Background: Mirocha’s complaint concerned a series of news articles published in September and October 1981 regarding tests conducted in his labs. The first story, appearing on September 28, was copyrighted by the paper and appeared on page one under the large banner headline, “U professor made secret tests for biological warfare agents.”

The article stated that highly guarded government-sponsored analyses of suspected biological warfare agents had been underway at the University for two months under Mirocha’s direction without the knowledge of University officials, and was undertaken despite University policies prohibiting classified or secret research. The story said that Mirocha’s work had been so guarded that employees in his lab were unaware until recently that they were analyzing plant samples collected by the intelligence community from sites in Southeast Asia, where the government suspected Vietnamese troops waged chemical warfare. The leaf and stem samples were analyzed for microtoxin, a natural chemical poison that the U.S. government suspected the Soviet Union of developing into a potential biological warfare agent.

Mirocha complained about the article’s assertion that the news drew “immediate criticism” from some University officials, including Stan Kegler, Vice President of Institutional Affairs, who said that he was “totally unaware” of the project and that he, as well as the chairman of Mirocha’s department and the dean of the college, should have been informed of it.

Mirocha submitted to the Council a memo from Kegler to University President C. Peter Magrath in which Kegler said he told the newspaper reporter that he was “not surprised at all not to be informed” about Mirocha’s analyses, not that he “should have been informed,” as the September 28 article stated. Further, Mirocha said he did not inform higher University officials about the project because he himself had been unaware of the purpose of the tests until very recently. He said he received two leaf and stem samples late in July from a Philadelphia pharmacologist who told him only that the samples were to be analyzed for microtoxin and who later sent the results of the tests on to the State Department. The State Department said that the secrecy was necessary to ensure unbiased test results and that much of the information would remain classified until the time was right to make it public.

Mirocha’s lab had found unusually high levels of three types of microtoxins (all of which can be harmful to human beings) on the samples. This finding prompted Secretary of State Alexander Haig to claim in a recent speech that he had “positive proof” that chemical warfare was being waged in Southeast Asia. The scientific community reacted with skepticism to Haig’s announcement (which some claimed was mostly designed to stress the Soviet threat to world security and encourage support for a U.S. military build-up). The State Department later toned down Haig’s claim by calling the evidence “preliminary.”

The following day, the paper published another front-page article by the same reporter entitled “U Regents want policy on secret research,” in which the reporter stated that, as a result of “disclosures that highly guarded work for the U.S. government on suspected biological warfare agents had been conducted at the University’s St. Paul campus,” some University regents said that University policy on classified or secret research might have to be “tightened up” and planned to ask University administrators to prepare a report on the matter. The article contained comments from various regents, as well as Mirocha’s explanation of how he became involved. The report also indicated that attempts by the paper during the past two weeks to learn more about the details of the tests had been “put off” by the State Department and employees in Mirocha’s laboratory.

The next day, September 30, the paper published a story by the same writer, “UM scientists at odds on evidence against Russ,” concerning the debate among University scientists over whether the results of Mirocha’s analyses proved biological warfare was indeed being conducted in Southeast Asia. The same day, the paper published an editorial under the headline “Nothing sinister about U testing.” It claimed that there was no evidence that analyses of a possible communist biological warfare agent by a University of Minnesota plant pathologist violated the institution’s rules against secret research and that apparently the only secret was the source of the material tested. The opinion piece said it was logical that the State Department would have sent the samples to Minnesota, since the University is well known for its ability to test for microtoxins in food or livestock feed. It added that it was also logical that Mirocha would perform the tests without probing into the origin of the material, since it was, to him, a routine procedure. “While the State Department’s behind-the-scenes approach may have bruised some feelings in Minnesota there was nothing sinister afoot,” stated the editorial.

Several weeks later, on October 16, in a front-page article, “U research policies, prof, given vote of confidence,” the original reporter wrote that the Education Policy Committee of the University’s Board of Regents officially sanctioned its existing research policies and Mirocha. Administrators at the University told the committee that because Mirocha’s work fell into the category of “outside services,” it was perfectly within the University’s guidelines. Although the State Department still refused to release many details about the project, Mirocha said in the article that he intended to publish the full results.

