Participants in the tax-cut rally complained that the feature was inaccurate, misleading, and biased. Of the twelve rally attendees who originally submitted complaints, seven people opted to submit waivers in order to move forward as private complainants. All private complainants must sign waivers of their right to sue the media outlet for libel; in exchange, they become eligible for a public hearing, should their complaint remain unresolved.

It was the Minnesota News Council’s first opportunity to examine a complaint regarding news that appeared only online.

Media Response: Due to the policies of CBS, their national affiliate, WCCO-TV did not participate in the complaint process. News Director Jeff Kiernan, however, responded directly to the participants via e-mail, conceding that “a mistake was made in the production of this national story and the wrong video was attached.” He apologized for the error and arranged to have the story that accompanied the incorrect footage taken off the Web site.

The complainants remained dissatisfied because the contested footage continued to remain accessible through the site’s video library. WCCO-TV declined to respond and did not attend the hearing.

The Hearing: Council members considered the following questions:

1. Did raw video posted by WCCO-TV in its online video library misrepresent Minnesota Tax Cut Rally attendees when it featured video footage of the complainants with a caption that described a global warming protest, while not noting that the beginning and the end of the video footage featured pictures of their much larger tax rally? 
2. Did WCCO-TV act unfairly when it failed to cease using mislabeled video of both the tax cut and global warming rallies at its Web site after the complainants notified WCCO-TV about their concerns over a previous story at its Web site, a story about the global warming protest that misrepresented the size of that rally by using the video of the larger tax rally?  

Q & A with the Complainants:

As the hearing began, complainant Sue Derhaag shared that WCCO-TV News Director Jeff Kiernan had contacted her just moments earlier. He told her in a phone conversation that the video in question was the work of a shared news gathering service, not WCCO-TV. Kiernan went on to say that he was “unaware the video was still active,” and said its caption would be changed.

As Derhaag finished, MNC Interim Director Sarah Bauer clicked “refresh” on the Web site displaying the video. As the Council watched, the site reloaded to reveal that the original caption, “Global Warming Protest on Capitol Hill,” had been replaced with “Rally Protests Cross Paths Near Minn. Capitol.”

Given this development, the Council discussed whether or not to continue, but decided to proceed with the hearing.

The complainants began by clarifying that it would have been difficult to confuse the tax-cut rally and the global warming protest. They were held at the same site on the same day, but Derhaag said, “There were police, a street, and 600-800 yards separating the two rallies.” The scale of the rallies was also dramatically different; the tax-cut rally attracted several thousand participants while the global warming protest had a few hundred.

The complainants said the online footage featured 15 seconds of the tax-cut rally, 22 seconds of the global warming protest, and finally, 4 seconds of the tax-cut rally. The caption, “Global Warming Protest on Capitol Hill,” they said, made it appear as though they had attended the global warming protest.

Carolyn Wetterlin said, “I wasn’t personally damaged, but it’s like misquoting me. I was used for a cause that I don’t believe in. Whether it was inadvertent or not, it was still a misrepresentation. My effort was stolen.”

Derhaag said that she would have been better served by an immediate posting of the correct caption rather than a late apology.

The Council’s Deliberation:  

“They changed the coverage today,” began Al Zdon of the Minnesota American Legion, “so why couldn’t they have done it earlier?”

Jim Pumarlo, a newspaper consultant, agreed. “If that text was changed two months ago, this complaint would hold no water. But they waited until they were under the gun to change it. If they could change it today, why not two months ago? In one sense, it’s a testament to the power of the News Council.”

Thom Fladung, editor of the Pioneer Press, said, “It’s possible for stuff to linger forever on the Internet. Even when you correct something, I guarantee a version of that story lives on somewhere.” He also speculated that WCCO-TV might not have the ability to easily take down a national story.

Luz Maria Frias, St. Paul Director of External Affairs, asked, “We can’t mandate coverage, but what about a retraction?”

“I don’t think this would rise to the level of needing a retraction,” responded Steve Schild, a journalism professor at St. Mary’s University. “And we must establish if we’re taking WCCO to task for a national story that they may have had no control over.”

Retired Pioneer Press journalist Dave Beal commented, “I think WCCO is responsible for anything they may use locally or nationally.” Beal thought that the new caption posted moments before the hearing should have included some acknowledgement of the original error.

John Simonett, a former Minnesota Supreme Court justice, concluded, “Was it a mistake? Yes, everyone admits that. Was it intentional? We can’t know. So the question is, was the response timely and adequate?”

Vote:

Both complaints were upheld.

1. Did raw video posted by WCCO-TV in its online video library misrepresent Minnesota Tax Cut Rally attendees when it featured video footage of the complainants with a caption that described a global warming protest, while not noting that the beginning and the end of the video footage featured pictures of their much larger tax rally?The Council ruled “YES” by a vote of 14 – 0.

   Concurring: Beal, Berg, Berg, Fladung, Frias, Graham, Hussein, Johnson, Pumarlo, Runyon, Schild, Simonett, Wyatt, Zdon 

2. Did WCCO-TV act unfairly when it failed to cease using mislabeled video of both the tax cut and global warming rallies at its Web site after the complainants notified WCCO-TV about their concerns over a previous story at its Web site, a story about the global warming protest that misrepresented the size of that rally by using the video of the larger tax rally?   The Council ruled “YES” by a vote of 10 – 3 with one abstention.

   Concurring: Beal, J. Berg, Graham, Johnson, Pumarlo, Runyon, Schild, Simonett, Wyatt, Zdon

   Dissenting: P. Berg, Fladung, Frias,

   Abstention: Hussein

Attendance:

Council Chair

• James H. Gilbert, Mediator/Arbitrator, Gilbert Mediation Center

Media Council Members:

• Dave Beal, Columnist, Pioneer Press
• Pat Berg, Associate Professor of Journalism, University of WI-River Falls
• Thom Fladung, Editor/Vice President, Pioneer Press
• Jim Pumarlo, Director of Communications, Minnesota Chamber of Commerce; Newspaper Consultant
• Dr. Steve Schild, Associate Professor of Media Communications, St. Mary’s University
• Wendy Wyatt, Journalism Professor, University of St. Thomas

Public Council Members:

• Jane Berg, Fleishman-Hillard, Inc.
• Luz Maria Frias, Director of External Affairs, City of St. Paul
• Ron Graham, Chairman of the Board [guest]
• Hesham Hussein, President, Muslim-American Society of Minnesota
• Roberta Johnson, retired high school journalism teacher
• Karen Runyon, forensic document examiner
• John Simonett, former Minnesota Supreme Court Justice
• Al Zdon, Communications Director, Minnesota American Legion

Complainants

• Sue Derhaag
• Carolyn Wetterlin
• Forrest Wilkinson

Not present:
[Daniel Dietsche]
[Lisa Edwards]
[Lea Leonard]
[Roderick McKay]

Minnesota News Council Staff

• Sarah Bauer, Interim Director
• Erika Roland, Development Director
• Hanna Dorn, Operations Assistant 

Media Attention:

Press coverage of the Tax Rally Attendees’ complaint against WCCO-TV was seen in:

• City Pages
• KTLK Talk Radio with Jason Lewis

David Downing, a graphic designer and writer, said he and his wife told the WCCO reporter before they were videotaped that they were attending the fair only one day last summer because that was all the time they had and not because they could not afford to go more than once. He said the reporter ignored his remarks and then on camera asked leading questions about finances and edited the answers to support the premise that money-strapped fairgoers had no option besides a Bargain Day.

The News Council also voted, 10-2, to state its view that the television station’s response to the family’s complaint was inadequate and unprofessional. The only responses Downing received, he said, were one e-mail from the reporter saying, “I’m sorry you feel I misrepresented you and your family,” and another from the news director saying, “I appreciate you writing WCCO-TV. I have thoroughly reviewed your concern. I am confident that our story was accurate and did not misrepresent anything you or your wife said to us.”

Downing told the News Council that he was disappointed that the news director did not invite him to meet at the station to acknowledge his concerns and discuss the editing so that, if the discussion established that the story did misrepresent the family, the station would make itself accountable and take steps to avoid such a mistake in the future.

