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.

Panelists include Star Tribune Editor Nancy Barnes, Pioneer Press Editor Thom Fladung, MinnPost Publisher Joel Kramer and the U of M Institute for New Media Studies Director Nora Paul. Additional information can be found at http://www.press.org/npc100/forumindex.cfm

The news story focused on current hostility between elected officials in the City of Maplewood. The Star Tribune eliminated two other complaints by Kysylyczyn, acknowledging that it should have called him for comment in stories that criticized him.  The newspaper also said it has told its staff to call Kysylyczyn whenever a future story casts him in a negative light.

Representing the Star Tribune, Kevin Duchschere, team leader for the paper’s St. Paul bureau, justified the use of the word “antics” to characterize Kysylyczyn’s time in office by noting that the newspaper used the word in the past to describe the behavior of former Governors Rudy Perpich and Jesse Ventura, former Minneapolis City Council Member Barbara Carlson and form U.S. Senator Paul Wellstone.  The newspaper said the word applied to “colorful, controversial and unorthodox behavior by a political figure.”

Most council members found no fault in the Star Tribune’s use of the word “antics” given several examples the newspaper offered at the hearing.  At a rally criticizing him, the newspaper said, Kysylyczyn paraded through the crowd with a sign that read: “The mayor is a bard” and “Death to the mayor.”  He also tried, the newspaper said, to have himself appointed editor of the Roseville newsletter, so that more news of the city council would be published.News Council member Jane Berg, a public relations specialist, said she thought the Star Tribune should have published one such example, to support the use of “antics.”  The story offered none.

The Star Tribune used Kysylyczyn’s name in the story, said Jeff Rush, editor of the newspaper’s north suburban section, to reflect a time when Roseville’s city government was in turmoil.  Duchschere said that three years after Kysylyczyn left office, his name is still synonymous with controversial leadership, and Roseville is an easy reference point for reporters writing about contentious suburban politics.

Lindner was roundly attacked by political opponents and rejected by some in his own party for remarks he made questioning the history of Nazi persecution of homosexuals.

Lindner turned down an offer from the Star Tribune last fall to write an opinion piece explaining his views

“I didn’t want to write it myself,” he told the News Council. “My name was already mud out there, and it still is. I didn’t think anybody would pay attention.”

A six-term legislator, Lindner recently failed to get his party’s endorsement for re-election.

The Star Tribune published a news story reported by the Associated Press in March 2003 on DFL critics accusing Lindner of denying the Holocaust. Lindner complained that the news organizations should have asked him to state his position and not just allowed his critics to characterize it.

The newspaper and the wire service both published corrections saying that Lindner had not denied the Holocaust, but the corrections generated another complaint: that they stated inaccurately that Lindner had questioned whether the Nazis had persecuted homosexuals. Lindner told the News Council he had questioned “the extent to which” the Nazis had persecuted homosexuals.

News Council members debated whether news organization should show proposed corrections to subjects of stories who feel wronged by inaccurate reporting. Some media members resisted the idea. But Mike Parta, former publisher/editor of the New York Mills Herald, said:

“Why not take the extra step to see that the correction is enough to solve the problem?”

Lindner also complained that the Star Tribune gratuitously and wrongly inserted the term “anti-Semitic” into an AP story about legislators who wanted Lindner censured for what they called racism and homophobia. The Star Tribune corrected that error. Chris Ison, leader of the newspaper’s investigative team, explained that the staff member who wrote the story mistakenly included the term “anti-Semitic” because she had heard a woman legislator say that, as a Jew and a Lesbian, she was offended by Lindner’s remarks in the House debate.

That term did not appear in the complaint against Lindner that the legislature had drafted. The News Council was satisfied with the Star Tribune’s explanation of how the mistake was made.

But one Council member, former Star Tribune reporter Gwenyth Jones Spitz, was not satisfied with the editor’s stance on why the newspaper had not asked Lindner to state his view of the Holocaust, in response to the DFL accusation that he had denied its existence.

“Would you print anything someone said on the House floor?” she asked Ison. “If someone said a legislator beat his wife?”

Ison said the newspaper would not print such an accusation. Spitz responded:

“But you did print that he [Lindner] denied the Holocaust. What’s the difference? They’re both outrageous charges.”

Media members of the council noted that covering legislative debates is different from covering a single event; they are ongoing. So, they said, balance and context emerge from continuing coverage. But the AP bureau chief, Dave Pyle, said that his agency insists each story must be balanced.

News Council public member Karen Runyon, a forensics specialist, asked the news people why they did not publish passages from a House transcript that would have made Lindner’s position on the Holocaust clear.

“It’s interesting,” she said, ”that something was deleted [from the transcript by Lindner’s DFL critics]. Why wasn’t that a news story?”

The Star Tribune’s Ison and some media members of the council said it was impractical to run long sections of transcripts. Runyon said, “I resent having a reporter interpret what someone said that I didn’t get to hear. Let the public [read the words actually said] and decide for themselves.”

Council member Vicki Gowler, executive editor of the Pioneer Press, said, “We run portions of transcripts that become controversial, and we refer people [who want longer versions] to our on-line service. But our role is to boil it down and give people the news.”

Lindner’s three complaints were denied by votes of about two to one.

Although he declined to write an opinion piece for the Star Tribune months ago, because he was afraid he would appear to be whining, he said he would like to write one now:

“I can’t believe anyone can say anything about another person and have it printed without that person having a chance to reply. It’s hurt me politically.”

Complaint: 1. The headline “MnDOT contracts called illegal” did not fairly reflect the facts of the situation or of the published story. 2. The page-one placement of the headline was sensational, inflammatory and misleading, in that it implied a pattern of wrongdoing that the facts did not justify. 3. The news story listed items and quotes that make serious allegations of wrongdoing are not backed up by facts. 4. The news story is unbalanced, and it unfairly sides with MnDOT ’s critics in the Department of Administration. 5. Reporting on the independent audit was incomplete and did not reflect audit’s findings that MnDOT contracts were made within legal and ethical bounds under both state and federal law.

Response: The Star Tribune says its headline and story accurately reflected what officials charged with exercising oversight of MnDOT activities had alleged. The newspaper says the headline and the story draw attention to “a dispute over the behavior of the state’s transportation department, which spends millions of dollars of public money annually [which] is important and is of interest to the public. The Star Tribune did not raise this dispute. It was raised by the public officials. The community should expect its newspaper to cover it.”

The Star Tribune also said that the audit did not conclude that MnDot’s contract awards were clearly legal and ethical. The newspaper says the audit warned that “there were grounds for further inquiry regarding a number of allegations suggesting that MnDOT, in certain instances, had failed to adhere to best contractor bidding and selection practices, or had failed to exercise adequate management oversight after contracts were awarded.”

