But are they worth anything?  Or as David Brauer, media reporter for MinnPost.com recently characterized it, are on-line comments nothing more than “a cesspool” of hate, personal attacks and other sentiments that aren’t worth the electrons they occupy?

A distinguished panel of experts, including online editors, columnists, reporters and a media lawyer, discussed the phenomenon this week at a forum sponsored by The Minnesota News Council and the Minnesota Chapter of the Society of Professional Journalists.

If there was any consensus, it was that readers’ online comments are popular.

“Four to five percent of all online users comment online, which may not sound like a lot, but many commenters are active, repeat users,” said Star Tribune Assistant Managing Editor/Digital Terry Sauer.

There was less agreement on a variety of other points, however, such as whether comments should be monitored, and whether they’re harmful.

Mary Turck, editor of the Twin Cities Daily Planet and Jeff Achen, online editor for ThisWeek newspapers agreed on some positive effects.  “We seek comments from people during the editorial process and get readers involved with the creation of the story,” Turck said.  Added Achen: “Commenters have also helped us correct errors in some stories.”

However, comments can also cause great harm, argued Star Tribune columnist Gail Rosenblum.  “I find myself trying to protect my sources from my readers.  My sources have become concerned that they’ll get attacked on the Web,” she said.

Many commenters attack not only the journalists but also the story subjects.  In fact, Sauer said that the newspaper has learned over the years that it’s necessary to monitor comments 24/7.  “We now moderate every comment on StarTribune.com,” he said.  “Earlier this month we decided to go that route; we wanted to make sure we listened to our readers and some of the criticism.  If you go back and look at the comments in the last couple of weeks, they are far different than what you saw earlier.”

Even so, Sauer estimates that of all the comments submitted, only about 10 percent are outright offensive, 40 percent present no problem for the newspaper’s screeners, but another 50 percent fall into what he called a “gray area.”  The result is that even the screeners have to be monitored to determine whether they’re letting too many questionable comments pass or being too restrictive.

Policies differ as well as to whether comments should be signed by a reader who registers using a “real name.”  Some publications, such as MinnPost and The Wall Street Journal, require a real name and an email address, but other publications, such as the Star Tribune, allows comments to be anonymous.  The challenge, said Sauer, is the ability of the publication to verify an individual’s identity.

“The verification process is virtually impossible,” he said.  ‘If you’re a small Web site, you could do it, if you’re getting 15,000 unique comments each month, you just can’t verify.”

Mike Knaak, assistant managing editor for the St. Cloud Times said that anonymity is also a natural part of Internet culture.  “There’s an expectation that what you say online is anonymous; people say things [both good and bad] that they might not feel comfortable saying if they had to sign their name,” Knaak said.

Audience members had their own opinions.

Bob Franklin, a retired Star Tribune reporter and St. Thomas adjunct professor, said the use of anonymity in comments contributes “to the lowering of civil discourse in society.”  Other audience members agreed, commenting that despite the challenge verification presents, that doing so may solve all of the problems associated with the issue.

Background: In March 1999, 16-year veteran coach Noel Martin’s employment contract with SCSU was not renewed. Coach Martin’s notification of non-renewal came by certified mail and was documented, from his point of view, in a March 13 news story. On March 21, sports editor Dave DeLand wrote a column in which he criticized SCSU athletic director Morris Kurtz for the “lousy, insensitive and completely inappropriate way” he believed coach Martin had been treated by being sent his dismissal notice in the mail with no personal contact from Kurtz. DeLand wrote that Kurtz didn’t have the decency to walk “the 26 paces” between his office and the coach’s to show some compassion. Kurtz objected to DeLand’s characterization of him. Despite several meetings and calls between the two parties, they were not able to resolve their differences.

Complaint: In his letter of complaint Kurtz called the column a “cheap shot” made without any factual basis. He complained that:

1. The St. Cloud Times column unfairly impugned his integrity;

2. The columnist should have gotten his side of the story;

3. The column was based on gossip, not facts, and that it contained several factual errors:

a) the columnist did not understand how personnel issues are handled through the collective bargaining agreement,

b) the columnist stated that coach Martin was totally surprised by the decision, which Kurtz said was not so, and

c) the columnist held Kurtz responsible for the dismissal, rather than SCSU president Bruce Grube, who made the final decision.

Kurtz’s complaints were summarized in the question on which the News Council would vote: Was the column unfair to Kurtz in not giving him a chance to tell his side of the story?