“It makes a person wonder how many other stories are inaccurate,” Downing said.

Council member Benno Groeneveld, a freelance journalist, said the WCCO story was not the result of reporting, but of the work of someone who goes into an assignment with a story already in mind and then finds victims to flesh it out.

Council member Nancy Conner, former reader advocate of the Pioneer Press, said: “This is the kind of thing that chips away at the credibility of the news media and the trust people have in them.”

WCCO-TV did not participate in the hearing. Participation is voluntary, and the News Council does not permit the fact that a news outlet chooses not to attend to affect the determination on the merits of the complaint and response.

Complaint: Gold’n Plump, represented by Dan Jacobson, a public relations manager, said that the report was: 1) inaccurate, 2) unbalanced and 3) sensationalized. The company said the news report gave a false impression that it was dangerous to eat chicken sold by such companies as Gold’n Plump. 

1) The company said that the WCCO report failed to note that proper cooking destroys bacteria and that antibiotics used in the raising of chickens vanish from their system days before they come to market. 

2) The company said the story lacked balance because it was based purely on a press release from the Institute for Trade and Agriculture Policy (IATP), which the company described as an advocate of organic foods and a critic of corporate farming and the brand-name food industry. Jacobson said that the St. Paul Pioneer Press newspaper had, by contrast, balanced the IATP data with information from a half-dozen varied sources.

3) The company said that WCCO-TV’s story deliberately twisted facts in the IATP press release to scare the audience. 

Response: WCCO-TV did not attend the hearing, but the station did submit as a response a letter it had written to Gold’n Plump. The letter said the story informed the public about the risk of contracting infections from bacteria in poultry. The station also said it confirmed data it cited from the IATP release with scientists from the University of Minnesota. 

(Gold’n Plump noted that the station did not identify those scientists by name.)

Deliberation: Public member Larry Kuusisto, a health care consultant, said that WCCO-TV unfairly set viewers up to fear antibiotics in chickens and then ended the story with comments attributed to Gold’n Plump and another company, Jennie-O, that made them seem defiant.

Public member Chris Gade, a communications manager at the Mayo Clinic, said it bothered him that the station relied on a study that was not reviewed by scientific peers and that the story featured a single source, the IATP researcher.

Some members observed that the story was produced on the same day the IATP news release arrived at the station, yet was presented as the result of an I-Team investigation. The story relied on the news release, one interviewed source and stock footage of chickens and, some members said, did not rise to the level of an investigative report. That kind of packaging of a story, they said, appeared to be intended to give weight to the report that it did not merit. 

News Council members needing technical guidance were able to rely on information provided by three scientists invited to the hearing as expert witnesses. They were not allowed to express any opinion on the quality of the journalism. They were: Dr. William Hueston and Dr. David Halvorson of the University of Minnesota College of Veterinary Medicine and Assistant Professor Jacqueline Jacob of the University’s College of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Sciences.

Vote: Members upheld the complaints unanimously.

Background: On May 1, 2001, WCCO aired an I-Team report on mold in school walls, and the expense of cleaning them up to avoid health hazards. The story focused on several outstate schools, most of which happened to have been designed many years ago by an architect named Ken Walijarvi, who died some time ago, and showed his picture three times. His son, Michael, who lives in Maine, got a copy of the story and objected to the station, saying it had no need to single out his father, portraying him as some kind of wrongdoer, especially since the story itself stated that the design Walijarvi used was considered the state of the art at that time.

Response: WCCO’s former news director, Ted Canova responded to the complaint in a letter, stating that the station stood by the accuracy and fairness of the reporting. The letter said, “We clearly stated that the building design which your father used and which experts now say is to blame for the mold was a ‘commonly used’ design in those days. We said . . . your father was ‘an architect with a good reputation’ and that while ‘many of his buildings were fine, others are rotting and hazardous.’

“We never said or implied . . . that your father, or anyone else for that matter, had reason to know at the time that the design was flawed. However, to report on the issue, to tell taxpayers that it could cost them millions of dollars to fix, and not tell them when the problem started and why would be a disservice.”

Discussion: Charles Claude, an old friend of Ken Walijarvi represented Michael Walijarvi at the hearing. WCCO chose not to participate in the hearing. News Director Maria Reitan told the News Council staff that she prefers to handle complaints in private. Claude said he watched the story because the station’s promotional announcements for it, which did not name or picture the architect, convinced him WCCO had a major exposé. Several News Council members said WCCO appeared to have been looking for a villain to humanize and sensationalize the story, and that the choice of a deceased person who could not sue for slander appeared to be convenient.

Vineeta Sawkar, a KSTP-TV reporter and anchor, said she has covered many school mold stories and she saw no need to name a single architect in a story intended to alert the public to a widespread problem.

“Context is what’s missing,” said Vicki Gowler, executive editor of the Pioneer Press. “Discovery that the same architect had designed several affected schools drove the coverage. Regardless of whether the person named was alive or dead, what they (WCCO) owed us was better context.”

“What they could have done,” said Sawkar, “was to have talked to someone from that era who designed buildings that way.” That would have softened the focus on Walijarvi and helped the audience understand the design decisions better, she said.

Council member Patricia Berg, a journalism teacher at the University of Wisconsin-River Falls, called the letter’s reference to Walijarvi’s “good reputation” disingenuous and out of context. She said the way WCCO referred to his “good reputation” in the broadcast was actually “a foreshadowing of doom,” and not an attempt to provide balance.

The News Council also voted to communicate to WCCO-TV that its presence at the hearing was needed and that it would have benefited the station and all professional journalists to have the station answer questions about its reporting.

After the hearing The Pioneer Press’s Gowler said, “WCCO’s absence prevented us from knowing exactly what their reporting showed and why they decided to single out one architect.

“Most news organizations start out with good intentions. Sometimes we get excited about what we find and overstate the case. Sometimes we get excited about what we find and really need to dig deeper to find the real story.

“For the Minnesota News Council to assume that WCCO was looking for a villain, because we could not ask the station questions, is not a bright spot for journalists in general.”

Vote:
15-0 to uphold

Background: In early 1999, WCCO began investigating a story on deficiencies in the state Health Department’s ability to monitor complaints about the quality of care in nursing homes. The series focused, initially, on the complaints of a niece of an Alzheimer’s patient; the niece contended that St. Therese nursing home neglected her aunt’s care and that the Department of Health failed to investigate her complaints promptly and adequately.

WCCO took an undercover camera into the nursing home and videotaped residents in a common area of the dementia unit. One resident, Charlie Winkler, drew the attention of the reporter because he had a bruise on his face as a result of an accidental fall days earlier. The photographer documented his injuries on video that was later used in the broadcast series, which aired July 22 and 23.

Winkler’s daughters were upset to see their father on television, without their knowledge and approval. Winkler’s daughters sent a letter to the Council in support of the position of the nursing home, but did not join in the complaint. 

Complaint: Bredenberg charged that WCCO:

1. Entered the nursing home (a private residence) and photographed a (vulnerable adult) resident without permission, thus invading his privacy.

2. Produced a story that was inaccurate and misleading and resulted in a picture of the nursing home as providing inadequate care:

a) Presented the complaints of the niece without mentioning the results of Health Department investigations that denied the accuracy of those complaints;

b) Created the impression that two residents had died as a result of neglect when they had, in fact, died from natural causes;

c) Reported that a 96-year-old resident had had a significant weight loss without reporting that weight loss often accompanies the dying process and that the nursing home had taken steps to minimize her weight loss.

Response: WCCO responded:

1. The station appropriately reported on Winkler’s condition after discovering that the state had cited the home for negligence in connection with his fall. The producer of the series had extensive phone conversations with one of Winkler’s daughters. The station says the daughter told the producer she believed her father’s fall contributed to his death and said she thought all nursing homes should have surveillance cameras to document such incidents. The station did not, however, report this opinion, but instead relied upon the documented findings of the state.

