response of the news organization: The Star Tribune defended the story as fully documented, fair and balanced. It said the article followed standard journalistic practices and raised legitimate questions about the activities of a well-known scientist. Further, the paper said it had provided readers ample opportunity to learn Mech’s views both within the story and in the lengthy Commentary piece written by freelance journalist Dave Anderson at Mech’s request and published on December 10, 1995. More specifically, the paper responded that:

1. The headline reflected legitimate questions posed by numerous people interviewed for the story.

2. The passages to which Mech objected were summaries at the beginning of the story; the assertions they contained were explained in greater detail later. Also, a summary statement by Mech, in his defense, ran near the beginning of the story with further explanation later.

3. The article contained 16 named sources, all of whom were chosen either because of their scientific expertise, their direct experience working with or for Mech, or their knowledge of rules and regulations pertaining to wolves. It also included several people who spoke on condition on anonymity because they said they feared retaliation by Mech. Those sources were used primarily to support what named sources said in the story.

4. The article provided substantiation for its major points both in statements from qualified sources and documents that pertained to the issues raised.

Discussion: Mech claimed that the article’s presentation implied serious wrongdoing when, in his opinion, the worst thing the article had accused him of was accidentally killing a wolf while tranquilizing it in the presence of a British film crew. However, he said, even that charge lacked context – that he had drugged wolves thousands of times without incident. He argued that the article did not merit being marked copyrighted and placed on the front page next to a story about Susan Smith, a woman convicted of murdering her two young sons. Mech expressed concern that many people don’t read beyond the headlines and that it wasn’t until 34 lines into the story that he was quoted. Further, Mech calculated that the statements in his defense totaled less than 10 percent of the article. He questioned the fairness of the paper’s being able to control which of his comments it published and how they were presented.

Carol Pine, a public member, asked Mech if he considered himself a public figure; he replied he did not. Pine then posed the same question to the paper; Pam Fine, managing editor, answered that it did consider Mech a public figure because he works for the University of Minnesota and receives public funding. Pine then asked what the paper’s standards are for news coverage of public figures. Fine said that many factors influence how a story about a public figure is played, among them importance, interest and the effect on the community.

Media member Trish Van Pilsum asked the paper how large a factor exclusivity of a story is in determining its placement. Fine answered that generally speaking, when a newspaper has exclusive stories, it plays them prominently.

Public member Ann Barkelew asked the paper to explain what standards it uses to judge a story as fair. Fine answered that the paper considers balance and accuracy fundamental to fairness. She said the paper asks itself if its stories present the right picture, if it’s right to hold a person up to questioning, and if the story is clear and makes sense.

Public member Laurisa Sellers said that while the stated purpose of the article was to raise legitimate questions, it seemed to go beyond that and, in effect, pointed readers in the direction of answers. She asked the paper if giving readers direction fit its journalistic standards. Meersman responded that his findings were substantiated by numerous people.

Media member Maureen Reeder said she thought the story was an example of solid journalism. “As a journalist, often you end up reporting what your gut tells you. That’s an important part of journalistic practice,” she said.

“Along with respecting the gut feeling of the reporter, we must respect the gut feeling of the interviewee,” added public member Terry Thompson.

Many members were troubled by the placement and tone of the article. “This was a story with a point of view,” media member Ron Handberg said. “I’d be far more comfortable if the paper had neglected the copyright and instead labeled it analysis.” Barkelew agreed. “The headline carries a powerful punch. If I read no more, I would think this is a bad guy.”

Mech also questioned the fairness of the Star Tribune’s corrections policy. Included in the original article was the statement: “Mech serves on various boards that directly or indirectly control much of the funding for wolf research projects.” A correction ran in the Corrections column on page two on November 19, 1995, stating: “An article on Page 4A July 23 incorrectly stated that Phil Sauer was executive director of the International Wolf Center in Ely, Minn. He was interim administrator. The article also said L. David Mech serves on various boards that directly or indirectly control much of the funding for wolf research projects. Mech serves on one board and one scientific panel, neither of which controls funding.” Mech asked how that correction compared to the front-page presentation of the original accusation.

Rabbi Barry Cytron, a public member, said the story did more than raise questions. He called the story prejudicial and challenged the practice of making an assertion on the front page while placing the correction on page two. Fine responded that most newspapers anchor corrections in a set place so that readers don’t have to search for them. She added that if an error reaches the level where it seems unfair to put it inside, papers may elect to put it outside.