Discussion: MnDOT Commissioner Elwyn Tinklenberg criticized the Star Tribune’s reliance on “a few Department of Administration employees with a clearly vested interest” in protecting their power to exercise control over MnDOT contract awards.

Chris Ison, Star Tribune projects editor, said that when MnDOT ‘s Tinklenberg cited the audit’s conclusion that the agency was in the clear, “he left out the opening phrase that said, ‘generally speaking,’” MnDOT’s activities were above board. Ison said the audit went on to cite allegations that needed investigation of serious problems in the awarding of contracts.
Pioneer Press Editor, Vicki Gowler, supported MnDOT’s challenge to the Star Tribune headline: “The Pioneer Press talks a lot about putting both sides in the headline [and the sub-headline]. I would have done it differently [from the StarTribune].” MnDOT’s view did not appear in a headline until the continuation of the story on an inside page.

Many News Council members said they felt that readers were quite able to sort out the various contentions in the story. Tony Carideo, a former Star Tribune staff writer now in public relations, said, “The state’s customers are taxpayers and citizens. The oversight responsibility of the media for an agency spending so much money and dealing with public safety is the overriding factor in my thinking when I look at this story.”

Reed Anfinson, publisher of the Swift County Monitor-News said if the outcome of the story was to get two state departments to clean up their process, it is a public service.

Vote:
Complaint 1: not upheld (9-3)
Complaint 2: not upheld (11-1)
Complaint 3: not upheld (11-1)
Complaint 4: not upheld (10-2)
Complaint 5: Not upheld (8-4)

Attending the hearing were the complainants, Dr. Patrick Michaels, Professor of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia, and Dr. Robert Balling, Director, Office of Climatology, Arizona State University. Respondents for the Star Tribune were Susan Albright, Editorial Page editor; Jim Lenfestey, formerly employed at the Star Tribune and writer of the editorial in question; Kate Stanley, current global warming editorial writer; and Eric Ringham, Commentary Page editor.

Bob Provost, a former Council member, took part as a public member in order to ensure a balance of public/media members. About a dozen people observed the proceedings, including Elissa Papirno, reader representative for the Hartford (CT) Courant.

Background:  On May 22, 1997, Ross Gelbspan, author of the book The Heat Is On, came to Minneapolis to speak on issues of global warming. The Star Tribune ran an editorial to inform people of Gelbspan’s public talk and of Gelbspan’s concerns about a “disinformation campaign” being undertaken by some climatologists.

Complaint: Drs. Michaels and Balling complained about the following two and a half paragraphs that mentioned them in the 8-paragraph editorial:

A new book, “The Heat is On,” by journalist Ross Gelbspan, documents both the emergence of the scientific consensus and industry’s political campaign to counter that consensus. He performs a great public service by exposing the handful of contrarian scientists as often in the pay of their fossil fuel supporters. They disseminate unsubstantiated opinions without the review by other scientists required for scientific integrity.

So whenever you read or hear the opinions of skeptics Patrick Michaels, S. Fred Singer and Robert Balling, know that their ideas and opinions have been carefully considered by a host of climate scientists, and found to be without merit.

Gelbspan’s book is particularly timely. Many of the global warming skeptics have received a warm reception on Capitol Hill in spite of their lack of scientific credibility….

They complained that the editorial unfairly characterized their scientific reputations.

A second complaint, that the editorial contained a serious factual error – that the temperature over the Antarctic had risen 20 degrees over the past 20 years – was addressed in a correction that the paper ran a few days later stating that the rise was 4 to 5 degrees. However, the scientists say the correction was itself incorrect. They chose not pursue this complaint further.

Response: The Star Tribune defended its editorial on the grounds that it fell within the proper boundaries of editorial opinion:

“The piece in question is a legitimate expression of editorial opinion. As the institutional viewpoint of the Star Tribune, the editorial takes a side and makes a case. It appropriately reaches beyond the informational mission of a news story to make assessments and state opinions about an important public-policy issue. The editorial took a strong stand while seeking to engage readers in the larger debate about global warming.

“The Star Tribune is not responsible for any harm Prof. Michaels’ reputation may have suffered in regard to global warming. Though Dr. Michaels’ curriculum vitae (CV) shows him to have accomplished much in his field, many knowledgeable people nevertheless consider his views on global warming unfounded. Michaels’ own writings, hearings testimony and speeches – not an editorial in the Star Tribune – have led to highly controversial status in the scientific community. The editorial simply alerted readers to Michaels’ role in downplaying potential dangers of global warming…

“I believe the Star Tribune editorial page is duty-bound to analyze difficult public controversies, to judge all the players, to distinguish between science and certain scientists’ opinions. This is what our May 22 editorial tried to do and succeeded in doing. It alerted readers to an accomplished journalist’s well-supported finding that some in the global-warming debate aren’t the independent, science-guided thinkers they might appear to be. Their ideology is clear in their writings.”

When contacted by the complainants, the Editorial department offered to run a response on the Commentary page, but the professors declined.

Discussion: “Put yourself in the position of a college-educated person who picks up this editorial,” said Michaels. “You would conclude that Pat Michaels and Bob Balling are lowlife scum who lie about science. I find that totally objectionable.”

Dr. Balling challenged the paper’s assertion that he disseminates information that is unsubstantiated and that has not been reviewed by his peers. He pointed out that he has 91 published articles in refereed scientific journals. “I don’t know what more I can do to get peer reviewed. I may be one of the most peer reviewed people in America.” Michaels has published more than 50 articles in peer-reviewed journals. Michaels added, “It’s harder for us to publish (because we do not agree with majority opinion), yet we appear somewhere almost every month.”

The Star Tribune said it did not suggest the professors did not publish in peer reviewed journals, only that they also disseminated information that was not peer reviewed, particularly Michaels, who publishes a monthly newsletter, “World Climate Report,” and maintains a web site. Michaels said the data set he works from and publishes in “World Climate Report” is the same data set that appears in scientific journals.

Balling challenged the editorial’s statement that his scientific views lacked credibility and that he had no scientific integrity. He said he is on the faculty at the sixth largest University, and has been director of its climate program for 10 years. He has 20 times been an invited speaker at major universities. “Evidently someone has decided it’s worth listening to what I have to say.”

Balling has served on U.N. panels examining climate change in dry lands (and co-authored a book by that name), was an author for Working Group #2, and was chosen by National Geographic (as was Michaels) to write an essay on climate issues.

Michaels’ professional accomplishments include being a member of three professional organizations and serving as president of the American Association of State Climatologists. He is a frequent public speaker (more than 300 speaking engagements) and has testified before both the U.S. House and Senate. He is a full professor at the University of Virginia.