2. The series was not inaccurate or misleading and did not create a misimpression of the nursing home, despite Bredenberg’s refusal to grant an on-camera interview (he did participate in off-air phone interviews):

a) The niece brought to the station many complaints about her aunt’s care, but the station broadcast only those in which a public record supported her claims. The story accurately reported results of several state investigations and included statements that St. Therese Home does not have a history of serious violations and that the state did not consider the nursing home to be a “chronic poor performer.”

b) The series did not characterize the deaths of the two residents as caused by inadequate care, but only reported the complaint process in chronological order and the fact that both residents in question died shortly after the Health Department investigative reports came out.

c) There is ample documentation to support the niece’s contention that her aunt experienced a significant decline in body weight, including an April 2 Health Department report. While the nursing home now says this weight loss was the result of the dying process, in April it denied a significant weight loss had occurred and then attributed the problem to incorrect calibration of scales. 

Addenda: The daughters of Winkler responded to WCCO’s response by sending a letter, dated October 20, to the News Council in which they wrote, in part:

“[The News Director] stated that WCCO did not violate Mr. Winkler’s privacy by taping him. Mr. Winkler was not in a public place. He was at his home! Your reporter was not given permission to take pictures inside St. Therese. She would not make it known [that she was there videotaping] before the report aired because she knew it would not be allowed by the family.

“We want to make it clear that we believe the incident [that was reported] about our father was an unfortunate accident. We never had any intention of filing a complaint against St. Therese. We were not told about or asked about filming our father by anyone from WCCO-TV. We are greatly offended by this invasion of privacy.”

Discussion: Bredenberg took issue with WCCO’s statement that it videotaped Winkler in a public space within the nursing home. He said the nursing home is a private residence and there is no public space within a private residence. While visitors are welcome, he said, all are asked to sign in and out (though it is not mandatory) and neither the reporter nor producer signed in. He said the home would have asked the reporter to leave the premises if it had known she was there.

Bredenberg said residents have a legal right to privacy in long-term care facilities and it is part of St. Therese’s mission to protect the privacy and dignity of its residents. Jim Williams, Director of Communications for the Minnesota Health & Housing Alliance, speaking on behalf of the nursing home, said a vulnerable adult (a legal designation) has rights that a nursing home has a duty to protect, including a right to privacy. He said that no one can film within a facility without permission.

Bredenberg said negative stories about nursing homes are common and follow a pattern that the WCCO story also followed. They typically employ a visual analogy to a prison: grainy, out-of-focus, black-and-white images; shots down long corridors; images shot through fences or closed doors or with fences in the background (chosen to suggest prison bars), repeated shots of wheelchair wheels. He pointed to one scene in which the reporter is holding a copy of the Health Department report that for no apparent reason has shadows like bars falling across the page. He pointed out that all positive statements made by the reporter during the report were immediately followed by rebuttals.

Bredenberg said that Winkler’s accident was an unfortunate incident that the nursing home had itself reported to the Health Department (as part of mandatory reporting procedures); the daughters had not made a complaint. As such, it was unrelated to the purpose of the news story, which was to examine lax investigation of complaints to the Health Department.

Gary Gilson, the Council’s executive director, summarized the position of WCCO, that the story was not about St. Therese home, in particular, but was really about the state’s inability to adequately monitor all facilities, which is clear from the many quotes the station gathered from state officials admitting as much. The station says that it did not sensationalize the story, but eliminated opinion from the piece and relied purely upon documented reports of lapses of care that led them to question some of the nursing home’s contentions. Further, WCCO said, its reporting of the story was hampered by the fact that Bredenberg declined to be videotaped.

Bredenberg said he refused to go on camera because he didn’t trust the station and he thought the producer would bring in a hidden camera to videotape the facility when she came to interview him. He said he did spend 20-30 minutes on the phone with the producer and tried to put the incidents in question into context. He said when the producer initially called to tell him she was doing a piece on the Health Department and wanted a local perspective he said no. She called three or four times, giving him different reasons why he should appear on camera, and he would not agree. At no time did she tell him she had entered or would enter the building to videotape. Bredenberg said he never spoke to a reporter, only to the producer.

After the series aired, the nursing home checked the logs and did not find any WCCO sign-ins. No one on the staff or in the dementia unit knew when the station’s staffer might have been there. Some Council members found it troubling that the nursing home did not know who was in the facility. Bredenberg said the staff does not scrutinize visitors, that the nursing home is a home and they want it to have a comfortable, welcoming atmosphere. He said there had been times when people had acted inappropriately and had been asked to leave, but a reporter’s mere presence on the premises does not constitute inappropriate behavior.

Media member Nancy Conner asked if camera use, per se, was allowed. Bredenberg said the home had written guidelines: taking pictures of relatives is not a problem, but when taking pictures of anyone outside the family the photographer would have to get permission and a signed release form and have to explain how the photograph would be used.

Bredenberg was asked if Winkler was capable of communicating his consent. Bredenberg said Winkler was on the dementia unit and no one on that unit is in a position to give informed consent.

Williams was asked how St. Therese home compared with other nursing homes in Minnesota. Williams said that there have been well publicized cases of troubled homes, but that St. Therese is not among them. Media member Dave Hage pointed out that the Health Department had upheld three complaints against St. Therese home in a short period of time. He asked if this was unusual. Williams said no, it depended upon the deficiencies, that some are more significant than others. Bredenberg explained the Scope and Severity Scale by which every deficiency is measured and said that the St. Therese home deficiencies were not severe.

Media member Pia Lopez asked Bredenberg and Williams to step outside their own experience for a moment to consider how, if a news organization wanted to do a report on nursing homes and state regulations, it might do such a story and get images.

Williams said he has 10 years of experience working extensively with the media, but this was the first time he’d known of a station “violating people’s rights… If a person with decision-making authority says, ‘Come on in and film,’ then they have the right to do so. It’s no different from a private home under the law.”

Bredenberg said he had worked with two film crews at previous nursing homes doing different kinds of stories and that they had had good working relationships, so he had allowed them to come in.

Council members asked Bredenberg to clarify aspects of the three Health Department reports. Bredenberg said the reports were quoted accurately in the news story, but that the findings were not as significant as they might seem to someone who did not understand the complex and legalistic language used by the Health Department. For example, he spoke to the producer at length about the definition of “significant weight loss,” which state regulations define as a loss of five percent within one month or ten percent within six months. The resident had a seven percent weight loss in three months, which the surveyor decided to judge as a violation, although the nursing home contends that it was legally in compliance and it had documented efforts to help the resident maintain her weight.

Public member Rachel Quenemoen asked if a delay in the Health Department’s investigation was an issue in any of the cases cited in the report. Bredenberg said it was not (Bredenberg disagrees with the niece’s belief that her 96-year-old aunt died from poor care; the death certificate lists the cause of death as natural causes).

Public member Jon Schroeder asked Bredenberg and Williams to comment on WCCO’s contention that this story had a different purpose from the typical nursing-home exposé: to help people with vulnerable relatives who need to move into a nursing home decide on a home, and explain to them how to file a complaint if there are problems with care.

Williams said the station got that aspect of its story right: complaints to the Health Department do take too long to be investigated and resolved. There are new federal mandates to shorten that period but the Department simply does not have the number of people it needs to conduct investigations within the time the new legislation requires. Williams agreed that there was some public service value to the series and said he could understand why the station needed examples to illustrate its story.

Bredenberg said he had no doubt that the story had public service value and he had no complaint with the second part of the series, except that many people didn’t see it and focused on the first part, the St. Therese portion.

Bredenberg said the impact of the story increased over time. Within an hour of the report airing on July 22, the nursing home received a bomb threat from a person who mentioned seeing the WCCO story, and the residents had to be evacuated. A few days later, a doctor told Bredenberg that a family had decided to place an elderly member at a different home, one that the doctor had not recommended, because they saw the report. Later, when the nursing home engaged in fundraising for the dementia unit, it received several angry responses to its appeal, all mentioning the WCCO story.

Bredenberg said he brought the complaint on the part of the family of Mr. Winkler, the staff of the nursing home and the other residents. “It’s our duty to protect our patients. I’m just trying to do the right thing.”