Response: The St. Cloud Times denied that it was unfair to Kurtz and said that the opinions expressed in the column fell well within the bounds of fair comment. DeLand said that if he were to rewrite the column the only change he would make would be to include the SCSU president in his condemnation.

Discussion: Kurtz challenged the columnist: “You were there outside my office to count the 26 paces, why didn’t you knock on my door? This was a cheap shot and totally unnecessary because I was available for comment.”

Media member Kathleen Stauffer asked Kurtz, “Is your primary disagreement with Mr. DeLand’s opinion of your handling of the process?”

“Certainly everyone has an opinion,” said Kurtz. “But that opinion should be based on facts.” Kurtz said that after he met with Ihne and DeLand and pointed out inaccuracies in the story he waited patiently for a correction, but one never came.

Ihne said DeLand took the information for his column from the news story, which had appeared three days earlier. She said, “We asked [Kurtz], ‘If there were inaccuracies in the news story, why didn’t you call?’ He said he had decided to just let it go.” Ihne said she was still unaware of inaccuracies in the news story.

Media member Dave Hage asked Kurtz about the inaccuracies. Kurtz cited several statements he considered erroneous: that the dismissal letter came from Kurtz (it came from president Grube), that Martin was blind-sided by the letter, and that Martin is continually referred to in the editorial as a loyal employee. “I do evaluations every year. [DeLand has] never seen them.”

Ihne said, “We did do a lot more reporting after we talked to Mr. Kurtz [in a meeting to try to resolve the complaint] because he told us a lot of things off the record that we tried to substantiate. We wanted to tell the whole story. The reporter has given Kurtz many opportunities to go on the record with every story (since then), but he has declined to do so.”

Media member Don Shelby asked Kurtz why he had not accepted the paper’s offer to publish an opinion piece. Kurtz said it would appear self-serving. He said that after the hearing, win or lose, he would accept the offer to write an opinion piece.

Media member Elizabeth Costello asked DeLand if he had spoken with Kurtz before writing the column. DeLand said he bumped into Kurtz while counting off the 26 paces and said hello, but nothing more: “It was the last day [Martin's] contract could be continued and he receives a letter! It was a sense of outrage that I had.”

Shelby asked Kurtz what he would have told DeLand if he had had the chance. Kurtz said, “I would have given him the collective-bargaining policies and procedures – procedures negotiated with the union. It shows clearly that this was not a blind charge coming at [Martin].”

Public member Craig Shulstad asked DeLand if he believed the coach had been blind-sided by the letter. “I’m sure he was surprised, but was he stunned? I doubt it,” DeLand said.

Kurtz explained that he had met with Coach Martin after Martin had met with President Grube. Kurtz said Martin told him the meeting had not gone well. Shelby asked Kurtz if he had commiserated with the coach. Kurtz said he took him to lunch and they talked about non-coaching jobs Martin might be interested in at SCSU, but “he chose not to follow up.” Further, Kurtz said he had walked down the hall to Martin’s office the day of the dismissal, but Martin was not there.

DeLand said the paper did not know Martin had gone through a formal process. He said when he tried to get information the University cited the Data Practices Act and refused to make a public statement. Shelby asked Kurtz if he had refused to comment. Kurtz said the collective-bargaining agreement prohibited him from commenting. “[The paper] reports on many employment issues,” he said, “they should know that [I cannot comment].”

A copy of the collective-bargaining procedure was provided to Council members. Media member Nancy Conner said she didn’t see that the procedures precluded Kurtz from meeting with Martin. Minnesota State Colleges and Universities’ vice chancellor for human resources, Bill Tschida, who spoke in support of Kurtz, said, “The collective bargaining procedure doesn’t list all the things you can’t do. It’s a written outline of what the process is. It would have been inappropriate for Dr. Kurtz to have talked with the coach [before he received the letter].”

Shelby asked Tschida if such an action was merely inappropriate, or an actual violation. “A violation,” said Tschida.

Public member Julie Tilley ask DeLand if he would have written the column differently if he had known the process did not allow any interaction prior to Martin’s receiving the dismissal letter. DeLand said he would not have changed the column.

“You mean,” Shelby asked DeLand, “if you knew of Martin’s meeting with the president, that the coach had an idea that he was on the way out, that the athletic director commiserated with the coach, you would not change your column?”

“No,” said DeLand. “There are two sides to ‘off the record.’ The side you’re hearing today and the side that Noel Martin would tell you are different. I would not change what I wrote…. I’ve got nothing on the record, but things I’ve heard off the record amplify my feelings.”

