Sign up for our mailing list:

Posts Tagged ‘Minneapolis Tribune’

July 22nd, 1979

Determination 39: Ben Sternberg v. Minneapolis Tribune

Ben Sternberg, professional boxing promoter, complained that the newspaper, through the use of inflammatory graphics and writing and the manipulation of facts, falsely implied in an article that he was a racist and somewhat of a Mafia figure.

More »

June 1st, 1979

Determination 38: Regina’s Candies v. Minneapolis Tribune

Regina’s Fine Candies, St. Paul, complained that a taste survey of chocolates was unscientific and unfair to Regina’s and to the U.S. chocolate industry.

More »

March 1st, 1979

Determinations 36/37: MN Against the Downtown Dome v. Minneapolis Star & Minneapolis Tribune

Minnesotans Against the Downtown Dome (MADD), a coalition including neighborhood activists and sports fans opposed to construction of a sports stadium in downtown Minneapolis, complained that the Star’s and Tribune’s treatment of the long-standing stadium issue revealed a broad pattern of biased and inadequate coverage.

More »

August 7th, 1978

Determination 33: Prof. Ronald Jacobson v. Minneapolis Tribune

Ronald L. Jacobson, assistant professor of neurology and biometry at the University of Minnesota, complained that the newspaper used unsound methodology in presenting the results of a survey on university students’ attitudes toward abortion. He complained that the paper’s claim that the survey results were representative of the entire university student population was statistically invalid. The resulting article, he said, was therefore inaccurate and misleading.

More »

November 7th, 1977

Determination 29: Michael Crowley v. Minneapolis Tribune

Michael Crowley, editor of the University of Minnesota Law School’s student newspaper Quaere, complained that a story in the Tribune contained a similar lead and some of the same information as a story he had previously published and copyrighted in the student paper. He claimed that the Tribune acted unethically and unprofessionally because its story contained no mention of his earlier story and because it was “taken in large part” from it.

July 28th, 1977

Determination 26: MN Soft Drink Association v. Minneapolis Tribune

Dave Locey, lobbyist for the Minnesota Soft Drink Association, complained that the newspaper deliberately slanted its coverage of a litter tax bill and mandatory deposit bill under consideration by the state legislature in its 1977 session.

More »

March 18th, 1977

Determination 25: Candidate Bill Kjeldahl v. Minneapolis Star & Minneapolis Tribune

Bill Kjeldahl, one of four candidates in a special congressional primary election, complained that reference in both papers to an embarrassing lawsuit filed 19 years earlier, and dropped almost immediately, was unfair and irresponsible journalism. He claimed that the references were irrelevant to his capacity as a congressional candidate.

More »

October 15th, 1976

Determination 19: Citizens for Community Action v. Minneapolis Star & Minneapolis Tribune

Citizens for Community Action (CCA), an anti-life group, complained that the two papers used arbitrary standards when they refused to print as submitted to them a paid advertisement that opposed construction of an abortion clinic in a St. Paul neighborhood. The ad listed the clinic’s officers and sponsors, their home addresses and phone numbers, but the papers insisted that only business addresses be used for the clinic’s officers.

More »

June 18th, 1975

Determination 16: Committee for Effective Gun Control v. Minneapolis Tribune

Jon Willand, secretary of the Committee for Effective Crime Control, complained that inaccuracies in an editorial were not adequately corrected by the publishing of his letter to the editor with an editor’s note admitting the error.

More »

February 10th, 1975

Determination 18: Candidates James & Laura Miles v. Minneapolis Tribune & Minneapolis Star

James G. and Laura H. Miles, independent candidates for governor and lieutenant governor of Minnesota, complained that the two newspapers provided inadequate and unfair coverage of their campaign.

More »