Deliberation: Media member Elizabeth Costello, a television reporter, questioned the use of a hidden camera: “I’m not saying the story shouldn’t have been done… but the hidden camera is different… Using a hidden camera in a nursing home is much different than in a Food Lion case. A nursing home is someone’s private home. I know, as a journalist, that you can’t take a camera into someone’s home. That’s what concerns me.”

WCCO’s contended that it did not create an impression that the incidents in the complaints against the home caused the residents’ deaths. Costello disagreed. At least in one incident, she felt the report did imply that was the case. She also said it was clear to her that the family did not give permission for their father to be taped.

Media member Tony Carideo asked if it was possible to invade the privacy of a dead man. Monika Bauerlein, another media member, pointed out that while privacy is a new right in Minnesota, that is a legal discussion and the News Council is concerned with the ethics of the case, not the law. “Our decision is made on our own moral judgment and our professional standards, which may be different from what the courts would say.”

Bauerlein said she did not feel the story was sensationalized: it had no scary music behind it and it did not show people in embarrassing private moments.

Pia Lopez asked if the images couldn’t have been gathered in another way, for example, as Williams suggested, by asking the Winkler family for permission. But Rachel Quenemoen wondered what the point was in seeking the images [of Winkler] in the first place. The focus of the story was on tardiness of investigations of complaints, but there had been no complaint filed in the first place, only an incident report.

Public member Tom Keller was concerned that the nursing home’s deficiencies were not put into context within the nursing home industry or within the context of that one facility.

Media member Kathleen Stauffer believed WCCO was justified in examining Winkler’s case: “I’m troubled that he was a vulnerable adult. The community needs to look out for vulnerable adults… For someone to be in the visiting room and not be asked who they were or why they were there, that’s a problem. They could be there to do damage.” She also thought that Winkler was portrayed in a dignified way.

Public member Neil Neddermeyer thought it made a difference that Winkler was filmed in the dining room or day room and not in his bedroom or bathroom. “An argument could be made that because the people coming in to film were not stopped, that they might have felt it was a public place.”

Neddermeyer said, “WCCO was not unfair or inaccurate. They pointed out some things that can happen. The hidden camera was used respectfully and he was not victimized.”

The Vote:
1. On the complaint that WCCO invaded the privacy of a nursing home resident, the Council split event, 10-10. the complaint was not upheld.

To uphold the complaint: Bailey, Cleary, Costello, Diaz, Hage, Neddermeyer, Quenemoen, Reister, Schroeder, Shulstad 
To deny the complaint: Bauerlein, Carideo, Conner, Groeneveld, Johnson, Keller, Lopez, Scales, Stauffer, Williams
Presiding: Stringer
Recused: Shelby

2. On the complaint that WCCO created an inaccurate and misleading impression of the nursing home, the Council voted 13-6 to deny the complaint.

To uphold the complaint: Bailey, Diaz, Keller, Quenemoen, Reister, Shulstad 
To deny the complaint: Bauerlein, Carideo, Cleary, Conner, Groeneveld, Hage, Johnson, Lopez, Neddermeyer, Scales, Schroeder, Stauffer, Williams
Presiding: Stringer
Recused: Shelby

Background: In February 1996, WCCO-TV aired a two-part I-Team investigation about the deaths of cattle herds in Minnesota from Bovine Viral Diarrhea (BVD), a disease that affects cows’ immune systems and can spread through a herd. The reports said that meat from some of these diseased cows had entered the human food chain and created a potential health risk to meat consumers.

Patty and Randy Brandt said WCCO had asked them in January to participate in a human-interest story about farmers who were recovering from the loss of their herds. They agreed and were interviewed at their farm. The evening prior to the series’ scheduled broadcast, the Brandts said they saw an announcement on the station that promoted the series as a report about BVD, and included a clip from the reporter’s interview with Mr. Brandt. He said he could not sleep that night, and called the station at 7 a.m. the next morning to ask it to stop airing the announcement. Mr. Brandt told the station that he and his wife should not have been included in a story about BVD because their cows did not have BVD; he said they died as a result of their veterinarian’s mixing of two incompatible vaccines. The Brandts feared if WCCO’s story portrayed their cows as having died from BVD, it might harm the malpractice lawsuit they had pending against their veterinarian. WCCO declined the request and continued to air the promotional announcement.

The Brandts sent WCCO a letter of complaint, to which they received a generic response from the then general manager, John Culliton. They then sent the station a second letter of complaint, to which they received no response.

The Brandts met with the news director, Ted Canova, and the new general manager, Jan McDaniel, on March 15, 1997, to try to resolve their complaint. The parties were unable to reach a resolution, and a hearing was scheduled for April 10, 1997. On April 1, 1997, WCCO offered to do a follow-up story about the Brandts and the loss of their cows to veterinary malpractice. The Brandts accepted WCCO’s offer and their hearing was canceled. However, after the Brandts further considered WCCO’s offer, they decided a second story might do more harm than good, and would not hold the station accountable for its mistakes in the original story. Thus, the hearing was rescheduled.

Complaint: The Brandts said they had looked forward to participating in WCCO’s story as a means to educate the public about what can happen to farm managers. During the interview, the Brandts said, they talked about how the loss of their cows affected their lives and how veterinary malpractice was responsible for their loss. Of the 27 cows that died, all had been vaccinated by the veterinarian and all had a lump where they had received the vaccination. None of their non-vaccinated cows died.

Therefore, the Brandts said, they were surprised when they saw a promotional spot for the series about BVD in which Mr. Brandt was shown saying, “You poor people in town are going to eat this meat and not even know it.” Mrs. Brandt said his quote was taken completely out of context; she said the station had used it to indicate that people were going to eat meat infected with the BVD virus, when in fact Mr. Brandt had made that statement while discussing how drugs can be involved in the deaths of animals, and how these animals can enter the food chain. The Brandts concluded that his comment caused the station to abandon the story about farmers who lost their herds, and to focus instead on a story about cows infected with the BVD virus.

They believed that WCCO kept them in the story even though the station knew their cows did not have BVD, to support the report’s assertion that BVD was a widespread problem. In fact, Mrs. Brandt said, two of the other farm families included in the series did not have cows that suffered from BVD. She said they were especially surprised to be kept in the story about BVD given that they never discussed cattle diseases or BVD during their interview. Mr. Brandt said the only mention of BVD occurred when the reporter asked if their cows had BVD, and they answered “no.” The Brandts said that had they known the story was going to be about BVD, they would not have agreed to be a part of it.

Mrs. Brandt said that following the report they received a call from Ron Eustice, executive director of the Minnesota Beef Council, who accused Mr. Brandt of setting back the Minnesota beef industry 20 years. Further, she said, they heard from neighbors and friends who were surprised to hear that their cows had died of BVD.

Response: WCCO declined to respond in writing to the complaint, and did not appear at the hearing, saying that to defend its story it would have to show outtakes from the Brandt interview, a violation of station policy.

Discussion: Council member Mollie Hoben asked the Brandts if their cows had immune-system problems, like cows afflicted with BVD. Mrs. Brandt responded that their cows appeared to have immune-system problems because they all suffered from different ailments. However, autopsies concluded that their cows had not suffered from any disease; rather, they had died from a mixture of two incompatible vaccines. She added that during their veterinary malpractice lawsuit, the veterinarian himself did not suggest that disease caused the deaths.

Council member Nancy Conner asked Mr. Brandt to elaborate on his opening remarks that he suspected something might go awry during the interview and that the reporter might misconstrue his comments. Mr. Brandt replied that he feared the reporter might use his comments about drug-tainted meat entering the food chain to turn the story into one about the meat-inspection process, using him as a professional source because he had once worked as a meat inspector for the Food and Drug Administration. He said he never thought the story would become one about BVD.