Albright said the editorial didn’t attack the professors’ credentials but spoke only about their ideas and opinions.

Media member Maureen Reeder asked Michaels and Balling if they had critics: they said they did. Michaels complained that journalists don’t realize that science is a process of “disagreement and ferment. If it were static, there wouldn’t be any need for scientists.” He asserted that differences of opinion in science don’t mean one side has no merit. Public member Laurisa Sellers noted that this difference of opinion certainly did not seem to have resulted in the two professors being ostracized by the scientific community.

Ringham saw a similarity with the Opinion pages. “You said science is a process of disagreement and ferment. That’s just how we see the Op-Ed page. Op-Ed is the opposite of editorial,” not just physically in the layout of the paper, but also in ideas. He said the paper places a premium on voices that oppose its editorial stance and it would have welcomed an opportunity to publish something from the professors.

Media member Kathleen Stauffer asked Michaels why he didn’t submit a letter to the editor, to which Michaels responded: “I was tarred any way I did it. The editorial told you not to listen to me. [I lacked integrity.]”

Media member Elizabeth Costello asked Lenfestey about the factual error early in the editorial, which set the stage for discrediting the two professors. “It was a tremendous error. There is no excuse. It shouldn’t have happened,” said Lenfestey. The erroneous temperature increase came from the introduction of the book. When the publisher called the next day identifying the error, Lenfestey said, “It was like a knife through my heart.” He admitted that he didn’t check the accuracy of the 20° temperature rise over the Antarctic because he trusted the book.

Lenfestey stood by the accuracy of the correction – a 5° increase – which the professors disputed. Michaels asked for his documentation; Lenfestey did not have most of his material with him but cited an article in Newsweek. Michaels questioned the credibility of a journalistic rather than scientific source for scientific data. He cited satellite data to justify the .5° increase he says has occurred since 1958.

Michaels also questioned the fairness of relying upon Gelbspan’s book, which was not scientifically reviewed and which relied upon information from three people who recently “had their ox gored in Nature magazine” by Michaels.

Public member Bob Provost asked the professors about their industry funding, which was highlighted in the editorial. Balling acknowledged that he had received $408,000 in research funding from the fossil fuel industry over the last decade (of which his University takes 50% for overhead). Balling pointed out that his university promotes joint efforts between academia and industry.

Michaels said 20% of his funding comes from the fossil fuel industry; the remaining 80% from federal or state-tax supporting sources. Both men denied that industry funding had biased the outcome of their scientific research. “That’s like saying 20% of the research is biased one way, and 80% is biased the other,” said Michaels. Balling said reviewers look more critically at his research because of his funding sources. Media member Nancy Conner asked the professors why, if they know that this funding creates the perception of a conflict of interest, they still chooses to accept it? Balling said academics look for funding everywhere they can. Michaels said that his point of view on global warming hasn’t changed in 20 years; it was the same when his research was funded by the State of Virginia as when it was funded by industry.

Public member Craig Shulstad asked the Star Tribune if it was equally suspicious of funding from government sources. Lenfestey said he was not. Commentary editor Eric Ringham said that in the Letters column such information would appear as a tagline at the end of a letter. While it was noteworthy, sources of funding for research don’t necessary impeach the research findings but readers should take that information into account when considering opinions.

Albright said she knows of no other scientist putting out a “propaganda” newsletter that is funded by industry. She said the editorial was meant to encourage skepticism “when you have a scientific judgment accompanied by a policy suggestion … When you find scientists on any side (of a policy issue), they look very unusual in the scientific community, but (these men) come across as authorities in the public.”

“We are not attacking their research,” Albright said. But she stressed that in the view of the Star Tribune these two professors are political advocates, and that Michaels’ newsletter opposes government spending and taxation.

“Responsible editors have a right and a duty to attack these scientists for the propagandists they have become,” she said. “People need to know that global warming is real and is affected by human activity, not just natural fluctuations. We thought we had a duty to put that in the editorial.”

“Why didn’t you say that?” said media member Lee Canning, commenting on the fact that the editorial made no mention of Michaels’ newsletter, web site, or any political advocacy role. He wondered why the Star Tribune felt it necessary to name these two professors when, in his opinion, it wasn’t really necessary. Lenfestey said he believed it was necessary to expose these two men by name because of the prominent role they play in public in debunking the threat of widespread and extreme consequences from global warming.

Media member Zoua Vang asked the professors what they thought to be the purpose of an editorial. Balling said he expects to read a point of view that is accurate and well grounded in fact. “I wouldn’t be here if I thought this (editorial) was based on fact.”

Michaels said he expects editorials to take a stance, to weave a logical web using rhetorical devices, but not to use a broad brush to attack a person.

Deliberation: Reeder said she found the editorial factual. Michaels does publish a newsletter and does maintain a web site, neither of which undergoes peer review, and the professors admitted that they had critics and that they received industry funding.

Costello pointed out the difference between disagreement of opinion between two parties and the leap to saying that those opposing opinions have no merit. She was concerned with that, as well as with the serious factual error. “As a reader, this is all you’re reading. The error was part of the build up to ‘without merit.’” It made the professors’ ideas seem even more at variance with the majority opinion than they really are.

Canning was equally troubled by the error. “[The editorial writer] missed a mistake by 10,000 percent, after telling us he studied this for seven years. What does that tell us about [him] as a source?”

Canning continued: “This (editorial) derides these two men. If you’re going to go that far – and you’re entitled to do that – you had better make sure everything you write is letter perfect. The higher up the ladder you step on the way to derision, the thinner the rungs get.”

Media member Nancy Conner reiterated that while Michaels’ newsletter and web site may not be peer reviewed, he said it contained the same data set published in peer-reviewed journals.

Shulstad had serious concerns with the way the editorial “misrepresented the state of science, and these two scientists in particular. It makes it a black and white issue. That’s what bothers me.” He noted the role of critical exchange in the development of scientific truths, the role of disagreement. Furthermore, “It’s clear from the literature that these two individuals have very strong credentials.”

Sellers found it disingenuous for the editors to say that they questioned the credibility and integrity of the professors’ opinions only on global warming, not other subjects. “That’s who they are. That’s what they do.” To say broadly that those opinions lack integrity, she said, is to say they lack integrity.

Public member Rachel Quenemoen said she appreciated information about the professors’ sources of funding and she applauded the paper for its editorial purpose, but felt “this one went over the line.” Further, she questioned the appropriateness of using the popular press [Newsweek, books] instead of scientific journals as a source for information.