Sellers asked the Star Tribune if, when it ran the correction, it considered also noting that the story was based, in part, on anonymous sources who feared retaliation. Fine answered that the paper did not consider doing so because its policy is to keep corrections narrowly focused on facts. Sellers pressed the issue, saying that the fundamental reason for granting these sources anonymity was undercut by the correction. Meersman defended the use of the anonymous sources, saying that the correction did not say that Mech does not influence funding, but that he does not sit on boards. Fine explained that the paper allows the use of anonymous sources when it has multiple sources speaking to the same point, when they’re highly credible and their credibility is unimpugnable. In this case, she said, anonymous sources were used as secondary sources to support named sources.

Mech challenged the paper’s use of sources he deemed non-authoritative, specifically 1) photographer Jim Brandenburg, who commented on the scientific validity of Mech’s research, and 2) an IWC student volunteer who said Mech misused government vehicles. Mech questioned why these people were quoted rather than wolf researchers or, in the case of use of vehicles, his supervisor. He quoted the syndicated columnist William Raspberry who said, “But for the most part, we’d rather report the scandal we suspect than the service that we know.”

Fine said that Meersman asked Mech whom he should talk to and then interviewed them. Meersman said he tried to interview Mech’s supervisor, but found that Mech had faxed the supervisor and told him not to talk to Meersman, but to refer Meersman to the IWC lawyer. Fine said Brandenburg and the student volunteers were used as sources because they were eyewitnesses, not experts.

Determination 1: The Council upheld the complaint that the headline was prejudicial and that the framing set an unfair tone for the information that followed.

Concurring: Amaris, Barkelew, Cytron, Denny, Peterson, Pine, Pumarlo, Sellers, Seltzer, Thompson

Dissenting: Conner, Handberg, Hoben, Reeder, Smith, Van Pilsum

Abstaining: Anderson

Determination 2: The Council upheld the complaint that the article used inflammatory and prejudicial language.

Concurring: Amaris, Barkelew, Cytron, Denny, Hoben, Peterson, Pine, Pumarlo, Sellers, Seltzer

Dissenting: Conner, Handberg, Reeder, Smith, Thompson, Van Pilsum

Abstaining: Anderson

Determination 3: The Council denied the complaint that the article was based upon comments from sources who were anonymous, biased or lacked authority to judge his behavior.

Concurring: Barkelew, Conner, Cytron, Denny, Handberg, Hoben, Peterson, Pine, Pumarlo, Reeder, Smith, Thompson, Van Pilsum

Dissenting: Amaris, Sellers, Seltzer

Abstaining: Anderson

Determination 4: The Council denied the complaint that the article leveled charges against Mech without providing substantiation or context.

Concurring: Amaris, Conner, Cytron, Denny, Handberg, Hoben, Peterson, Pine, Pumarlo, Reeder, Sellers, Smith, Thompson, Van Pilsum

Dissenting: Barkelew, Seltzer

Abstaining: Anderson

The complainant contended that the July 12, 1995, story about her father’s sentencing:

• invaded her privacy when it identified the victim of the sexual assaults as the convicted man’s minor daughter (she is his only daughter), and
• was sensational and revictimized her by publishing graphic details of the abuse she endured.

Response of the news organization: The paper said it could not serve the truth if it left out the details of the crime and the relationship of the offender to the victim. If it did so, the paper said, it would be abandoning its responsibility to the community. The editor said he believed that by fully reporting the incest the paper would discourage others from committing the crime for fear of publicity. Smith said that the paper had been very sensitive to the well-being of the girl by choosing not to run a story when the man was charged with the crime a year before his sentencing.

Discussion: The girl told the Council that when she finally told the secret of her abuse, after eight years, she felt a great weight lift off of her, “until a week later when I saw the article on the front page. It totally tore me apart knowing that I had gone so far and for what? To have the whole town know, detail by detail, what my father did to me?

“Because of the article I feel that everybody is looking at me and isn’t seeing me… but somebody who had sex with her father…. After the article… everybody [at work] would be staring at me and whispering…. I believe that… people will think that I had some part [in] what my father did to me.”

Sandy Garry, the girl’s therapist, said that the paper had indeed revictimized her. She said it could have warned the girl that it was about to publish a story, could have consulted professionals to ask how best to deal with the information, and could have accompanied the article with a story about sex abuse, about the dynamics of the problem and about how to help victims. She said that the girl was vulnerable because she had not yet accepted the idea that she bore no blame for the abuse.

Both the girl and her therapist denied that the paper’s actions would discourage perpetrators, as the editor claimed. The girl said that “as a victim I know that it would instead be used by the offender as a threat to keep the victim from telling.” Garry said that, from her experience in working with offenders, threat of exposure would not alter their behavior or their decision to offend.

