Background: On March 2, 1979, the paper published on its religion page two articles on the occult. At the top of the page was an account of the published diary of a teenager’s purported experiences with a satanic group. At the bottom of the page was a news story about the occult that quoted both ex-occultist Lee Nystrom and Conlith Christensen, who was manager of Gnostica Bookstore and a member of a witchcraft religion called the Church of Wicca. The articles were accompanied by a picture of Christensen and artwork depicting demons torturing a man.

When Burtrand complained to the paper about the articles and layout, he was informed he could write a letter to the editor, subject to normal editing procedures. He declined because he felt the letter might not run as he wrote it and would not have the same effect as an apology. Burtrand complained that the paper should have attempted to verify questionable information in the diary, and that the account of it should have been clearly labeled as a book review. The news story, Burtrand said, contained derogatory statements Nystrom made about the occult that should have been substantiated. The news story also misquoted Christensen and was unfair because it gave her age and marital status but not Nystrom’s (Christensen is divorced). Regarding the page as a whole, Burtrand alleges that the artwork and articles perpetuated negative and erroneous stereotypes about the occult that were strengthened by their placement on the religion page. He said that witchcraft, and specifically Wicca, were incorrectly linked to satanism.

Determination of the Council: A letter might have helped Burtrand to achieve his goal of educating the public about the occult. Newspapers do, however, have the right to edit letters for such things as length and style.

Regarding Burtrand’s objections to the articles, the paper should not have been expected to investigate every fact disputed by Burtrand. Readers are better served if a newspaper devotes its limited time and resources to its regular news columns. There is no evidence to support the contention that Christensen was misquoted, and hence that matter is indeterminable.

With respect to the page taken as a whole, the articles and accompanying illustrations do not seem to perpetuate negative and erroneous stereotypes about the occult, nor does their placement on the religion page unfairly strengthen such alleged impressions. The first article was clearly an account of a book describing satanic activities, and the artwork clearly illustrates the activities described in the book, and not all occult activities. The news story balances derogatory statements about the occult by Nystrom with several quotes from Christensen. To this extent, the complaint against the paper is not upheld.

However, the placement of the photograph of Christensen was unfair and misleading. The layout appears to associate her with the book account and the satanic activities described in it. The casual reader may not read through to the end of the news story, where Christensen is quoted as dissociating herself from the satanic activities depicted and described on the rest of the page. Also, the paper should not have characterized only Christensen by age and marital status, and it is encouraging that the paper acknowledges this.

To this extent, the complaint against the paper is upheld

Dissenting Opinion: Fairbanks, Staples, Craig, Hetland, Spielman The majority is correct in rejecting the allegations about the factual content of the articles. However, the articles and accompanying artwork and photographs are sensationalized and do perpetuate negative and erroneous stereotypes about the occult, apparently due to a lack of understanding of the occult and a failure to ascertain the facts about different parts of the occult before publishing the articles. The total effect of the page is to associate occult activities in general, and witchcraft in particular, with satanism. The words “occult,” “witchcraft,” “Satan” and “demonic” are used interchangeably throughout the page, without regard to the fact that “occult” is a very broad term that encompasses many religions and cults. Christensen’s quoted statements dissociating herself from satanism do not adequately balance the confusing use of these terms interchangeably on the page. 

Background: MADD was formed in December 1978 after the Metropolitan Sports Facilities Commission gave final approval to build a domed stadium in downtown Minneapolis. MADD contended the papers’ coverage of the issue was inadequate and unfair because it relied excessively on official sources, such as legislators and sports facilities commissioners, and did not adequately cover organized opponents. Potential problems involved in the downtown stadium site were treated as “obstacles,” MADD said. In general, the group charged, the papers published news stories in a manner that promoted the downtown Minneapolis site rather than completely examining alternatives.