Two media members – Kathleen Stauffer and Jim Pumarlo – expressed concerns that Michaels did not take advantage of the recourse readily available to him through a letter to the editor. “You’re not a naive innocent who’s never published before,” said Stauffer “You are perfectly capable of defending yourself.” They both felt the paper properly exercised its editorial function to disseminate information and to take a strong stand on an issue.

Shulstad disagreed, “The strength of the editorial isn’t the point, the characterization of these two men is.” To which media member Trish Van Pilsum responded: “It seems to me they characterized these two as men who have forayed into the arena of advocacy at some expense to their credibility. I think that’s a fair characterization.”

“But when you say these people aren’t credible, that’s beyond strong,” said Sellers. “That’s over the line.”

Determination: The Council voted to sustain the complaint that the Star Tribune editorial unfairly characterized the scientific reputations of Patrick Michaels and Robert Balling.

Concurring: Canning, Conner, Costello, Neddermeyer, Provost, Quenemoen, Sellers, Shulstad, Vang
Dissenting: Pumarlo, Reeder, Stauffer, Van Pilsum
Recused: Hage, Bauerlein
Presiding: Tomljanovich

Dissenting Opinion: Stauffer, Pumarlo

Maintaining that fairness requires a newspaper editorial writer to temper his or her well-researched opinion misconstrues the vocation and casts a pall upon a venerable American journalistic tradition: the right and responsibility of a newspaper’s editorial board to take a passionate stand in a debate of critical public concern. While a newspaper’s reporters are rightly bound by an objective constant, editorial page editors offer a deliberate and invaluable counterbalance by playing watchdog, feeding on information, forming opinions, ultimately serving the Common Good. To be sure, an editorial board’s writers are as obliged as news reporters to uphold every professional standard of accuracy. Nevertheless, the right to take a strong and spirited position is inherent to an editorial board and ought not to be forfeited for any reason, including inadvertent factual error. That some editorial boards and some publishers might abuse this right is regrettable; at such a point, the question of fairness appropriately comes into play. however, given the willingness of the editorial page editors in this case to surrender space for counterpoint amid an ongoing, heated debate, and given their willingness to do so without hesitation precisely in the interest of fairness, the complainants’ contention that they have been characterized unfairly – particularly in light of the complainants’ refusal to take advantage of the opportunity to respond – is unconvincing.

Background: On December 14, 1996, the Star Tribune published an article about the settlement of a police brutality lawsuit, headlined, “Minneapolis City Council approves $25,000 Sauro settlement.” Sauro complained to the News Council, saying he was not called by the paper for this story, resulting in an incompleteness and inaccuracy. Had the paper reached him, Sauro said, it would have learned that he had been dismissed from the lawsuit several weeks prior to the settlement. Thus, the settlement was not a “Sauro settlement.”

When presented with the complaint through the News Council, the Star Tribune wrote to Sauro, offering to run the following clarification:

A story in December 14 editions should have said that former Minneapolis police Lt. Mike Sauro was not a party to a police brutality settlement between the city and Hazem Judah. Mr. Sauro was dismissed from suit last November.

Sauro declined to accept the clarification because he said it did not account for all of the errors the story contained, nor did it tell his side of the story, which should have been included in the original article. The Star Tribune did not publish the clarification.

In another attempt to resolve Sauro’s complaint, the paper offered him space on the editorial page for a commentary telling his side of the story. Sauro declined, saying anything he wrote would appear self-serving and defensive, and that the paper would not be taking responsibility for the errors it made.

Finally, on May 20, 1997, the Star Tribune published the following statement, under the headline “Apology”:

A story and headline December 14 should have made clear Minneapolis police Lt. Mike Sauro was not a party to a police brutality settlement between the city and Hazem Judeh. Sauro was dismissed from the suit last November. The story also should have included either comments from Sauro or a synopsis of his version of the events.

Sauro did not accept the paper’s apology as a resolution to his complaint, saying he wanted his complaint judged by an independent body and made part of the public record.

Complaint: Sauro complained that the Star Tribune’s failure to contact him for a story naming him violated a basic rule of fairness in journalism. He said he has been the subject of many news articles during the past few years, but that this was the first time he was not contacted for a story involving him. Sauro said he understands that mistakes happen, but felt that in this case the Star Tribune demonstrated “total incompetence.” The proposed settlement document the reporter used to write the story contained Sauro’s version of the events leading to the lawsuit, yet the reporter chose not to include that information in the story. Sauro questioned why the editor who reviewed the story was not more critical of its lack of balance.

In addition, Sauro said the paper inaccurately reported the incident leading to the lawsuit. The article reported”

“Judeh claimed that after he was in handcuffs on the floor, he was kicked in the face by Sauro. Judeh’s claim was supported by his wife, who was present at the time, and corroborated by other store employees who saw some of Judeh’s interaction with the police officers.”

Sauro said that several police officers present at the incident testified before a federal grand jury and in sworn depositions that he never kicked or struck Judeh. Further, he said, the two officers who did give Judeh his injuries filed police reports documenting the force they used during Judeh’s arrest, resulting in the injuries he sustained. Sauro also questioned the eyewitness corroboration cited in the paragraph. He said Judeh’s wife was outside during the arrest, and the store employees were lying on the floor, face down, with their heads covered, as is standard police procedure. Thus, they were not able to see the force used by the other officers against Judeh.

Sauro also complained that there was no attribution for the information that was in the story. He assumed that it came from Judeh’s attorney, and said such attribution would help readers judge the reliability of the information.

Response: Editor Tim McGuire submitted the following statement to be read by the executive director at the hearing, “I am pleased the chairman will state the nature of the complaint and detail the apology the Star Tribune published, and that he will then seek a vote to uphold the complaint.”

Discussion: Council member Nedra Wicks asked Sauro why he declined the paper’s offer of space on the editorial page. Sauro reiterated that he believed any commentary he wrote would appear self-serving and readers were less likely to take it seriously. He added that it is not his job to write articles for the newspaper.

Council member Laurisa Sellers asked Sauro what role he played in the paper’s publishing of the apology. Sauro said he did not see it when he read the paper that morning, and found out about it only when a co-worker mentioned it to him. Sauro said that if it had been printed with the same prominence as the story, he might have accepted it as a resolution. He added that it read more like an apology to the readers for confusing them, rather than an apology to him for failing to contact him.

Council member Jim Pumarlo asked Sauro why he complained to the News Council without first complaining directly to the paper. Sauro said he felt his complaint was so serious that it needed to go directly to the News Council. He said every article ever written about him had mistakes, and that he had called the paper to account on some of those, but that this case was a matter of intentional disregard for fairness.