Shelby told DeLand: “If [you] had information that Kurtz was an evil player instead of an innocent, as he says he is, that should have been brought up so that readers could judge for themselves… That’s dangerous ground. You’re saying, ‘I know something you don’t, and if you knew what I know you’d agree.’”

Public member Ann Barkelew asked the newspaper what its standards were for columnists. Ihne said, “We do want columns based on fact, but I don’t require columnists to go out and re-report a story.” She said a column is the viewpoint of the columnist based on the facts as they’ve appeared.

Shelby asked if Ihne exercised editorial control over columnists: “Do you look at [columns] and ask that [any particular] statement be supported? How high is the bar?”

Ihne said, “I do not read all the columns before they go into the paper. Anything controversial in the least should be flagged for me, but this wasn’t flagged, and no red flags went up for me [when I saw it].”

Deliberation: Public member Rachel Quenemoen began deliberations with a confession: “I have begun to accept the notion that in sports columns, it’s ‘buyer beware.’ I accept behaviors there that I don’t in news pages…. I came up with a surprise for myself. I [realized I] don’t believe what sports columnists say.”

But media member Nancy Conner was not so forgiving: “If there’s anything I’d like to see the Council adhere to, it’s that an editorial [or column] has a responsibility not to perpetuate inaccuracies.”

Media member Monika Bauerlein said she grills reporters on the facts they present her: “If the reporter says, ‘I know that because I read it in the New York Times or the St. Cloud Times,’ I say to them, ‘As much as we love our fellow reporters, we don’t believe a word they say.’” But Bauerlein questioned if it was really necessary for opinion writers to re-report on their own paper’s stories.

Media member Dave Hage said, “One thing we do here at the News Council is give guidance to journalists and newspapers, and this is an opportunity to do that. The News Council gives very, very wide latitude to expression of opinion…. This was a great column, it was highly opinionated, it was written with edge. But we do expect that columnists and editorial writers are still reporters and that they do their own reporting, that they call the subjects of their columns. It’s often hard, we often think of it as a waste of time, but it’s a basic expectation.”

Public member Tom Keller thought the columnist was demonizing Kurtz with the failings of the system. Shelby agreed: “I have a problem with ad hominem criticism of a process when it harms an individual… but the process doesn’t seem as cold-hearted when it’s explained.”

Public member Julie Tilley said, “In my mind it’s about the procedure, it’s not personal, though [Kurtz] is a lightning rod [for criticism of the procedure. But] I would feel totally different if he weren’t a public figure.”

“I struggle with the issue of a ‘public figure’ in this case,” said Quenemoen. “Sports people at public institutions are the most public of public figures.” She cited Kurtz: as a person employed by and representing an institution, in this case SCSU, Kurtz must “like it or not, carry the mantle for the process or find ways to humanize it or resign.”

Media member Tony Carideo agreed: “Having [myself] been in the unenviable position of having had to fire someone, you go in knowing full well you’re going to be wasted. The employee can say whatever they want to, and you can’t. The employee has all the fire power; you [as the supervisor] just have to sit back and take it. It comes with the territory.”

For Barkelew, it was a matter of facts: “The editor did indicate that they expect columnists to be factual. In the column DeLand says Kurtz observed the letter of the law. That suggests he is familiar with the process, but that doesn’t come through at all. The column doesn’t meet the test that facts have to be there.”

“When does an opinion column become a news story?” asked Craig Shulstad. “This is my opinion, but I think it becomes a story – more news story than opinion – when it relates to facts, and [in this case] those facts were never checked.”

And of the lack of opportunity for Kurtz to give his side of the story? Media member Lee Canning contended that Kurtz had been given an opportunity – several opportunities both before and after the column appeared – and he had said no: “They asked questions before [the story] and what was the answer? ‘Data privacy, I can’t answer.’ I think they [the paper] are home free.”

“There is another player not at the table today and that is the institution (SCSU),” said public member Jon Schroeder. “The institution could have done a better job of going on the record… it needed to do a better job here.”