Mirocha complained that the newspaper reporter did not “conduct herself in a professional manner” and upset the operation of his lab while gathering information for the article. Despite the fact that the department chair had given the reporter the “correct, unbiased facts” about the situation, the reporter persisted in creating “a story out of fantasy,” Mirocha said.

Determination of the Council: The newspaper falsely implied in its September 28 article that Mirocha knowingly violated the University’s policy prohibiting secret research. The misleading implication, however, was partially due to Mirocha’s own initial reluctance to talk with the paper openly about the matter, as well as the State Department’s refusal to give the full details. The paper adequately corrected the false implication in a March 30 editorial and in subsequent stories on the matter. Its offer to clarify the matter in print was also a proper response to Mirocha’s complaint. Mirocha’s harassment charge against the newspaper reporter is unwarranted. The reporter was persistent in pursuit of the story, but persistence does not necessarily constitute harassment.

The complaint against the newspaper is not upheld.

Concurring: Amdahl, Brooks, Egert, Fushan, Graven, Hawthorne, Ryan, Spielman, Ziegenhagen

Concurring Opinion: Shaw Hindsight is always perfect. But I believe it is unfortunate that the paper did not distinguish between (a) the University’s policy against secret research and (b) its apparent lack of any corresponding policy prohibiting secret testing. I concur that the paper falsely implied that Professor Mirocha knowingly violated the University’s policy prohibiting secret research and I regret that the reporter’s superb work on this important story was flawed by this single error.

Partial Dissent: Early, Fairbanks, Provost Harassment is a difficult thing to define, but we believe Mirocha and his lab assistant when they say they felt harassed by the reporter. We think she overstepped the bounds of good reporting with her constant questioning of the lab assistant and her repeated phone calls. We are particularly opposed to the practice of calling sources very early in the morning and very late at night, unless absolutely necessary.

Partial Dissent: Miles, Selby We do not believe that the beginning of the paper’s September 28 article falsely implied that the complainant breached the University’s secret research policy. The paper’s use of the words “secret” and “highly guarded” were justified under the circumstances. The tests were so, whether Mirocha knew it or not. We also believe that the paper and the reporter should be commended for going after a tremendously important story and raising the issue of whether the University’s “outside services” policy is adequate. Given the fact that Mirocha and the State Department were clearly unwilling to tell her all they knew about the analyses and their implications, she did remarkably well.

Partial Dissent: Brooks The paper was insensitive to Mirocha and his lack of experience with the news media. When the paper first contacted him he was understandably quite concerned about the effect the paper’s reporting might have on career and work at the University. But the paper pinned him to the wall and never let up. By antagonizing him at the start, the paper surrendered to others the task of providing the “facts” of the situation. As a result, certain people at the University (perhaps with their own axe to grind about the University’s research policy or Mirocha himself) created a sinister image of Mirocha’s work in the mind of the reporter. This led to a regrettable “overkill.” Ironically enough it’s this very kind of overkill that causes people to be wary of dealing with the press. In all other respects, all partial dissenting opinions concur with the determination.

Background: Elwood, et al., objected to two columns by the same well-known entertainment columnist for the paper. The first column, entitled “Homos on El Soapos” ran on December 22, 1975, and described the National Broadcasting Company’s new fair treatment programming policy toward gay persons. Elwood complained that it contained not only factual errors but also a deliberate imputation that all homosexuals commit crime. As evidence, the complainants quoted the writer’s comments on NBC’s new policy:

“The lavender ladies laid into the network the other day and must have shook em up but def. Because after the pow wow, NBC indicated it would soon be doing a documentary on homos – and you can bet it’s not going to deal with recruiting in men’s rooms or that type of faggot who’s such a problem to the New York City police. What are they called? ‘Hawks’ or ‘eagles’ or something like that, and prey on young boys in the Times Square area.”

Elwood pointed out that public solicitation of sexual acts and seduction of minors are criminal acts, but that there is no reason to assert that all homosexuals commit such acts or that a greater percent of homosexuals break the law than other groups in society. They also complained that the first column contained derogatory language and an offensive tone defamatory to gay persons.