 Determination: There was no deliberation on this complaint. The Council voted unanimously to uphold the complaint that the Star Tribune story inaccurately portrayed Sauro’s role in the incident and his status in the lawsuit; failed to name a source for the allegations against him and failed to include his version of the events.

Concurring: Amaris, Conner, Hoben, Kostouros, Peterson, Pumarlo, Sellers, Thompson, Wicks, Wychor

Abstaining: Anderson

Attending the hearing was the complainant, Dr. L. David Mech, a biologist specializing in wolf research with the National Biological Survey. Accompanying Mech were Walter Medwid, director of the International Wolf Center (IWC), and Nancy Gibson, an associate of Mech’s at the IWC. Representing the Star Tribune were Pam Fine, managing editor, Tom Meersman, reporter, and Marilyn Hoegemeyer, story editor.

Background: The Star Tribune said the story originated when the paper received information that Mech and the International Wolf Center had been sued by a former IWC employee. Meersman interviewed more than two dozen people and interviewed Mech twice. On July 23, 1995, the Star Tribune published a copyrighted article on page one, above the fold, with the headline, “Is wolf expert above the rules? Incidents raise ethics questions.”

Mech complained to the Star Tribune, asking for almost two dozen corrections; the paper made two. Mech also asked for rebuttal space on the Commentary page with a front-page referral; the paper gave him 36 inches with no front-page referral. Mech remained unsatisfied with the Star Tribune’s response because he felt the paper had not taken responsibility for what he considered irresponsible journalism. Also, Mech said the original article was circulating on the Internet and had spawned articles in other publications that repeated and distorted its charges. Therefore, Mech asked the Minnesota News Council to review his complaint.

Response of the news organization: The Star Tribune defended the story as fully documented, fair and balanced. It said the article followed standard journalistic practices and raised legitimate questions about the activities of a well-known scientist. Further, the paper said it had provided readers ample opportunity to learn Mech’s views both within the story and in the lengthy Commentary piece written by freelance journalist Dave Anderson at Mech’s request and published on December 10, 1995. More specifically, the paper responded that:

1. The headline reflected legitimate questions posed by numerous people interviewed for the story.

2. The passages to which Mech objected were summaries at the beginning of the story; the assertions they contained were explained in greater detail later. Also, a summary statement by Mech, in his defense, ran near the beginning of the story with further explanation later.

3. The article contained 16 named sources, all of whom were chosen either because of their scientific expertise, their direct experience working with or for Mech, or their knowledge of rules and regulations pertaining to wolves. It also included several people who spoke on condition on anonymity because they said they feared retaliation by Mech. Those sources were used primarily to support what named sources said in the story.

4. The article provided substantiation for its major points both in statements from qualified sources and documents that pertained to the issues raised.

Discussion: Mech claimed that the article’s presentation implied serious wrongdoing when, in his opinion, the worst thing the article had accused him of was accidentally killing a wolf while tranquilizing it in the presence of a British film crew. However, he said, even that charge lacked context – that he had drugged wolves thousands of times without incident. He argued that the article did not merit being marked copyrighted and placed on the front page next to a story about Susan Smith, a woman convicted of murdering her two young sons. Mech expressed concern that many people don’t read beyond the headlines and that it wasn’t until 34 lines into the story that he was quoted. Further, Mech calculated that the statements in his defense totaled less than 10 percent of the article. He questioned the fairness of the paper’s being able to control which of his comments it published and how they were presented.

Carol Pine, a public member, asked Mech if he considered himself a public figure; he replied he did not. Pine then posed the same question to the paper; Pam Fine, managing editor, answered that it did consider Mech a public figure because he works for the University of Minnesota and receives public funding. Pine then asked what the paper’s standards are for news coverage of public figures. Fine said that many factors influence how a story about a public figure is played, among them importance, interest and the effect on the community.

Media member Trish Van Pilsum asked the paper how large a factor exclusivity of a story is in determining its placement. Fine answered that generally speaking, when a newspaper has exclusive stories, it plays them prominently.

Public member Ann Barkelew asked the paper to explain what standards it uses to judge a story as fair. Fine answered that the paper considers balance and accuracy fundamental to fairness. She said the paper asks itself if its stories present the right picture, if it’s right to hold a person up to questioning, and if the story is clear and makes sense.

Public member Laurisa Sellers said that while the stated purpose of the article was to raise legitimate questions, it seemed to go beyond that and, in effect, pointed readers in the direction of answers. She asked the paper if giving readers direction fit its journalistic standards. Meersman responded that his findings were substantiated by numerous people.

Media member Maureen Reeder said she thought the story was an example of solid journalism. “As a journalist, often you end up reporting what your gut tells you. That’s an important part of journalistic practice,” she said.

“Along with respecting the gut feeling of the reporter, we must respect the gut feeling of the interviewee,” added public member Terry Thompson.

Many members were troubled by the placement and tone of the article. “This was a story with a point of view,” media member Ron Handberg said. “I’d be far more comfortable if the paper had neglected the copyright and instead labeled it analysis.” Barkelew agreed. “The headline carries a powerful punch. If I read no more, I would think this is a bad guy.”

Mech also questioned the fairness of the Star Tribune’s corrections policy. Included in the original article was the statement: “Mech serves on various boards that directly or indirectly control much of the funding for wolf research projects.” A correction ran in the Corrections column on page two on November 19, 1995, stating: “An article on Page 4A July 23 incorrectly stated that Phil Sauer was executive director of the International Wolf Center in Ely, Minn. He was interim administrator. The article also said L. David Mech serves on various boards that directly or indirectly control much of the funding for wolf research projects. Mech serves on one board and one scientific panel, neither of which controls funding.” Mech asked how that correction compared to the front-page presentation of the original accusation.

Rabbi Barry Cytron, a public member, said the story did more than raise questions. He called the story prejudicial and challenged the practice of making an assertion on the front page while placing the correction on page two. Fine responded that most newspapers anchor corrections in a set place so that readers don’t have to search for them. She added that if an error reaches the level where it seems unfair to put it inside, papers may elect to put it outside.

Sellers asked the Star Tribune if, when it ran the correction, it considered also noting that the story was based, in part, on anonymous sources who feared retaliation. Fine answered that the paper did not consider doing so because its policy is to keep corrections narrowly focused on facts. Sellers pressed the issue, saying that the fundamental reason for granting these sources anonymity was undercut by the correction. Meersman defended the use of the anonymous sources, saying that the correction did not say that Mech does not influence funding, but that he does not sit on boards. Fine explained that the paper allows the use of anonymous sources when it has multiple sources speaking to the same point, when they’re highly credible and their credibility is unimpugnable. In this case, she said, anonymous sources were used as secondary sources to support named sources.