The Vote:
1. On the question of whether the St. Cloud Times. column was unfair to Kurtz in not giving him a chance to respond:

Uphold: Conner, Costello, Keller, Shelby, Shulstad 
Deny: Bailey, Barkelew, Bauerlein, Canning, Carideo, Hage, Johnson, Neddermeyer, Quenemoen, Schroeder, Stauffer, Tilley 
Recused: Lopez (editorial page editor of the respondent newspaper, the St. Cloud Times)
Presiding: Stringer

Summary: Many News Council members, including some who voted to deny the complaint, felt strongly that an opinion writer should exercise the cre of a reporter in thorough inquiry. Yet, even though the columnist did not know particulars of the personnel process at the university and did not offer the athletic director an opportunity to tell his side of the story, a strong majority of the News Council decided that the columnist was entitled to wide latitude in expressing his opinion, justified or not, on the behavior of a public figure so involved in the administration of a major institution.

Background: In its August 19, 1990, Sunday edition the St. Cloud Times published a feature story on clothing styles for students returning to school. The newspaper selected four students who then went “shopping” at a local mall. Each student’s selections were reported in the story, with the price of each item and the name of the store where the item could be purchased. The story was accompanied by three color photos, in two of which a male student was shown modeling selected apparel. The story noted that the young man was a sophomore at the University of North Dakota (UND), where he “plays cornerback on the football team and needs nice clothes for travel.”
Dr. Morris Kurtz, men’s athletics director at St. Cloud State University (SCSU), saw the story and notified UND that an infraction of the rules of the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) might possibly be involved. UND then contacted the NCAA directly, as required by rules of the North Central Intercollegiate Conference (NCC). The student was subsequently suspended for one game for violating a rule prohibiting student athletes from permitting use of their names or positions to advertise or promote the use of a commercial product or service.

The St. Cloud Times reported the student’s suspension in a Sept. 5 news story, pointing out that none of the students kept any of the clothes used in the photos and story. The article stated that it was Dr. Kurtz who had notified UND about the possible rule infraction. The day after the suspension story appeared, the St. Cloud Times ran an editorial critical of the NCAA, noting that the student had acted innocently and claiming that the punishment was “unwarranted.” The editorial then went on:

“Kurtz said he believed he was doing the right thing to turn Holder (the student) in – a favor he hoped would be returned if the circumstances were reversed. But how pure Kurtz’s motives were is something only he knows. The possibility of overzealous rivalry can’t be ignored, since Kurtz is athletic director for one North Central Conference university and Holder plays for another.”

Dr. Kurtz’s complaint is that the above-quoted portion of the editorial unfairly impugns his motives and was a “cheap shot” made without any factual basis. The newspaper says its observation that the “possibility of overzealous rivalry can’t be ignored” was based on the fact that the student was a St. Cloud resident who had been recruited by the SCSU football team but who had chosen instead to attend UND.

Dr. Kurtz contends that as a university athletics director, charged with enforcement of NCAA rules, he had no choice – in fact, he had an ethical obligation – to report the possible rule violation. He says he reported the incident to UND first, rather than directly to the NCAA, as a professional and ethical courtesy. If he had contacted the NCAA directly, or if he had not reported the incident promptly and it came to light later in the season, he says the NCAA might have imposed more severe punishment on UND, such as game forfeits.

Following publication of the editorial, the St. Cloud Times published three letters to the editor in unequivocal, strong support of Dr. Kurtz. One letter was from SCSU’s faculty representative for the NCAA, the second from the NCAA commissioner, and the third from UND’s dean and faculty athletics representative.

Discussion: Considering the rivalry between the two universities, the recruiting history of the student, and the seeming unfairness of the NCAA in suspending the student for an unknown rule violation, we think there was factual basis to at least raise the question of why Dr. Kurtz had reported the possible rule violation. While the editorial comment was unfair in that it did not explain why Dr. Kurtz “believed he was doing the right thing,” we conclude that the comment was within the bounds of provocative editorial comment. The editorial comment served to air a controversial and little-understood collegiate policy concerning the governance of student athletics. We, therefore, deny the grievance.

More, however, needs to be said. At the Council hearing it was made clear that Dr. Kurtz did not have any ulterior motive and that his only motivation in reporting the incident was his ethical obligation as a responsible administrator of university athletics. Indeed, UND, the university adversely affected, agrees.

It is unfortunate the editorial writer did not investigate further the NCAA rules on the responsibility of school authorities to report possible infractions, before raising the question “rhetorically” in the editorial. If this had been done, it seems to us it would have been much clearer that the editorial’s disagreement was not with Dr. Kurtz but with the NCAA’s application of its own rules.