Because WCCO was not present, Council member John Kostouros asked the Brandts how they thought WCCO came to the conclusion that their cows had died from BVD. Mrs. Brandt said WCCO told them they understood Mr. Brandt to have said that BVD was like AIDS, and that their cows died as if they had AIDS. However, the Brandts disagreed with that explanation. Mrs. Brandt said that during the interview the reporter asked them if their cows had BVD. When they answered “no,” the reporter asked why their cows died. To that question Mr. Brandt answered, “It was like they had AIDS.”
Deliberation: Members agreed that after viewing the series they were left with the impression that the Brandts’ cattle had died of BVD, as had the cattle of all the farmers featured in the series. Council member Jim Wychor said, “Having been around agriculture all my life, I can see how this could devastate someone who has livestock. People won’t stop by to visit because they conclude you have something they don’t want to catch.”

Council member Terry Thompson suggested some of the burden for understanding the nature of the story fell on the Brandts. Hoben disagreed, pointing out that the reporter specifically asked if the cows had died of BVD and they said “no.” “This was very clearly an inaccurate portrayal,” she said.

Council member Jim Pumarlo said that while he agreed that news sources need to have some degree of media sophistication, in this case the burden was clearly on WCCO, given that the Brandts, unlike a government official, had never before been called upon to be a news source. Council member Nedra Wicks added, “I hope we don’t get to the point that no lay person will talk to the media out of fear. The media would be much less successful in helping us learn,” she said.

Council member John Kostouros said he was not bothered by the fact that WCCO seemed to end up with a different story from the one it set out to do. “Changing the direction of a story is not uncommon, in some cases it’s good journalism,” he said. However, Kostouros found that WCCO fell short on its research. “If you’re doing a story on contamination in food, it’s simply Journalism 101 to make sure they had it.”

Determination: The Council upheld the complaint that WCCO inaccurately portrayed the Brandts’ cows as having died of Bovine Viral Diarrhea.

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

Dissenting: Thompson

Abstaining: Anderson

Addendum: The Council was prepared to address a second part of the complaint that WCCO treated the Brandts unfairly by changing the focus of the story they had agreed to be a part of without telling them, and then by declining to drop a promo in which they felt they were being misrepresented. Prior to the start of the hearing, the Council decided not to address that part of the complaint because WCCO was not in attendance, making a determination on that topic impossible.

A number of members recused themselves from participating in the proceedings due to conflicts of interest. In order to attain a full board, several former board members participated in their stead. These included John Finnegan (media), Bob Shaw (media), Mary Ziegenhagen (media) and Ron Graham (public).

About 300 people attended the hearing, which was widely covered by both print and broadcast media, including “60 Minutes” and theWall Street Journal.

Background: On April 29 and 30, 1996, WCCO-TV ran a two-part investigative series about alleged shortcomings in safety at Northwest Airlines. After receiving a strong negative response from Northwest Airlines, the machinists union and members of the public, WCCO produced and aired a third piece on May 22. Northwest Airlines first heard from WCCO on April 19, 16 hours before promotional spots for the series began running. The airline was holding its annual stockholders meeting in New York. Staff members flew back to prepare answers to WCCO’s questions and met with reporters on April 26. Northwest Airlines was concerned about the series and asked that a spokesperson appear on the newscast to be interviewed after each part was broadcast. WCCO declined. Northwest Airlines filed a complaint after the first two parts aired.

Northwest also complained about promotional spots, an element the News Council had not previously considered. The parties disagreed about whether the Council should hear that issue. The Council chose to consider, first, whether promotional spots for news should be held to the same standards as news. If the Council affirmed that promos should be held to the same standards, then it would hear the complaint that these specific promotions gave a distorted and untruthful picture of the airline.

Complaint: Northwest Airlines (NWA) contended that WCCO-TV failed to deliver on the premise of its story and that its series violated the standards of journalism. It complained about both the stories and the promos, contending that:

I. “WCCO-TV painted a distorted, untruthful picture of Northwest Airlines and the men and women who work there through its choice of images, words and narrative, its improper juxtaposition of unrelated facts and events, its failure to provide any appropriate context and its failure to present any comment from the regulators or from independent third-party experts.” More specifically, Northwest claimed the series:

a) Used poor sources

• It relied on the testimony of persons who were suing the airline;
• It raised the unrelated claims of two women working in other departments suing for sexual harassment and extended the women’s contention that an atmosphere of intimidation existed at the company to suggest that such intimidation affected mechanics as well;
• It allowed four anonymous sources who had no specific allegations to make unsubstantiated or vague observations with no context;
• It misstated the qualifications of the “whistleblower,” Tony Digatono, by identifying him as a mechanic when he was actuallya welder and therefore unqualified to give opinions about safety. Further, the “secret tapes” used to suggest a lack of regard for safety take on a new meaning when seen in the light of Digatono’s actual duties.

b) Lacked context

• It failed to provide quantitative information so that viewers could make comparisons, such as accident/incident rates, number of departures, number of Enforcement Investigative Reports (EIRs) lodged against NWA in comparison with other airlines, the size of FAA consent orders against other air carriers;
• It failed to include comment from the FAA or from independent safety consultants, such as the Star Tribune did on April 28 and the St. Paul Pioneer Press did on May 1;
• It ran highly magnified words across the screen – “catastrophic failure,” “investigation,” “careless,” and “endangered lives” – with no context.

c) Mischaracterized documents

• It misstated the nature of the government’s oversight of NWA and of the consent order and, further, made no effort to explain the importance or significance of the nine incidents cited;
• It misstated the NWA filing with the Department of Transportation in which NWA tried to convince the DOT not to change reporting procedures to include mechanical difficulties in its calculation of on-time flights.

d) Presented the series in a sensational manner using audio and visual elements to suggest to viewers that ominous, sinister and life-threatening misdeeds were rampant at NWA.

• It used inflammatory rhetoric;
• It used old video clips of accidents although two of the incidents were not related to the consent order or to alleged FAA enforcement actions;
• It photographed an airplane still airborne, with objects in the foreground, thereby creating the erroneous impression that the plane was dangerously close to the ground;
• It photographed a 747 at an unusual angle that created the impression that the aircraft was about to crash;
• It associated the unsolved murder of Su Taraskiewicz, a Boston-based baggage handler, with the sexual harassment claims, intimating that “troublemakers end up dead;”
• It taped maintenance crews at night, creating a sinister mood, and interviewed all company representatives and on-the-record sources using dim or no background lighting. Only Digatono was shot in daylight.

e) Factual errors

• It represented the FAA allegations as being “uncovered,” “exposed” for the “first time.” In fact, the consent order had already been made public in aStar Tribune article;
• In the introduction to parts I and II, it said NWA had “endangered the lives of passengers,” an assertion that seems to have come from a 1993 incident on a ferry flight between Boston and Minneapolis. A ferry flight carries only cargo, no passengers;
• It quoted an FAA statement about an individual airplane and a single incident as if it applied to the airline as a whole;
• It characterized a letter from the FAA to Digatono as a “thank you” letter, when it was a letter acknowledging receipt of information;
• It said Julie Lewis was Northwest’s highest-ranking personnel officer; she is not;
• It stated that Northwest carries 90 percent of the passengers in and out of the Twin Cities; in fact, Northwest carries approximately 70 percent.

II. WCCO-TV’s promos painted a distorted, untruthful picture of Northwest Airlines.

Response of the News Outlet: The Northwest Airlines complaint takes WCCO-TV and its stories to task for many things. And yet, few of the allegations, if any, deal with the most critical question of all: were the core assertions in WCCO-TV’s reports true? The station said its reports focused on three important issues:

• Northwest was fined $725,000 for violations of FAA safety regulations over a period of years, violations which included a significant number of maintenance failures that compromised passenger safety;
• Employees said they felt pressure to get planes out “on time” and believed this pressure caused them and other employees to make inadequate repairs in some cases;
• Employees said they feared retaliation for reporting maintenance problems.

WCCO said, “We stand by our reporting on each of these issues and we submit that Northwest’s complaint provides no evidence that we were incorrect. Northwest Airlines does not claim that WCCO was wrong in its underlying contention that mechanics, from time to time, are put into a position of conducting work in violation of safety standards. And Northwest’s contentions that employees did not believe pressure caused maintenance errors and that they did not fear retaliation for reporting problems fly in the face of the evidence.