Mech challenged the paper’s use of sources he deemed non-authoritative, specifically 1) photographer Jim Brandenburg, who commented on the scientific validity of Mech’s research, and 2) an IWC student volunteer who said Mech misused government vehicles. Mech questioned why these people were quoted rather than wolf researchers or, in the case of use of vehicles, his supervisor. He quoted the syndicated columnist William Raspberry who said, “But for the most part, we’d rather report the scandal we suspect than the service that we know.”

Fine said that Meersman asked Mech whom he should talk to and then interviewed them. Meersman said he tried to interview Mech’s supervisor, but found that Mech had faxed the supervisor and told him not to talk to Meersman, but to refer Meersman to the IWC lawyer. Fine said Brandenburg and the student volunteers were used as sources because they were eyewitnesses, not experts.

Determination 1: The Council upheld the complaint that the headline was prejudicial and that the framing set an unfair tone for the information that followed.

Concurring: Amaris, Barkelew, Cytron, Denny, Peterson, Pine, Pumarlo, Sellers, Seltzer, Thompson

Dissenting: Conner, Handberg, Hoben, Reeder, Smith, Van Pilsum

Abstaining: Anderson

Determination 2: The Council upheld the complaint that the article used inflammatory and prejudicial language.

Concurring: Amaris, Barkelew, Cytron, Denny, Hoben, Peterson, Pine, Pumarlo, Sellers, Seltzer

Dissenting: Conner, Handberg, Reeder, Smith, Thompson, Van Pilsum

Abstaining: Anderson

Determination 3: The Council denied the complaint that the article was based upon comments from sources who were anonymous, biased or lacked authority to judge his behavior.

Concurring: Barkelew, Conner, Cytron, Denny, Handberg, Hoben, Peterson, Pine, Pumarlo, Reeder, Smith, Thompson, Van Pilsum

Dissenting: Amaris, Sellers, Seltzer

Abstaining: Anderson

Determination 4: The Council denied the complaint that the article leveled charges against Mech without providing substantiation or context.

Concurring: Amaris, Conner, Cytron, Denny, Handberg, Hoben, Peterson, Pine, Pumarlo, Reeder, Sellers, Smith, Thompson, Van Pilsum

Dissenting: Barkelew, Seltzer

Abstaining: Anderson

Complaint: The complainants contended that the Star Tribune’s December 1994 series, titled “Out of Control: the spiraling costs of special education,” misled readers through the following alleged inaccuracies, distortions and omissions:

A. Inaccuracies:

1. The series did not offset special ed costs with the money that each special ed child brings to a school district, or money raised by special ed levies, thereby creating the impression that a huge gap existed between revenues and costs.

2. The series’ conclusion – that the high cost of special education “requires districts to quietly siphon away money that is needed for other purposes” and that “Average kids are losing” – was false.

B. Distortions

1. The series unjustifiably implied that special ed families are litigious with headlines like, “In special education, there’s no issue too small to fight,” and by leading with three extraordinary cases as if they represented typical cases.

2. The series title, “Out of Control,” is sensational; special ed children account for 9 percent of the public school population while the cost of their education accounts for 12 percent of the total budget.

3. The characterization of special ed spending as “crippling school budgets” is sensational; the cost of special ed as a percentage of the total education expenditures increased only 3 percent between 1982 and 1993, to 12 percent from 9 percent.

4. The use of phrases like “If you build it, they will come,” gave the impression that Emotional Behavioral Disorder (EBD) is a fabricated category that children were being funneled into just to qualify schools for special ed revenues.

C. Omissions that misled readers:

1. The series claimed that special ed costs are “crippling school budgets” but did not report that state aid pays 68 percent of the salary of special ed teachers and aides, down only 2 percent from what it paid in the mid-1980s.

2. The series did not report that some districts, including St. Paul, do not levy up to their statutory limit, thus adding to the squeeze on public school budgets.

3. The series failed to address the following related issues: a) What would be the cost to taxpayers if special education children were institutionalized rather than educated? and b) What amount of aid would school districts lose if special ed children did not attend school?

Response of the news organization:

A. Inaccuracies:

1. The Star Tribune said the existence of the gap between revenues and costs for special education was verified many times by experts at the Minnesota Department of Education. Robert Fischer reviewed the reporters’ methods and numbers before publication and confirmed their conclusions.

2. The paper said individual school districts confirmed the transfer of regular education money to pay for shortages in special education.

B. Distortions:

1. The paper said it made no claim that the three examples used to lead the series were either extraordinary or typical.

2. The paper said the issue was not what percentage of students are in special education compared with what percentage of the total budget they consume; rather, the issue the series explored was how special education is funded. The paper found that special ed costs are increasing faster than regular education costs, with local property taxes paying for the increase because state and federal governments haven’t provided funding to match their mandates.

3. The paper denied that it gave the impression that EBD is a fabricated category.

C. Omission that misled readers:

1. The paper said lack of money can be attributed to many factors but its research showed that no category of school spending is growing as fast as special education.

2. The paper defended its conclusion that the cost of special education is squeezing school budgets because schools are not getting enough state and federal aid for mandated programs.

3. The issues raised by the complainants go beyond the scope of this series, the focus of which was how schools spend their money when faced with competing educational interests.

The Star Tribune said its findings came from months of research and more than 100 interviews. In addition to reporting the financial issues, the paper said it gave considerable attention to the human side through in-depth profiles of special-needs children. The Star Tribune said that the content of the articles supported its conclusions.

Discussion: Guthmann told the Council that while some parts of the series were balanced, that was not the tone the Star Tribune set for the series as a whole. He said that the frequent use of phrases such as “choking empire,” “quietly siphon money away,” and “crippling school budgets” was hardly objective journalism. He also challenged the conclusion that a huge gap exists between revenues and costs for special education. He said the series created the appearance of a gap by not offsetting special-ed costs with the $232 million in general education aid that each special ed child brings to a school district. Had that figure been included, he said, it would have shown that the money special education brings to districts exceeds the cost.

The paper defended its conclusion that there is a huge gap between revenues and costs for special education. McGuire said a sidebar, “How Special Education Funding Gap is Calculated,” specifically explained their calculations.

Brick said that the headline, “In special education, there’s no issue too small to fight,” was sensational and was refuted by the fact that of the 90,000 special-ed students in the state in 1994, only 29 of their families requested hearings and only 9 hearings were held. Media member Maureen Reeder asked the paper if it knew those numbers. Hotakainen said they did have those numbers but did not use them because the paper felt it was the 100 complaints filed, not the 9 hearings held, that was the issue.