Mike Smith, the Herald’s editor, said that he faced a very difficult decision: the paper couldn’t both tell the truth and minimize harm. He believed he had to state the relationship between the victim and the offender to communicate the seriousness of the offense, and to give all the details of the crime because the sentence – one year instead of the 13 the sentencing guidelines call for, plus 30 years’ probation – was so lenient.

He said “In my opinion, if you didn’t do anything wrong, you have no reason for shame.” Public member Terry Thompson, vice president of PR at Pillsbury, took exception: “To say that if there is no wrongdoing there is no shame is ignoring the reality that the victim does feel guilt and shame.”

As to the complaint of sensationalism, Smith said that he printed exactly what was in court documents to prevent sensationalism and to circumvent gossip in the community about what had happened in the family. The serious nature of the crime made it a front-page story in the community of 2,488, he said the headline was not an unusual size and the story was treated like any other felony story.

When the family complained about the story, the editor drafted (as a proposed settlement of the complaint) an explanation to them and to readers on the reasons for writing the story as the Herald did. Smith said he was trying to tell the community that the family was a victim and to encourage the community to reach out to them. He showed the family the draft; they asked that it not be published, calling it insincere and self-serving because it expressed regret that the girl felt harmed but did not acknowledge that the paper could have done anything differently.

Council members asked the editor and publisher about other ways they might have written the story. Kate Stanley, Star Tribune editorial writer, asked if they had considered identifying the victim as “a relative.” Gary Stumpf, the publisher, said that all relatives would then be suspect. She asked if he really wanted the victim identified and he said yes. Stumpf believed that leaving out the details of the crime or the relationship of the victim to the perpetrator would have been misleading and inaccurate, and that the public had a right to know the seriousness of the crime. (The editor said the Herald does not name rape victims, and if the perpetrator had been a juvenile it would not have reported any names.)

Syl Jones, media member, pointed out that the issue was power. “The victim had no power [in the acts that abused her]. You’ve taken the power away from her again,” by not consulting her or the family before printing the story. Council members asked who had been consulted before publication, and the editor and publisher said that they had spoken to each other and the prosecutor, who had urged full disclosure. They did not speak to the family, or to a mental health therapist, or seek a woman’s perspective. Smith said he had all the information he needed and had only a weekend to write the story. Jones disagreed, “You had a year,” he said, referring to the fact that the father had been charged a year earlier.

Council members asked the girl what she thought the Herald was going to write. She said she was not prepared for the details. She said that at first she wanted the case kept secret, but now she wants to help others.

Council member Kate Parry, political editor of the Pioneer Press, said it was important to know the nature of the assault because it called into question the judge’s lenient sentence, which is a community issue. Public member Dorothy LeGrand, an attorney, asked the editor why, if the punishment did not fit the crime, that part of the story did not receive more prominence. The girl explained that she had asked for a lenient sentence so her father could receive counseling sooner. The newspaper did not report that.

 Determination: The Council choose not to vote on invasion of privacy or sensationalism, but after discussion decided that the paper had been insensitive to the girl. Members suggested that the paper should have consulted others in developing the story and could have talked with the family before printing it to prepare them. Syl Jones urged them to think not only of journalistic standards, but also community standards.

Concurring: Barkelew, Hoben, Jones, Kostouros, LeGrand, Pumarlo, Reeder, Sellers, Smith, Stanley, Thompson, Wicks

Dissenting: Handberg, Parry

Abstaining: Pine (acting chair)

The Council also voted unanimously to recommend that the paper create guidelines for covering sexual abuse cases, consulting with outsiders, including counselors and victims.

 NOTES:

• The Council has received a number of complaints about the identification of juvenile incest victims recently and it commended the girl for her courage in coming forward to allow the discussion to take place.
• The girl requested anonymity at the end of the hearing. The Council agreed to preserve her anonymity in its news releases. The Council decided not to ask other outlets not to use her name, but to use its own news release as an example.
• News coverage of this case avoided any mention of the girl’s name or of the family name. This included the story in the Wabasha County Herald.
• Shortly after this determination, two major news outlets ran a story identifying another 17-year-old victim of incest. She wanted to be identified, saying that her recovery had progressed to the point where she was strong enough to demand accountability from her abusers, who were her parents. This case illustrated a point made by the therapist, Sandy Garry, who said that news organizations should decide each case on its merits and that sometimes publication of a victim’s name helps the victim. She advised news organizations to talk with victims, families and therapists to determine the merits.