Background: In the fall of 1991, Pam Coyle turned herself in and was convicted of misdemeanor shoplifting in Rochester, Minn. When she voluntarily reported that fact to her supervisors during a Law Enforcement Committee meeting, the newspaper, acting on a tip, reported that her job status had come up for discussion at a public meeting in a December 5 Police Report column, which read in part:

“The status of a Law Enforcement Center dispatcher’s job was discussed Tuesday afternoon at a joint city/county Law Enforcement Commission meeting.

“Pam Coyle, the supervisor of dispatchers, was recently charged with a petty misdemeanor for shoplifting in Olmsted County District Court.”

No reporter was present at the meeting. That column generally includes items picked up from the police department: accidents, break-ins, anything found on a crime report.

Over a period of six days, a spate of anonymous phoned-in comments appeared in the paper criticizing her and calling for her dismissal. Coyle believes they were all the work of one disgruntled former employee, but has no evidence of that. There is no mechanism at the paper to determine if all the comments came from one person. Coyle says that friends and coworkers called and wrote in support of her but that those comments were not published.

Coyle contends that Herald policy on anonymous comments at the time of her complaint could allow an individual to carry on a personal vendetta. She contacted the publisher, Larry Antony, and he assured her that no more comments would appear unless a new issue was raised, but on September 25, 1992, another anonymous comment appeared in the paper. She then contacted the Minnesota News Council.

Media outlet response: The newspaper contends that it checked the veracity of the anonymous tip on the news item and found that Coyle had indeed been convicted of misdemeanor shoplifting. Further, the editor believed that, given her position as a government employee, it was newsworthy.

NOTE: the newspaper has now changed its policy on the number of comments that may appear about one particular item or issue, in part in response to Coyle’s complaint. The paper encourages people to leave their name and phone number so it can verify authenticity, but most do not and the paper will publish the comments regardless. Negen said they received no letters or calls supporting Coyle that it did not published.

Discussion and Determination Complaint 1: Police Report - While the information about Coyle’s misdemeanor charge was true, some Council members felt it was unfair to include it in a local crime report when it was not a local crime. While the newspaper justified its coverage by saying she was a government employee and should be held accountable, Council member Kostouros pointed out that she is a low-level supervisor, not an elected official. The lead paragraph was judged by the Council, on a 7-6 vote, to be inaccurate and misleading and the grievance is upheld.

Concurring: Hilger, Orwoll, Parrish, Dornfeld, Kostouros, Hoben, Peterson

Dissenting: Larson, Parker, Smith, Simonett, Handberg, Pennock

Complaint 2: Anonymous Comments - Anonymous comment columns are one of the fastest-growing features in American newspapers. Council member Donald Smith, editor and publisher of the Monticello Times, said that some editors think the feature is the best thing that has happened to papers, increasing reader interest and community activism, and drawing out opinions from those who normally would not speak out.

Others, Smith said, believe it amounts to yellow journalism when editors fail to verify allegations made in comments. If newspapers refuse to run unsigned letters in their Letters to the Editor column, why would they run anonymous phoned-in comments? He said that newspapers that do not verify facts run the risk of losing credibility. Negen said that most comments regarded not fact, but opinion.

Andy Hilger, radio station owner in St. Cloud, said that while his station does take anonymous calls, it realizes that it has an obligation to get responses from parties who are attacked. He asked if Coyle was invited to respond and Negen said she was not. Council members noted that there appeared to be few or no criteria for publishing anonymous comments and that this feature could easily be used to manipulate and damage others. Council member Ron Handberg, a former TV news director and general manger, suggested that rules needed to be applied: in particular, the newspaper should consider not allowing personal comments about private citizens. While the newspaper reports that it has instituted a policy of not allowing more than one comment on an issue, which would avoid repeating this type of complaint, Council members do not see this as a useful rule. How do you show a groundswell of opinion if you limit comments to only one?

The Council voted 9 to 4 to uphold the complaint that Coyle was treated unfairly in the Anonymous Comments column.