Gregory objected to the headline “Average kids are losing,” saying it pitted parents of special-ed children against parents of “regular” children. She said one-liners such as that can cause more damage than the whole story can repair.

McGuire defended the series, saying it was not anti-special education, that it neither depicted special-ed kids as bad, nor ignored the good of special education. Rather, the paper framed the series from the point of view that society is being forced to choose between educating special-needs students and regular students. He said that many readers, including teachers and even some special education parents, thanked the paper for publicly discussing the issue. Guthmann countered that the special education community would welcome the scrutiny if it were fair, not sensational or divisive. Media member Trish Van Pilsum asked the paper how many school districts said they were being forced to choose between special and regular education. McGuire said the overall sense of the reporting was that virtually every district felt the trade-off. Van Pilsum then asked Fischer if that was a fair characterization. He said he has heard from school districts that they feel financially pinched but rather than cut special education, they reduce other expenditures.

McGuire said the series did not blame the budget problems on special education children, but focused on the federal government’s funding only 6 percent of special ed costs rather than the 40 percent to which it committed.

News Council members questioned whether the series actually focused on the government’s failure to provide promised funding. Public member Laurisa Sellers said she saw it mentioned only briefly the first day of the series. Media member Maureen Reeder asked whom in government the reporters talked with, if indeed that was the focus of the series. The paper conceded that it had not interviewed anyone in the federal government for a response.

News Council members praised the series, on the whole, as a public service. Public member and president of the Minnesota Federation of Teachers, Sandra Peterson, said the issue needs to be discussed: “Legislators need to know that there are many needs out there but the sources of funding are not there.”

Others wished the paper had done a better job of focusing so special-ed kids were not blamed for the high cost of their education. Public member Ann Barkelew said that while the series, as a whole, did not do a disservice to the special education community, the headlines were misleading.

Determination: The Council unanimously denied the complaint.

Concurring: Barkelew, Denny, Handberg, Hoben, Kostouros, LeGrand, Parker, Peterson, Pumarlo, Reeder, Sellers, Seltzer, Smith, Sorensen Craig, Thompson, Van Pilsum, Wicks
Abstaining: Anderson

Representing the Women’s Studies department were department chair Amy Kaminsky, former acting chair Jacqueline Zita, and professors Naomi Scheman and Leola Johnson. Representing the Star Tribune were Pam Fine, newsroom leader, Maureen McCarthy, assistant city editor and reporters Maura Lerner and Anne O’Connor.

Response of the news organization: For the first complaint, they responded that the article acknowledged that the class was unusual, quoting Zita as saying the class was “not at all typical,” and “an unusual and exceptional course for us.” For the second complaint, they stated that the newsgathering method was not unethical because the University of Minnesota is a public institution and its courses should be open to the public; the reporter was a legitimate student registered for credit in the course and she never lied about who she was (although she didn’t say she was writing an article), and the reporter told the acting chair she wanted to talk about both the department’s accomplishments and alleged shortcomings. Last, it was said that the article did contain critical comments about Sommers by Zita, Dean Julia Davis of CLA and Professor Janet Spector.

Discussion on #1: The Star Tribune explored the national debate over the academic rigor of women’s studies departments on college campuses, fueled by Christina Sommers’ book Who Stole Feminism? and a Mother Jones article in 1993 charging that women’s studies programs support a specific agenda, have no tolerance for dissent and engage in male bashing. Education editor Maureen McCarthy said the paper decided the best, most vivid way to explore and localize the debate was to examine the Women’s Studies Department at the University of Minnesota and to include a first-person account of a course. They chose the course “Woman: A Sense of Identity” because it used sharply criticized teaching techniques, such as sitting in circles, sharing personal experiences and feelings and writing in journals.

The reporter, Anne O’Connor, was a senior in the Journalism School as well as a part-time staff reporter for the Star Tribune. She took the class for credit and wrote about her experience. O’Connor did not misrepresent herself to the professors or her classmates, but did not reveal that she was writing an article about the class. The Department charged that the Star Tribune was biased in choosing to report only on the course “Woman: A Sense of Identity,” an extension division class. Scheman said O’Connor was registered for a course in the regular curriculum but dropped it because the extension class better fit her thesis that women’s studies is not academically rigorous. Chair Amy Kaminsky said the course was created before the Department came into existence to help older women returning to school to develop the personal and intellectual skills needed to ask critical questions about their place in society. The course is not content driven, but experiential. Editor McCarthy said the paper chose this class because it was looking for a course that incorporated controversial teaching techniques that were receiving national attention. It did not intend to do a survey article about the Department in general. O’Connor did sign up for another course, but it was taught in more conventional academic way, so she dropped it. Fine pointed out that the Department has said it fully supports the use of the teaching methods. She also said the article clearly stated the course was not representative.

Scheman questioned the Star Tribune’s contention that it was examining teaching techniques, noting that the first-person story focused instead on content, not technique, and that no source was quoted talking about the teaching methods, which are also used in Ph.D. programs.

The reporters and editor were asked if they had ever written about pedagogical methods before; McCarthy said she had written about teaching at the lower levels and higher level science education, but not in liberal arts. O’Connor said she asked the Education Department to comment on the scholarly nature of the techniques but it declined to comment.

Fine said the stories were intended to paint a picture of the national debate, indicate the range of opinions, and dispassionately focus upon a local class experience. Scheman said the national debate was not about whether courses like “Woman: A Sense of Identity” exist, but whether women’s studies departments are academically rigorous. “[The Star Tribune] didn’t enter that debate,” she said.

Discussion on #2: Scheman, professor of women’s studies and philosophy, argued that the Star Tribune’s use of an undercover reporter observing and participating in a class without identifying her mission was deceptive and did not comply with the SPJ guidelines for use of deception:

• the information gained was not vital to the public interest,
• there were other ways to gain the information, and
• the harm done to the Department’s image was not outweighed by any harm prevented by the story, since there was no harm to the public.

Newsroom leader Pam Fine said there was much discussion among the staff about the ethics of doing this kind of story. The University is a public institution, she said, and therefore its courses should be open to public scrutiny; the SPJ guidelines cited did not apply because reporter O’Connor was not undercover: she did not hide or misidentify herself in any way. All information she gave was accurate and she participated fully as a student in class. The paper took precautions not to invade the privacy of other students, and O’Connor called every student after the course was over to get permission before using any of their comments in her article (only one student refused). She also interviewed the faculty after the course and told them she was writing a story. While Fine acknowledged that the use of a reporter as student might be unusual, she did not believe it was unethical.

Scheman said O’Connor could not have experienced the class as an average student would because she was involved in the process of reporting it. While one of the faculty members had said she would not have changed her instructional techniques had she known a reporter was in the class, she did say she would have been able to understand O’Connor better if she had known her purpose in attending. Editor McCarthy said that in her experience people always change their behavior when they know a reporter is present: they say or don’t say something, they strut or hide.