This is a close case, as the Council vote indicates. The majority opinion upholds, we think, the normative standard for editorials which permits provocative, even at times seemingly unfair, comment. It is at least to the newspaper’s credit that it published the three letters to the editor which effectively rebutted any suggestion of impropriety on the part of Dr. Kurtz. The dissent, on the other hand, adopts a more aspiring standard which would require a more solid factual basis for questions posed in editorials. While there is merit to the dissent’s position, the Council thinks the more normative standard should apply here.

Grievance denied.

Concurring: Flemming, Graham, Larson, Parrish, Simonett, Stanley, Stauffer, Stone, Tanick

Dissenting: Gilson, joined by Huynh, Orwoll, Parker, Pennock - The Times’ editorial called Dr. Kurtz’s motives into question without even acknowledging that he had been quoted in an earlier Times news article as saying that his profession required him to notify the athlete’s school of a possible NCAA violation. The editor said the editorial’s suggestion of under-handedness was based upon talk around town. Gossip is not reporting, and editorial writers should be at least as vigilant as daily news reporters, if not more so.

Abstaining: Hilger

Background: In its issue of October 23, 1987, the St. Cloud Times published a story on a high school football game between two top teams of the Central Minnesota Conference. The article reported that the game was a “rout,” in part because the losing team “was missing five of its starting players.” The article explained that the five players had turned themselves in for violating the High School League rules on use of alcohol and had been suspended from playing. The coach was quoted, “These are all real good kids.” The positions played by the five suspended players were given. Also reported were the names of the five players. While the grievant believes the newspaper story devoted too much space to the suspensions and not enough to the game itself, its main complaint is that the newspaper should not have published the names of the juveniles.

Discussion: The sports program, says the district, is part of its over-all program to educate young men and women. Mistakes will be made by 15- to 17-year-old youngsters, and discipline for mistakes must be imposed; indeed, this is part of the learning process. But, contends the district, in a case such as this, it was not necessary to publicly identify the youngsters involved. The boys had already suffered enough; making their mistake a matter of public record only added to their punishment, perhaps creating a stigma that will be harmful to these youngsters with their lives ahead of them.

While the local community is aware of the persons involved, says the district, this awareness is limited; publishing the names in the St. Cloud Times, however, spreads the information to those who really have no need to know, causes anguish to the families involved, and gives the incident more importance than it deserves. While no law forbids the use of the students’ names, the many laws protecting the privacy of juveniles illustrates the importance our society places on treating juvenile matters discreetly.

The newspaper admits that “[t]he issue on use of juvenile names in a situation like this is a difficult judgment call.” The editor states that whether or not to publish names of juveniles must be decided on a case-by-case basis. In this case, the newspaper noted that the consequences of the student suspensions were obvious and public. The absence of five starting players from an important high school football game was newsworthy. Consequently, says the Times, it was not inappropriate to identify the players involved.

Decision: All parties agree the newspaper story was factually accurate. Moreover, the Council believes the focus of the story, explaining the outcome of the football game in terms of the loss of five players, was appropriate and was handled with restraint. The Times story quoted the coach as source of the information concerning the rules infraction under which the youngsters were suspended, i.e., an alcohol-related offense. Perhaps the school might have been successful in keeping that particular information from the press, but the circumstance here was that the press did know that it was an alcohol offense and published that information in the story which included the names of suspended players. We agree that whether to identify the juveniles involved is a difficult judgment call. We cannot say that it was improper in this instance for the newspaper to have used names.

Rightly or wrongly, high school football generates considerable public interest, and the players, even though youngsters, achieve a rather high profile within their communities. With this high profile goes the likelihood of publicity. In part, it is because of this situation that high school athletes are required to attend an orientation session on the importance of compliance with High School League rules governing student conduct. In passing, it should be noted that several members of the Council at the hearing commended the five players for their integrity in turning themselves in for discipline.

Here, the newspaper need not have published the names of the juveniles. On the other hand, neither can it be said it was inappropriate to have done so. The decision to publish, we think, under the circumstances of the case, was within the discretion of the newspaper.

We do not think, as the district suggests, that a newspaper must adopt a flat policy not to use names of juveniles in cases of this kind. There must be room for the exercise of editorial judgment. Having said this, it is clear that the St. Cloud Times is not unsympathetic to the concerns expressed by the school district. “We cannot say,” stated the Times, “that if a similar situation faced us today that we would handle it differently. But with . . . the opportunity to hear the concerns of Supt. Doucet . . ., the decision could be different.”

Grievance denied.

Concurring: Ashmore, Dornfeld, Igoe, McDowall, Mundale, Orwoll, Parrish, Sundin, Swain, Tanick

Dissenting: Simonett, Warder