“WCCO-TV stated Northwest Airlines was one of the safest airlines in the country, despite the fact that other investigations had found otherwise. The Council must understand that the airline industry does not have one standard by which safety is judged. But WCCO reported what it believed to be the truth, that Northwest Airlines is one of the safest airlines in the country.”

However, “Northwest had violated aviation regulations on dozens of occasions and paid fines amounting to $725,000 for those violations. Northwest asserts that the FAA consent decree contained only ‘unproved violations,’ yet Northwest itself does admit it paid the penalty and proceeded to implement changes suggested by the FAA. In courthouse jargon it is simply a case of saying, ‘We have done nothing wrong, and we promise never to do it again.’ Despite Northwest’s assertions to the contrary, FAA officials told us the fines were substantial and among the highest levied.”

Addressing specific complaints: Irrelevance of sources (I a 1): “We had a sizable base of sources, both former and present employees, both confidential and not confidential, from whom we received credible evidence, evidence that has been further corroborated by the National Transportation Safety Board’s findings. In our stories, we explicitly stated which of our identified sources had filed lawsuits against Northwest.”

Irrelevance of sources (I a 2): “While it may be Northwest’s opinion that the case studies were irrelevant to the issues of flight safety, we disagree. Based on the information the women in our report provided, we believe that these women encountered the same atmosphere of hostility and recrimination when they reported the harassment they faced that our mechanic sources told us they faced when they ‘rocked the boat.’”

Irrelevance of sources (I a 3): “Journalistic privilege allows us to keep confidential sources who provide us with critical information. Sources often wish to remain confidential for fear of reprisals, and the Council should not wonder at our sources’ desire not to be identified in this case. Once again, we point out that Northwest mechanics made more anonymous calls than all but one other airline to the FAA complaint hotline.”

Lacked context (I b 1): “Northwest complains that we didn’t compare the Northwest consent order to that of other airlines. We chose to focus on the airline so many of us and most of our viewers fly on a regular basis. These stories were not a comparative survey of the safety records of U.S. airlines, but a series of in-depth reports on maintenance problems at Northwest. Northwest seems to imply that providing detailed comparison is a journalistic standard. It is not. It is an approach to a story. If the story is about violations of procedure and why they occurred, comparison is not necessarily called for.

“Northwest repeatedly refers to reports by other news organizations on the FAA fines. The two most prominent of those stories appeared contemporaneous with the WCCO reports. WCCO finds them lacking in investigative merit. Both stories did report the fines levied; however, neither newspaper reporter chose to ask why the violations occurred.

Lacked context (I b 2): “We talked extensively to the FAA. Officials at the FAA refused to go on camera, and routinely do. We also talked extensively to aviation experts.”

Factual errors (I e 1): This is nothing more than subjective criticism. We did reveal new information to our viewing public.

Factual errors (I e 2) and (3): The following information about safety incidents was received by WCCO from the FAA:

• Northwest installed passenger video systems on 42 jets with defective wiring, creating direct contact and chafing with oxygen masks and direct contact with pilot/static aircraft instrument lines that indicate speed and altitude. The FAA letter stated, “NWA’s accomplishment of check visit reinspection did not occur without constant FAA surveillance and prodding.”
• An NWA takeoff was aborted because of engine trouble, after which it was discovered that the engine had been missing three bolts for two months and had flown 291 flights in what the FAA called an “unairworthy condition.”
• NWA had repeated problems with oxygen masks on 22 Boeing 747s between May 1993 and October 1993, making them unairworthy, according to the FAA.
• NWA repeatedly failed to properly repair directional and radio equipment on a jet that flew in an unairworthy condition on 33 flights for 18 days. On the 18th day, while flying through bad weather, the pilots warned that they were “down to a basic gyro and mag compass.”
• An engine caught fire and nearly fell off while landing at Narita Airport in Japan because parts to hold the engine on the plane had been left off during a maintenance check in Minneapolis 10 days earlier. The plane had flown 14 flights in this condition.

Factual errors (I a 4) and (I e 4): “We clearly identified Digatono as a welder several times in the stories. As a matter of semantics we referred to him as a mechanic several times as well. We talked to many Northwest employees who confirmed that the term mechanic is often used in a generic sense. Regarding the issue of how the FAA responded to Digatono’s complaint, it confirms that Digatono’s concerns were warranted. Further, NWA official John Kern did admit on camera that much of what Digatono complained about to the FAA, indeed, was a problem.”

Factual errors (I e 5): “We said in our script, ‘Hochhalter says she was afraid at first to complain and when she did, it was to the company’s top personnel officer.’ Hochhalter indicated Ms. Lewis was the top officer. Clearly she was the highest ranking authority to deal with the sources in our story.”

Factual errors (I e 6): “WCCO did not say Northwest Airlines carries 90 percent of the traveling public. Don Shelby said ‘… because 90 percent of the time, we fly Northwest Airlines,’ a colloquial expression that refers to the fact that most of us use Northwest more than any other (airline).”

Discussion: Public member Tom Keller asked about the relevance of the Narita incident or of the harassment lawsuits and murder case. If it was present safety concerns, why not present a graphic report comparing them with other airlines?

Shelby said that the Narita incident happened during the time period covered by the FAA reports and that few people knew why it had happened, that it was the result of servicing by an untrained crew normally assigned to the interior. He said the harassment stories were relevant because when mechanics spoke up about safety concerns they were often criticized; the stories of the women represented that same kind of hostile and recriminatory environment. Shelby said that one of the women became so depressed about the harassment that she said she felt as though her situation resembled that of the murder victim, but WCCO never said the airline was involved in the murder.

Austin said that was not how WCCO presented the Taraskiewicz murder. “WCCO said, ‘It reminded us…’ and then cut to the murder scene.” Austin asked why, if they were talking about mechanics being subjected to recrimination, they didn’t talk to mechanics. He complained about lack of context.

Shelby said WCCO provided context by starting every broadcast saying NWA was a safe airline, but…. He said it was his (Shelby’s) decision not to compare airlines because most Minnesotans don’t use other airlines and also because there are many ways to report safety, some that would show NWA as the best, some as the worst, and there is no way to make a direct comparison of fines. Austin said that WCCO didn’t explain that diligent airlines, which report all incidents, show up worse on FAA reports than airlines that are lax about reporting.

Media member Jim Pumarlo asked about how long the reporting took. Culliton said WCCO began collecting records a year ago, and gave NWA a week and a half to respond, which he said was extremely generous in television news. Clouser said 16 hours to respond before the promos aired and four working days to respond to a year’s work on the part of the station was inadequate.

Public member Carol Pine asked why, given the considerable lead time WCCO had in preparing this report, the station used only sources with an ax to grind. Why no FAA representatives, no pilots, no one from operations? Shelby said the FAA wouldn’t speak with the station, but told them the records spoke for themselves. He said that information given by the witnesses wasn’t used unless it could be verified by other sources and that Digatono’s accounts were verified. He said WCCO did speak to pilots, flight attendants and mechanics but none were willing to go on camera.

Media member Don Smith asked NWA how WCCO could have been more fair in its reporting. Clouser said NWA had asked to have a representative at each broadcast to make a live comment after the story. Also, WCCO was running promos for the series before NWA had had an opportunity to respond. Culliton said he offered after the series to hold a town meeting, but Austin had declined. Austin said the stories had already aired, it was too late.

Media member John Finnegan asked when WCCO received the FAA records (NWA asserted that WCCO received the bulk of the records only days before the series and therefore did not have adequate time to examine and understand them). Series producer Jacquee Petchel said the largest batch of records arrived on April 16th and 17th, but some records arrived one year ago.

Public member Laurisa Sellers asked if the tone, the lighting, the flashing lights on the runway, didn’t convey an image of danger. Shelby denied any such image, saying that they filmed it because it was true, lights do flash on the runway. “They said we were devious, shooting the hangar at night, but the mechanic (Digatono) during the day, but we were denied entry to the hangar until the last day.” He explained that the camera couldn’t shoot during the bright daylight into a darkened interior and that was why it had to be shot at night.

