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.

The incident giving rise to this discussion illustrates a common problem presented to newspapers. Frerichs submitted a letter to the editor to the Dodge County Independent for inclusion in its last issue prior to the November 6, 1984 election. The letter was critical of the voting record of incumbent Jerry Schoenfeld. Schoenfeld happened to be in the newspaper office prior to press time and asked if any letters attacking his record would be in the next issue. He was shown the Frerichs letter. Schoenfeld then asked the editor if he could submit a letter in rebuttal, and this request was granted. Frerichs has no objection to the printing of the Schoenfeld rebuttal, which he says is only fair. His concern, however, is that the “[Rebuttal] letter was four times longer than mine, and raised new points that I had no chance to respond to.”

The Council is not concerned with the factual merits of this specific incident and, indeed, does not have before it the two letters to the editor involved. The Council notes Representative Schoenfeld’s claim that his letter was fair rebuttal. The Council, however, is here concerned with the general problem of handling letters to the editor. The Dodge County Independent has extended its regrets to Frerichs and advises “it has become a policy of our paper not to show any letters to the editor, editorial content or advertisements to anyone prior to publication.”

Discussion: Letters to the editor can be a very effective campaign tool, sometimes more effective than political advertising and campaign literature. Letters to the editor tend to be well read by the newspapers’ readers. Knowing this, political committees organize letter-writing campaigns and jockey for the “last word.” Like anything else, carried too far, letters to the editor are subject to the law of diminishing returns.

Editors seek to obtain balance in the number of letters printed by the opposing sides and on the issues presented. At some point, editorial discretion must cut off the “debate.” Important, too, is the timing of letters to the editor. The problem with “last-minute” political communiquŽs, where new charges are raised without time for a response, is that the voters are deprived of having all the facts on which to make an informed decision.

Editors frequently reserve the right, announced in advance, to limit debate in the letters-to-the-editor column. The length of letters may also be restricted. Whether the editor should give one side an advance look at letters submitted by the opposing side would seem to be a policy decision for the newspaper to make. Some newspapers have a policy of always showing any last-minute letter or political ad to the opposing side, inviting a rebuttal in the same issue. One thing that might be done, and frequently is done, is to announce in advance a cut-off date for submission of letters to the editor, a time after which no more letters will be received for the last issue prior to the election.

The discussion before the News Council demonstrated that letters to the editor involve, to a large degree, the news judgment and editorial judgment of the editor. As with the making of any judgment, it is important to weigh all the facts and circumstances, keeping in mind that the newspaper is serving the interests of its public, not that of the campaign committee, and that the guiding principle is fairness. Many problems can be avoided if, where feasible, the newspaper announces in advance what its policy will be.

Background: Fugina and Johnson, both employed as school counselors by the St. Louis County Board of Education, were granted leaves of absence without pay to serve in the Minnesota Legislature. Three news stories and an editorial in the Duluth paper repeatedly asserted that the legislators were being paid by the Duluth School Board for time they had not worked. The two men complained about numerous errors in the stories, including a false headline and inaccuracies repeated in several consecutive articles. The legislators requested a retraction of the inaccurate and damaging elements of the stories.

Determination of the Council: This case was resolved by the parties after a hearing was scheduled. In response to the legislators’ impressive and extensive documentation of inaccuracies and misstatements in the four articles, the newspaper published a clarifying news article acceptable to the complainants. The newspaper’s willingness to publish a clarifying news article acceptable to the complainants was an appropriate response to the complaint.