The biased coverage was caused, in part, by a conflict of interests on the part of the newspapers’ publisher, MADD claimed. The group called for a thorough examination of the Star’s and Tribune’s stadium coverage in 1978 and 1979 during which the newspapers’ publisher was active in promoting a downtown stadium and invested in the site. This sponsorship of the downtown stadium operated in a subtle – not open – manner to inhibit aggressive and fair coverage of the stadium issue by the Star and Tribune reporters and editors, according to MADD.

In response to the complaint, the Star and Tribune submitted all their coverage of the issue – hundreds of articles from 1970 through March 1979 – and urged that the entire coverage be examined. The newspapers denied MADD’s allegations. After filing its original complaint, MADD filed a supplemental complaint against the Star because the newspaper failed to publish a letter to the editor from MADD. The letter responded to excerpts the Star had published of its response to MADD’s complaint. The Star objected to certain portions of the letter that addressed the stadium issue rather than the Star’s published response. The newspaper said it felt MADD had been given ample space to present its views on the stadium issue in an opinion piece that the Star had published. The Star told MADD it would publish the letter only if the portions it objected to were deleted. MADD refused and the letter was not published.

Determination of the Council: Examination of the Star’s and Tribune’s stadium coverage from 1970 through March 1979 indicates that their readers received a reasonably fair, accurate, and balanced reporting of events and issues surrounding the ongoing controversy. No serious distortions, no major omissions, and no clearly discernible pattern of bias could be detected.

Nevertheless, MADD has raised a serious question when it alleges that the newspapers relied excessively on official sources for facts and for interpretations of those facts. While in this case all sides of the matter were found to have been covered adequately, it should be noted that all newspapers must be sensitive to the need to cover all points of view in a debate and to seek out sources that may or may not be as readily available as public officials and professional lobbyists. Without these special efforts, readers would be denied important information with which to make decisions on public policy issues.

No evidence could be found to sustain MADD’s contention that Star and Tribune publisher’s sponsorship of a downtown stadium site influenced, either directly or indirectly, the judgments of the newspapers’ editors and reporters in covering the stadium issue. It cannot be recommended here that the owner of a newspaper should not take part in community affairs, or that a publishing corporation should not become financially involved in community projects.

However, as the National News Council has noted, such a situation can damage a newspaper’s credibility, as it has here. When an owner or publishing corporation places a newspaper in a position where the public may perceive a conflict of interest, the editors should undertake special steps to ensure fair and aggressive news coverage. For example, the editors of the Star and Tribune could have, in this case, established a task force of staff members and the public to monitor coverage and suggest improvements. Such a group could help to improve a newspaper’s credibility and performance in the community.

The complaint against the Minneapolis Star and Minneapolis Tribune is not upheld.

However, the Star should have published the letter to the editor from MADD. It is difficult to see how MADD could have responded to the Star’s rebuttal of the complaint without also addressing the stadium issue. After all, MADD’s complaint – the subject of the Star’s published response – is about the coverage of the stadium issue. The Star’s refusal to publish MADD’s letter effectively denied readers the opportunity to read a different view of the complaint. The Star’s action also deprived the letter writer of the opportunity to respond to statements affecting his reputation.

The supplemental complaint against the Minneapolis Star is upheld.

Dissenting: Shaw, Fairbanks and Rodriguez By proposing a “task force” to “monitor” a newspaper’s performance – certainly an unworkable remedy for conflict of interest – the Council has sidestepped the most important issue involved here: Is it ethical in the first place for publishers to become involved in the same events their newspapers cover as news? I say it is not. They both make it more difficult for news staffs to work, and create a perception of conflict of interest where very little conflict may be present. The image of a newspaper publisher should be one of single-minded devotion to producing a newspaper, the standards and objectivity of which are beyond question. That should not only be the appearance, that should be the fact.

Concurring in Part, Dissenting in Part: Spielman While I cannot agree with the sweeping dictum of (dissenting opinion) Bob Shaw that persons in the news business should be social eunuchs and have no other affiliation or participation in community affairs, I do agree with his dissent that the publisher’s appearance of conflict of interest seriously damaged the credibility of the newspaper. This is particularly true because of the dominant position of the Minneapolis Star and Tribune Company’s newspapers throughout the state.