Public member Barry Cytron asked why WCCO let Digatono speak and then waited five minutes before telling the viewers who he was. Shelby said what Digatono said spoke for itself; further, “we didn’t have to tell you at all.” Austin said that not everything Digatono said was corroborated and that he wasn’t identified until the second broadcast, but no personal history was ever given; at no time did WCCO report that Digatono was fired for violence on the job.

Media member Ruth Denny asked WCCO why more disgruntled employees were pictured than satisfied employees. Shelby said that was not true, if you counted them you would find fewer disgruntled employees on camera than satisfied ones. He said they included the mechanics because they wanted to be heard.

Public member Nedra Wicks asked WCCO about its code of ethics. Culliton said Shelby had tried to write a code but that what they had now was more an unwritten list. Shelby said that list begins with a story needing to be “absolutely correct.” He said fairness, accuracy and balance are the three elements that most closely approximate objectivity for journalists. Yet even when reaching for these standards, Shelby admitted, “We’ve been unable to be fair in all situations.” In this case, however, even given the differing reports in the newspaper, the news staff all felt the story was justified.

Determination #1: Council members focused on concerns over lack of context and inadequacy of sources. There was overwhelming agreement that the lack of comparisons to other airlines was a serious omission and that the harassment issue was irrelevant. Media member John Kostouros said linking sexual harassment to airline safety was “dangerously close to bait and switch.” Most members felt the station hadn’t supported its conclusions.

Media member Maureen Reeder said, “What we’re seeing here is in one sense the best of TV journalism and in another sense the worst of TV journalism. It’s the state of TV journalism today. [This series] may win awards; it has all the elements. It also has a style of reporting that’s losing favor with the public. We’re asking for a kind of context that isn’t possible in the type of journalism being used on TV news today.”

Determination #1: The Council upheld the complaint that WCCO painted a distorted, untruthful picture of Northwest Airlines and the men and women who work there.

Concurring: Barkelew, Conner, Cytron, Denny, Finnegan, Graham, Hoben, Keller, Kostouros, LeGrand, Peterson, Pine, Pumarlo, Reeder, Sellers, Seltzer, Shaw, Smith, Wicks

Dissenting: Thompson, Ziegenhagen

Abstaining: Anderson

Deliberation #2: Should promotional spots for news be held to the same ethical standards as news?

Northwest’s primary complaint about the promotional spots was the use of the shot of an airplane taken at an angle that suggested it was going to crash. Culliton said that the shot was a creative decision by the photographer, not meant to distort reality, but that when Shelby was alerted to the promo by Austin he called for that image to be immediately removed.

Sellers asked Culliton to describe the functional breakdown at the station: who is responsible for the promotional spots? Does the newsroom control them? Culliton said that as the general manager, he has control of the spots but the newsroom has input, and another department actually produces them. Culliton agreed that clearly the promos build into the image of the news, but said they were not news.

Media member Nancy Conner asked Shelby if he personally felt that promos should be held to the same standards as news. Shelby said yes, that just as a headline should be accurate, a promo should be accurate, but it need not be complete.

Reeder said that the news and promos are intertwined, but viewers all know they are advertising, with all the hype and tease that involves. Public member Sandra Peterson didn’t think viewers were so discriminating and she resents the manipulation that such advertising entails.

The Council agreed that promotional spots for the news should be held to the same ethical standards as news.

Concurring: Barkelew, Conner, Cytron, Finnegan, Graham, Hoben, Keller, Kostouros, Peterson, Pine, Pumarlo, Sellers, Shaw, Smith, Wicks

Dissenting: Denny, LeGrand, Reeder, Seltzer, Thompson

Abstaining: Anderson, Ziegenhagen

Determination #3: Did the promotional spots for the NWA series paint a distorted, untruthful picture?

Austin said the promos had the same flaws as the series and more, because they gave no chance for rebuttal. Public member Ann Barkelew asked if a viewer, seeing the promo but not the full news story, would walk away with an accurate picture. Austin said the promos definitely portrayed NWA as unsafe. They showed the Narita incident seven times.

Clouser complained that WCCO began promoting the series on April 24th, two days before the station had even met with NWA officials, before NWA had heard the questions. Shelby responded that the first promos didn’t have content and that WCCO felt confident they knew what NWA’s response would be to them because they already had NWA’s response to the FAA.

Public member Terry Thompson said that inasmuch as the promotions may have contaminated the news environment, they were distorted.

The Council upheld the complaint that WCCO’s promotional spots painted a distorted, untruthful picture of Northwest airlines and the men and women who work there.

Concurring: Barkelew, Conner, Cytron, Denny, Finnegan, Graham, Hoben, Keller, Kostouros, Peterson, Pine, Pumarlo, Reeder, Sellers, Shaw, Smith, Thompson, Wicks

Dissenting: Ziegenhagen

Abstaining: Anderson, LeGrand, Seltzer

Background: In the late summer of 1991, the Metropolitan Council’s advisory task force on sites for a new airport completed its study and report. On August 9, the task force mailed to the Twin Cities news media a notice that the task force would be holding a news conference on Friday, August 16, a week later, to receive and act upon a report from the Council’s staff recommending a replacement airport location. The notice stated that “copies of the report may be ready and available to the media by Thursday so that you may prepare for the news conference, but the information is absolutely not to be released until 9:15 a.m. on Friday.” (emphasis in original).

On Thursday, August 15, WCCO-TV called the Metropolitan Council and requested a copy of the report; a summary of the report, in the form of a news release, was promptly faxed that day to the television station. The news release stated that east-central Dakota County was the most promising airport site of the three locations considered. At the beginning of this news release was the statement: Not For Release or Publication Before 9:15 a.m., Friday, Aug. 16.

Upon receipt of the news release, WCCO-TV called the Metropolitan Council to say that it was going to release the story on the 5 p.m. news that day. The Council objected, but to no avail. As a result, Council staff called the other major media in the Twin Cities and told them of WCCO’s decision and that they could go ahead and release the story as well. Other media had to hurriedly rearrange their schedules, and some of the local officials in the search area, contacted by the media for their reactions, were unprepared to comment.

WCCO readily concedes it did not honor the Metropolitan Council’s embargo, but claims it was not required to do so because it had never agreed to the embargo beforehand. The station says a news source should not be able unilaterally to impose restraints on the free flow of information to the public. WCCO-TV will, on occasion, agree in advance to delay the reporting of information, but only if there are good reasons for doing so.

Decision: To embargo news is to prevent its publication before a specified time. If a source decides to embargo a news story, the common practice is to state, “Do not release before such-and-such a time and date.” Apparently, the embargo practice has developed informally between media and regular providers of news items, particularly governmental units, business entities, and public relations firms.

From the news providers’ point of view, the embargo system is a way to treat all media fairly by having the same news release time for all. From the media’s point of view, the embargo, at least as to complex stories (such as the governor’s budget message, an appellate court decision, or a detailed research report), gives the media time to digest the information and do background work before publication so a better news product results.

From the discussion at the News Council hearing and from our investigation, it appears that the embargo system is now more honored in the breach than in the observance. To some extent, perhaps, news sources may have abused the practice by attempting to control the news when there was no need to do so. The main reason for the decline of the embargo, however, appears to be the rise in competition between the print and broadcast media. Because the two media have different publishing schedules, there is no way the timing of an embargo will satisfy both print and broadcast media. One or the other is put at a disadvantage in breaking the story. Our survey of several public relations firms indicates that they rarely use embargoes on news releases for clients because the media simply ignore them. “The embargo system is disappearing,” says one public relations executive. “We haven’t issued a release under an embargo for the last five years. We’d never send one out cold – that is, without calling and establishing a prior agreement. It would be a huge risk.”

Even outside the news releases of public relations firms, the effectiveness of embargoes appears to be weakening. The public is accustomed to the news story stating that a news conference has been scheduled by some party for the following day for an announcement to be made, with the story then continuing to speculate or state flatly what that announcement will be.