The complainants asked for either a retraction or allocation of the columnist’s normal column space for a “guest column.” At a meeting with the newspaper editor, he said he felt some of the language was in poor taste, but he rejected the request for a retraction on the grounds that it would exacerbate the problem by bringing the whole matter up again. He said a guest column was unrealistic.

A second column by the same writer appeared on January 16, 1976, entitled “NBC’s homosexual policy.” It was written in a noticeably different tone and corrected the factual errors of the first column. The columnist admitted he had not verified the information received from his sources for the first column.

Elwood complained that the second column did not apologize directly for the language used in the earlier story, and they objected to the use of the term “homosexual” in both columns, saying it was unacceptable to gay people (which they considered a preferable term).

When the complainants met again with representatives of the paper to voice their objections to the offensive language, innuendo and implications that were not corrected in the second column, the newspaper decided to adopt a new policy on the use of labels and descriptive terms identifying gay persons.

Determination of the Council: Some of the language in the first column was in poor taste; however, taste is a matter of opinion, and opinion expressed in an entertainment column is editorial. The public must be the judge of the reasonableness, validity or tastefulness of editorial opinion.

The newspaper responded quickly and positively by correcting the errors with a second column and by adopting a new policy to prevent the recurrence of potentially offensive reference to minority groups such as gay persons. In light of the new policy, the complainants’ request for either a retraction or “guest column” is unnecessary and unreasonable.

Elwood took the position that a minority group in society has the sole and inalienable right to determine for itself the term or descriptive phrase by which it will be identified in public media presentations; in particular, they reject the term “homosexual” as unacceptable to gay people. We think otherwise. Journalists should respect the rights and dignity of all minority groups, but the Council rejects the right of any group to control the media’s right to present accurate and understandable news reports. If groups are commonly known and identified in the public’s mind by certain generic expressions, the media may use those terms even though that use may not be preferred by the minority group. Clearly if the minority is successful in getting public acceptance and understanding of a new label or term, then the media will properly and willingly use that term since it has become the commonly understood reference to that group.

The complaint against the newspaper is not upheld.

Concurring Opinion: Spielman Columns are not just expressions of opinion comparable to editorials, but are a combination of news reports and commentary. They are a form of “insider’s reports” mixing news with opinions. Since the writers often pose as experts in their fields, the necessity for accuracy of the information contained in such columns requires the same diligence as in a straight news story.

The first column was more than an expression of opinion in which language was used derogatory to “gays.” It was a report on the supposed policy of NBC on the portrayal of homosexuality, and it reported on what supposedly took place at a meeting of representatives of “gay” organizations with network officials. While the Council majority may well point out that the Council does not determine what is “good” or “bad” opinion, or even “good” or “bad” taste, the Minnesota Press Council was established to determine what is good and bad journalism.

In light of the information contained in the second column, it is evident that the reports of NBC policy and what happened at the meeting with NBC officials, as reported in the first column, were grossly inaccurate and false. Further, from the derogatory language used, it appears that the personal prejudices of the writer blinded him to his duty to check his facts before writing the first column. The statement on NBC policy obtained from the network vice president and facts concerning the meeting with the “gay” organizations could have been obtained before the December 22 column was written, as well as later. This was bad journalism, and the fact that it was so is tacitly admitted by the paper.

If this is where the matter had ended, the columnist and the paper would be subject to censure by this press council. But the matter did not end there.

In the January 16 column, the writer made full correction of all errors of fact and reported in great detail the story of NBC’s policy and what had actually happened at the meeting. This was done in the same place, with equal prominence, and with an even greater amount of space than the offending column. The editor’s memorandum further lessened the likelihood that overt prejudice will blind the paper’s personnel to their obligations in the future. In addition to this, the newspaper offered space in its letters-to-the-editor column to the complainants, which was declined by them.

The corrections in the second column and the new policy adopted by the newspaper constituted adequate remedy for the earlier errors. The request for further retraction is excessive; the demand for a “guest column” is unreasonable.

Concurring Opinion: Hetland – A signed column is different from an editorial opinion. It does contain elements of news reporting. However, since the signed column is primarily intended to express the writer’s opinions, conclusions and even prejudices and is so understood and accepted by the reading public, it is fair to impose upon that opinion writer the same freedom to express opinion and the same obligation of factual accuracy as is imposed upon the editor in his opinion writing.