Background: The lawsuit was a 1958 alienation of affection and slander suit involving Coya Knutson, who happened to be one of the other candidates opposing Kjeldahl in the 1977 congressional race. The suit was filed against Kjeldahl by the husband of Knutson, for whom Kjeldahl had served as administrative assistant when she served in Congress. Her husband withdrew the suit three weeks after he had filed it, with his wife admitting in sworn testimony that there was no basis for the charges. Kjeldahl said at the Council hearing that he had never been given the opportunity at that time to refute the allegations in legal proceedings.

Several weeks before the 1977 primary, a story in the Star included a one sentence mention of the 1958 suit against Kjeldahl and the hasty withdrawal of the charges. A story in the Tribune included mention of the suit but not its outcome.

Kjeldahl complained that reference to the suit should not have been made, and that the references may have been made simply to embarrass him. He further claimed that the brevity of the references, without any mention of the circumstances surrounding Knutson’s later testimony, was harmful to his campaign. He unsuccessfully sought a retraction of the Tribune article.

Determination of the Council: Candidates for public office are necessarily public figures and should expect more exposure of the details of their lives through scrutiny by the media. But responsible journalism mandates that in the process of informing the public about someone seeking public office, news reports should be fair, balanced, and accurate. In reviewing a lawsuit filed years earlier, it would seem fair that not only the filing but also the outcome be part of a balanced news account, even if the reference is confined to one sentence.

The Star article was well within the bounds of accepted journalistic standards of covering public figures. The Tribune article would have been improved by mention of the outcome of the lawsuit; following the omission, the clarification published Feb. 29 was the appropriate remedy.

The complaints against the two newspapers are not upheld.

Background: CCA was formed to oppose the building of an abortion clinic by Planned Parenthood of Minnesota (PPM) in a St. Paul neighborhood. To elicit support for its cause, CCA composed an advertisement encouraging people to contact clinic supporters and persuade them to change their minds on the issue. The ad listed the names of officers and sponsors of Planned Parenthood as the names appeared on PPM stationery, along with their home addresses and phone numbers.

The two newspapers refused to publish the ad as submitted: The newspapers objected to printing names, addresses and telephone numbers of those who were not officers of PPM, and asserted that the addresses given for the officers should be the PPM business address unless prior consent was received for using home addresses. The newspapers offered to print the ad with those changes. CCA refused to make the changes and complained that the reasons for the ad’s rejection were arbitrary.

Determination of the Council: A newspaper has the legal right to accept or reject any advertisement, but the paper should establish fair and reasonable standards for advertising and should apply these standards uniformly.

The newspapers did not clearly define their standards regarding the definition of “private persons” whose right to privacy should be protected in advocacy advertisements. The publisher’s claim of right to privacy for the PPM sponsors, as distinguished from the organization’s officers, is rejected: The sponsors’ names appeared with the officers’ names on the organization stationery, and when citizens take a public position in support of an organization functioning in the public arena, they must expect to accept whatever praise or criticism this position brings from members of the public. To this extent, the complaint against the newspapers is upheld. The CCA, however, should not have arbitrarily used the male spouse’s name without discretion. By so doing, they unduly implicated the spouses of women who participated as individuals, and whose husbands were genuinely private persons as regards PPM.

The first complaint against these newspapers is upheld, the second complaint is not upheld. 

Background: The Mileses sought to run a serious, low-budget, issue-oriented campaign. Central to their campaign strategy was a walk from one end of the state to the other, meeting the public and discussing the issues. They did not face a primary challenge, and they complained that because of this, their campaign was largely ignored by major Twin Cities newspapers, specifically the Star and Tribune. The Mileses’ concern was not with any adverse effect the coverage or lack of coverage might have had on the success of their campaign (they were not elected), but with the principles surrounding the presentation of candidates’ views on important issues.