Council members asked O’Connor about the nature of her participation in class. O’Connor said she participated fully and was a class leader, as she said she is in all of her classes. Council media member Ron Handberg said he was concerned that O’Connor’s participation may have led other students to make comments that O’Connor later quoted in her article.

Handberg asked if she had generated any negative comment by her participation and she said she did generate comment. Newsroom leader Fine found the inference that O’Connor had provoked dissent “nefarious, if you consider we went back to everyone quoted and asked to use their comments.” She said the comments were the true opinion of the participants and that they are responsible for their own comments, not O’Connor.

Media member Jim Pumarlo asked the Star Tribune if it could have put together a package without O’Connor’s article. Fine agreed it could have done so, but McCarthy said the paper would not have done so because the important local element would have been missing. Scheman said the paper could have asked other students in the class to relate their experiences.

Regarding the complaint that Lerner misrepresented the nature of the story, Zita said Lerner told her she was working on a piece about the field of women’s studies and the anniversary of the department. Zita said Lerner did mention Sommers’ name during the phone call but she had no idea the story was to be an expose based on Sommers’ ideas. Zita said when Lerner interviewed the assembled faculty she asked no questions about the quality of the department and there was no investigation into course offerings, projects undertaken, graduates or faculty qualifications. She said she found the interview biased and very upsetting.

Fine said that prior to the interview Lerner told Zita she wanted to talk about criticisms of women’s studies and had faxed her the Mother Jones article.

Discussion on #3: The Department complained that the stories relied uncritically upon the opinions of Sommers and did not identify what they called the “right-wing” funding of her work. Lerner said no one told her of the right-wing funding. Zita said she didn’t know about it at the time of the interview and admitted that she didn’t tell the Star Tribune after she found out about it. Professor Leola Johnson said that the professors who knew about it weren’t contacted, but added that the Minnesota Women’s Press had found this information itself without being told by the Department. Fine said the paper used Sommers’ work because she had gained national attention and was particularly critical of the Minnesota program. Fine pointed out that the article provided balance by quoting Zita calling a passage of Sommers’ book “a cartoon,” quoted the Dean of CLA saying, “That woman has really gone off the deep end here,” and quoted Professor Janet Spector saying of Sommers’ criticisms, “It reminds me of the early ’70s – it’s trivializing what we do to see that we don’t get funding.”

Scheman agreed that it was fair and essential for the Star Tribune to give the department an opportunity to respond to the charges but argued that as interested parties they necessarily came across as self-serving and defensive. She said that since this was a national debate national sources should have been interviewed as well. Fine said she typically prefers to use local experts on national issues.

Determination 1: Distortion by using unrepresentative course The Council found in favor of the Star Tribune and did not uphold the Department’s complaint. Members felt the stories were basically fair and balanced, given their limited objective. Dissenting opinion focused on a broader definition of fairness (see opinion at end). Seven members expressed concern about a headline that suggested the stories were broader and referred to women’s studies courses in general, and not to the one course in specific.

Concurring: Barkelew, Cytron, Handberg, Kostouros, LeGrand, Parker, Parry, Pine, Pumarlo, Smith, Sorenson-Craig, Thompson, Wicks

Dissenting: Sellers, Seltzer

Abstaining: Anderson

Determination 2: The Council found in favor of the Star Tribune and did not uphold the Department’s complaint. Members felt that the paper had respected students’ privacy. They saw no subterfuge, and attributed the Department’s frustration to a difference of expectations about the nature of the article.

While they believed it fell short of “unethical behavior,” eight members expressed concern about the use of a reporter as an active participant in the class and about her leadership role. Public member Terry Thompson said, “It’s a slippery slope; allowing reporters in the classroom could have a chilling effect on academic freedom.” Parry said she would feel concerned if reporters couldn’t go into classes to report. “How many things involve writing about our experiences? I would be surprised if the Women’s Studies faculty hadn’t done the same.”

Concurring: Barkelew, Cytron, Handberg, Kostouros, LeGrand, Parker, Parry, Pine, Pumarlo, Sellers, Seltzer, Smith, Sorenson-Craig, Thompson, Wicks

Abstaining: Anderson

Determination 3: The Council found in favor of the Star Tribune and did not uphold the Department’s complaint.

Concurring: Barkelew, Cytron, Handberg, Kostouros, LeGrand, Parker, Parry, Pine, Pumarlo, Sellers, Seltzer, Smith, Sorenson-Craig, Thompson, Wicks

Abstaining: Anderson

Dissenting Opinion: Laurisa Sellers 

I am struck by what can happen when a news organization decides to give serious coverage to an issue and a community outside what Ray Suarez, host of NPR’s “Talk of the Nation,” referred to last week in Minneapolis as the “narrow band of reality” that news organizations cover. They look for something to make it newsworthy. If they happen to choose a controversy, that’s great. Until controversies within those outside-of-the-band communities are covered, we will just get the usual celebrations and festivities stories. But, given their infrequent (or non-existent) eye on these communities, I believe that news organizations must then look to see if they are providing enough information about the “new” community for readers, viewers and listeners to get at least some sense of the context of the community.

I would argue that the normal definition of fairness – was the story balanced, did both sides get a chance to present their viewpoint? – is inadequate. If I read, watch or listen to a story about term limits, about the Mideast, about education funding, health care, restaurants, or a proposed business merger, I can take the story in using the information and opinions gleaned from the dozens (or hundreds) of reports I have heard on those topics. When news organizations go out of the narrow band of reality, I believe they have a responsibility to build a context. As the News Council for all Minnesotans, I think we have a responsibility to raise the question of whether or not an adequate context exists for “fair” reporting.

We have to find a way for out-of-the-band voices to be heard. I was disheartened by what I perceived to be the patronizing attitude of some Council members. Too much of what I heard could be characterized as “Well, you really don’t understand how newsrooms work, the role of the media, what you can and can’t do with the media.” We told those “outsiders” that they don’t really have a voice because “there’s a system and that’s not the way it works and no, the rules aren’t up for discussion.” We basically said, “If you’re lucky we’ll decide to venture outside the normal band and tell something about your reality, but it will be on our terms.” Are we enforcers of the rules as defined by the media? Are we allowed to push for a review of the rules? Do we have any role in raising issues about how the rules impact those whose voices and whose lives are not a part of the “majority reality?” There are so many communities outside of the narrow band whose voices are distorted or muted because the majority community doesn’t know how to listen and doesn’t even know that it doesn’t know. The cost of our ignorance is piling up.