Sign up for our mailing list:

Posts Tagged ‘KARE-TV’

June 17th, 1993

Determination 98: Minneapolis Police Chief John Laux v. KARE-TV

Attending the hearing was Minneapolis Police Chief John Laux. KARE-TV declined to attend, or to respond in writing. This hearing was televised on Minneapolis Telecommunications Network. Chairman John Simonett did not attend or participate in the hearing because two complaints relating to the homicide case could lead to appeals before the Minnesota Supreme Court, of which he is a member. Vice Chairman Ron Graham chaired the hearing.

Chief Laux brought three complaints before the Council:

  1. KARE-TV did not observe acceptable journalistic standards when it transported a murder suspect from Chicago to Minneapolis without informing the police in either city, the pilot of the plane, or the driver of the hired van.
  2. KARE-TV did not observe acceptable journalistic standards, nor did it show appropriate regard for the safety of a witness under police protection, when it located and attempted to contact a witness.
  3. KARE-TV contributed to a “circus” atmosphere in a different case when it arrived at the scene of a suspect’s surrender at police headquarters with the suspect’s girlfriend, who was then under police surveillance.

More »

October 23rd, 1991

Determination 91: Hennepin County Medical Society v. KARE-TV

Appearing for the Hennepin County Medical Society were Dr. Eugene Ott, Dr. Edward Maeder, Dr. Burt Schwartz and Thomas Hoban. KARE-11 appeared by a written submission only. The grievance centers around a four-part investigative report presented by KARE on the excessive use of cesarean sections.

January 22nd, 1991

Determination 89: Officer Robert Goedderz v. KARE-TV

Grievant says that putting unrelated information related to an earlier event poisoned a news report and unfairly prejudiced viewers against him.

August 29th, 1990

Determination 85: WAMM & Women/Work/Welfare v. KARE-TV

In February 1990, KARE-TV, Channel 11 ran a three-part series depicting abuses in the state welfare system by welfare recipients. At the time, certain remedial legislation was being proposed in the legislature. The general thrust of the series was that large sums of welfare funds were being lost because of fraudulent claims by recipients and that the public authorities were devoting insufficient resources and personnel to investigate the fraud. Women Against Military Madness (WAMM) filed a complaint with the Council, claiming that the program contained factual inaccuracies. As the basis for its complaint, WAMM relied on a two-page fact sheet prepared by the Department of Human Services entitled “Corrections to False or Misleading Statements in KARE 11 Welfare Fraud Series.”A Question of Standing: On occasion, the Council may sponsor a forum to discuss a media topic; in this setting, the question of standing does not arise. When, however, the Council hears a particular charge against a particular newspaper or television station, the Council generally requires that the complaining party have standing, i.e., some immediate, direct personal interest which is adversely affected by the news story. The requirement of standing gives some assurance that both sides of the dispute will be adequately presented and represented; that the issues will be well-defined; and that due process is accorded the party against whom the complaint is made.

More »

June 15th, 1990

Determination 83: Lifespring, Inc. v. KARE-TV

 

Charles Ingrasci, Director of Corporate Affairs for Lifespring, and Janna Krammer, director of its Twin Cities program, appeared for the complainant. Janet Mason, News Director, accompanied by Bernie Grace, reporter, and Thomas Tinkham, attorney, appeared for KARE-TV. The complaint centers around issues of accuracy and fairness, of deceptive newsgathering, and of sensationalism in the television series reporting on complainant’s program. More »

May 28th, 1987

Determination 68: Phillip Villaume v. KARE-TV

On September 9, 1986, KARE broadcast two versions of a story by reporter Bernie Grace concerning the opening day proceedings in a Hennepin County murder trial. At the outset of those proceedings, Judge Delila Pierce granted a motion by Phillip Villaume, the complainant, allowing him to withdraw as the court-appointed counsel for the defendant because of repeated threats made against him by the defendant’s father. In his grievance, Villaume complained that the KARE news reports were “incomplete, inaccurate, unbalanced, biased, excessively sensationalized (and) unfair,” and held him up to public ridicule. Representatives of KARE responded that the reports were a fair and accurate summary of what had transpired in the courtroom.

More »