They also complained about the unfairness of the two papers’ policies regarding coverage of candidates not included in primary elections, and about the inaccuracy of opinion poll results reported in the two papers.

Determination of the Council: First, regarding the use of public opinion polls, there appeared to be no improper use of either the Minnesota Poll (Tribune) or the Metro Poll (Star) during the campaign. The polls were conducted in proper scientific manner, and both papers included sufficient independent information regarding the content and limits of the poll in their reporting. The news media must be alert to their responsibility to remind the reading public of the limitations of poll results.

Second, on the basis of documented studies of campaign coverage, the Milses received less coverage in traditional news coverage measurement terms – issues covered, column inches reported, and stories published – than the other two candidates. But these traditional measurement devices do not establish proof of adequacy or inadequacy of news coverage; inequality of news columns does not prove discrimination. The conclusion in this case is that the Mileses were treated fairly in comparison to other gubernatorial candidates.

Third, there was no indication that either newspaper had or applied a policy of news blackout or denial of news access to the candidates for public office who were not facing a primary election. In pre-primary as well as post – primary coverage, the media have a commitment to present newsworthy happenings – involving any and all candidates, whether or not they face an impending election contestÑfairly and reasonably for public understanding. The media must, however, be allowed to exercise reasonable judgment in determining the news value, educational value, and space availability for political news as well as other types of news. It is also true that the techniques and timing adopted by a candidate could work against his or her own desire to use the media to present views; the Mileses’ walk frequently took the candidates far from the Star’s and Tribune’s regular reporting range.

However, it is questionable whether either paper provided sufficient coverage of the gubernatorial campaign generally in comparison to other types of news and features. While reporting thoughtful and studious analyses of candidates and major public issues may not sell newspapers or appeal to that portion of the reading public desirous of more entertaining news, newspapers should nonetheless remember their mission to educate and inform the public.

The print media have a unique responsibility to provide in-depth analyses of political issues and candidates, and must find ways of presenting these matters in a form that will be understandable and appealing to the public.

All Minnesota newspapers are encouraged to re-examine their policies regarding the adequacy of political news coverage, and to expand and improve their overall performance.

The complaint against the two newspapers is not upheld.

Background: A March 27, 1974, editorial entitled “Political Press Releases” reported that Robb and another county commissioner “think they should have free use of the office for communications that they may have with the citizens of Hennepin County.” The inside quotation is part of the text of a resolution supported by Robb and the other commissioners at a March 19 meeting of the Board of Commissioners. The resolution was defeated 3-2.

Robb complained that the editorial was an unfair and inaccurate misrepresentation in its assertion of what he “think(s)” since he did not seek to make free “political” use of the office. At the News Council hearing April 28, Robb emphasized that his resolution was designed to eliminate censorship by the county board chairman of releases from individual commissioners.

Response of the news organization: The newspaper editor said the specific language of the resolution made the editorial’s conclusion proper and accurate. Therefore, the paper believed that the editorial was fair and accurately quoted the facts and that no retraction or apology was required. The editor said the paper had offered to publish Robb’s letter of protest in full, without changes or an “editor’s note.”

Determination of the Council: Editorials are expressions of opinion by a newspaper and may be expected to produce disagreement from persons with other opinions. The Council does not consider which opinions may be correct, but does examine whether statements included as fact in an editorial are accurate, and whether or not a newspaper is fair, by allowing those who disagree with its editorials to have a chance to express their opinions by such means as letters to the editor.

The editorial is beyond the Council’s purview because it expressed opinion by the newspaper editors that was critical not only of Robb and the other county commissioner, but also of the county board chairman.

However, the quotation from the resolution is a matter of fact, and the Council believes that the quotation was accurate and that a person reading the full resolution could draw the conclusions reached by the editorial writer. The paper’s willingness to print, unedited, a rebuttal letter from Robb was an appropriate response by the newspaper to his complaint.

The complaint against the newspaper is not upheld.