Concurring: Peterson, Hoben, Smith, Handberg, Pennock, Parrish, Dornfeld, Kostouros, Simonett

Dissenting: Parker, Hilger, Larson, Orwoll

1. Failed to adequately cover several incidents concerning incumbent Sheriff Wayne Goodnature’s record in office which reflected negatively on the incumbent’s competence;
2. Unfairly demanded changes in several of the committee’s political advertisements and refused to publish one ad;
3. Unfairly denied Bartlett supporters access to the newspaper’s letters-to-the-editor column; and
4. Failed to give proper coverage to the election results.

Background: During the fall 1982 campaign, Bartlett repeatedly challenged the competency and integrity of the incumbent sheriff. Contrary to the grievant’s position, it appears the paper did report about the various challenges in its news stories. While the paper might have reported the incidents in more detail, the Council cannot say that the extent of the news coverage of these items was not within reasonable editorial discretion.

One of the challenges raised by Bartlett concerned the sheriff’s approval of “on-call” pay for one of his deputies, which was subsequently struck down by the county board, which ruled the deputy was not entitled to the supplemental pay. The Bartlett committee claimed it submitted a political advertisement to the paper in which it referred to the “on-call” payments to the deputy as “illegal” payments. After consulting with the county auditor, the newspaper refused to print the ad unless the word “illegal” was changed to “unauthorized.” Other papers did publish the ad, and the committee refused to make the change requested by the Herald. The News Council finds that it was not unreasonable for the newspaper to refuse to publish the political ad without the requested change.

More troublesome is the grievant’s claim that the paper refused to publish other political ads because the advertisements, in referring to Bartlett, used the words “tall,” “trustworthy,” and “honest.” He claimed the ads were rejected because these phrases would reflect adversely on Bartlett’s opponent. The newspaper editor denied any such ads were refused and said they would have been accepted. To refuse to publish such ads for the reasons alleged would be wrong, but since copies of the rejected ads were not furnished to the Council, it does not have sufficient evidence to make any judgment on the newspaper’s conduct and finds the charge not proven. Also troublesome is the claim of lack of fair access to the letters-to-the-editor column. On September 30, people from the Bartlett committee submitted a letter protesting the destruction of their lawn signs by Goodnature supporters. Because the editorial page had already been “made up” for the day, the newspaper published the protest as a front page news story. Two days later the paper published a front page denial and countercharge on the lawn sign issue by Goodnature. This, in turn, prompted a flurry of letters to the editor. On October 4, Janet Marsden, a Bartlett supporter, submitted a letter, sworn before a notary, stating she had witnessed Goodnature “willfully” destroying Bartlett signs at the county fair. The editor refused to print the letter on the advice of counsel, saying that this was a legal matter for the county attorney. At the Council meeting, the editor explained that he did not want a “trial by newspaper.”

Under the circumstances, the Council believes it was not unreasonable for the paper to refuse to publish this letter. During the remainder of October, the newspaper did publish other letters commenting on the lawn sign issue, mostly from Goodnature supporters. Bartlett asserts that other letters from Bartlett supporters were rejected by the paper. The newspaper says this is not so, that it did publish whatever was submitted.

It may well be that these other pro-Bartlett letters, if submitted, should have been published. Again, the Council is unable to resolve this dispute of fact without examining the rejected letters. The editor says these letters, if not like the Marsden letter, would have been printed. If such letters had been submitted, the Council believes, under the circumstances, that it would have been unfair not to have published them. On this record, however, the Council finds this complaint of lack of access to the paper not proven.

Finally, Bartlett complains that in a front page story the day after the election, the paper reported a separate tally of the city vote in the sheriff’s race but not a separate tally of the rural vote. This was important to the Bartlett people because their candidate carried the rural vote. The paper points out, however, that it did report a complete detailed breakdown of the sheriff vote, in box score forms, on page two. In other words, the full story on the voting patterns was reported and it was not improper for the paper, in its editorial discretion, to place the story on its pages as it did.

As a closing observation, the Council questions whether the newspaper’s coverage of the Goodnature-Bartlett dispute was as complete as it might have been. It appears that the neighboring Rochester Post-Bulletin, as well as the more distant Minneapolis Tribune, provided more comprehensive coverage.

The complaint against the newspaper is not upheld.

Concurring: Brommer, Brooks, Forsythe, Gilson, Graven, Higgins, Kramer, McCollough, Pearce, Ryan, Selby, Simonett, Ziegenhagen.