Embargoes apparently are still in use on complicated stories in combination with briefings by the news source of the media for, say, a day before the release. This practice makes for accurate, in-depth reporting of the news and is in the public interest. Even here, the system usually works only on the basis of a prior agreement or on news beats such as state government where the practice is well-known and understood both by news sources and reporters. In the case of appellate court opinions, the embargo is enforced by court order. The New England Journal of Medicine’s embargo is designed to withhold information about medical research until physician subscribers have had a chance to receive, absorb, and prepare themselves to answer patients’ questions.

In the case before us, the Metropolitan Council’s task force was unaware that the old rules about embargo were no longer reliable. Indeed, complainant says its embargoes in prior cases had always been honored. In any event, in this particular case the Metropolitan Council offered to furnish the media a copy of the site location report on request, but on condition the information in it was not to be released before Friday morning. WCCO-TV did not choose to conduct an independent investigation. It requested a copy of the report; in making this request we believe WCCO-TV accepted the condition on which the offer of the information was made, namely, to abide by the embargo. Consequently, under the facts of this case, we believe there was a prior agreement to an embargo and that the television station should have honored the release date.

Placing embargoes on news developed simply as a business practice, an arrangement tacitly agreed to by both parties for their mutual interest. It is now clear that some news organizations, pressured by competition, are increasingly finding this arrangement no longer meets their interests. 

If nothing else, this case suggests that the subject of embargoes deserves further study and further discussion within the profession. Clearly, any attempt by a news source to impose unilaterally an embargo on a news story is worthless. For an embargo to have any hope of being honored, the news source must seek and obtain an explicit prior agreement with the media concerned.

The grievance is sustained.

Concurring: Dornfeld, Flemming, Orwoll, Stauffer, Stone, Swain, Graham, Pennock, Parker, Stanley

Abstaining: Handberg

Dissenting: Hilger, Parrish, Tanick, Larson – We share the view, as expressed by the majority, that news embargoes generally are valuable policy and of utility to the news profession as well as the dissemination of news. However, in this particular case, we do not believe that WCCO acted improperly.

The scope of the proposed embargo here was somewhat ambiguous. If an entity desires to impose an embargo, it has an obligation to make the barricade as clear and impenetrable as possible. The Metropolitan Council did not do so here.

In addition, while useful, embargoes should be used sparingly because they impede the free flow of information. When used by a public entity, embargoes have First Amendment implications of restriction of public data. In this case, we do not perceive: 1) a substantial need for an embargo; 2) that any great harm would ensue from disregarding the embargo; or 3) that any significant deleterious effect ensued because WCCO broke the embargo.

The attempt by a government entity to control the timing of news is troublesome. Embargoes have their place. When the subject matter of the material is relatively complex, furnishing it in advance to journalists makes sense because it allows them the opportunity to digest the material, undertake background research, and otherwise prepare for a news story. That type of complexity does not seem to be the issue here. Rather, the Metropolitan Council wanted to impose the embargo largely for its own political convenience. This may constitute a legitimate concern for the Metropolitan Council, but is not one that should be given great deference by a news organization. We do not believe that WCCO’s action was above reproach, but neither do we think that its conduct merits upholding the grievance under this particular circumstance. For these reasons, we respectfully dissent.

Dissenting Opinion: Hilger, owner of two radio stations in St. Cloud, objects to news embargoes, saying that they often favor newspaper publishing deadlines and that, more important, they are used to manipulate media to insure what the source considers “the best coverage.” Hilger finds embargoes by government agencies especially distasteful: “Media should not encourage that close a relationship to those who govern or rule us. It is better for an entrepreneurial and competitive media to pursue a story than to behave like sedulous scriveners waiting for embargoed handouts, much like Sea World dolphins performing on cue for sardines.”

Background: DEFFBAM (the Domestic European Ferret Fanciers and Breeders Association of Minnesota) has some 30 members who breed and keep ferrets and who are devoted to educating the public about this particular animal. In October 1989, Channel 4 aired a “Dimension” report on exotic, wild animals as pets. It reported there was a growing industry to supply as pets such animals as lions, zebras, cougars, bears, wolves, bobcats, foxes and raccoons. The report warned these animals could be dangerous, causing physical harm to persons, especially children.In the course of this discussion, during the interview of Gabe Davidson, the owner of a fur and pet farm, Davidson showed a white ferret for the camera. The reporter said: “And there are albino ferrets, too.” Davidson added: “They’re definitely pets. They’re good apartment pets, actually.” Following the airing of this story, DEFFBAM members both wrote and called Channel 4 objecting to ferrets being described as dangerous wild animals. In February 1990, when a local news story broke about a pet cougar on the loose, Channel 4 again aired the same “Dimension” report. This time, at the close of the report, the reporter stated:

“Last fall, when we first broadcast that story, we got a lot of calls from an organization of ferret owners who say we were unfair to ferrets. That group says that ferrets make pretty good pets and are not wild animals. The Hennepin and Ramsey County Humane Societies, however, do NOT recommend ferrets as house pets. They say those animals have severely bitten some children.”

Discussion: The European domestic ferret is a “man-made” breed. It has never existed in the wild, and is not to be confused with the weasel and the mink. In appearance and behavior (two of the animals were brought to the hearing), it is more like an otter. It can be housebroken and kept indoors. If let loose on its own, it would survive only a few days. The animal can bite and cause injury, but, so its adherents claim, no more so than a pet cat or dog. It is important to note the precise nature of DEFFBAM’s complaint. The organization does not object to the ferret being called “exotic,” as the animal is admittedly an uncommon pet. Furthermore, while the complainant believes ferrets make suitable pets, it recognizes there is a difference of opinion on their suitability, and the complainant recognizes that it was fair comment for the Channel 4 report to set out the conflicting opinions on ferrets as pets. Rather, DEFFBAM’s precise complaint is that it is inaccurate, and therefore unfair, to label the ferret a “wild animal,” lumping it with lions, cougars and bears.

The News Council appreciates that DEFFBAM is a reputable organization with responsible members. The News Council understands the distinction between “domestic” and “wild.” We do think, however, that the complainant is unduly sensitive about the Channel 4 report. The television story showed a pet farm owner holding a ferret in his arms while explaining it made a good pet. This episode was very short, appearing almost in passing, and the bulk of the report was devoted to wolves, cougars and the like.

We think, too, on the rebroadcast of the television story, Channel 4 did appropriately respond to the complainant’s objections by adding a closing comment setting out the organization’s position that ferrets are not wild animals and make suitable pets. While DEFFBAM understandably would have liked a better explanation of its position, the Council members who viewed the videotape believe the explanation given was adequate and delivered fairly and objectively. Complainant says that Channel 4 was rude and patronizing in dealing with its protests. Channel 4 has chosen not to respond to this charge. While we do not know what the television station might say in its defense, we assume it would agree that rude and patronizing behavior is unacceptable. One of the strengths of our society is the diversity of views and interests. One of the functions of the news media is to explore this diversity. To discount the position of some particular group of sincere, responsible citizens simply because they represent only a small, “exotic” segment of our society would be the height of rudeness. We note again, however, that Channel 4 did, in its rebroadcast, appropriately state the complainant’s point of view.

The News Council finds that the “Dimension” report was not inaccurate or unfair with respect to its portrayal of ferrets. Grievance denied.

Concurring: Bednar, Casey, Chucker, Falkman, Graham, Larson, Orwoll, Parrish, Persons, Simonett, Sundin, Swain, Tanick, Warder

Background: In the presentation, Dave Nimmer and Marcia Fluer interviewed Tom Steward, the freelance reporter who accompanied the business executive in riding a Burlington Northern freight train from the Twin Cities to LaCrosse and back. The trip was televised. Steward began by noting, “Now, what he does is illegal and dangerous, and to us – absolutely fascinating.” The business executive spoke of “the open-ended freedom and the adventures and the thrill sport of really kind of living life on the edge for a time.” The camera showed the man hiding in the railroad yard, then jumping aboard two empty grain cars. The camera caught the passing scene, the St. Croix River, the “backs of the towns,” where we “can feel the sense of history.” Steward spoke of “seductive speeds, sounds, cutting loose and shipping out can be mesmerizing.” For the return trip, the camera showed the men hiding by some bushes, then hopping a flatcar back to the Twin Cities, accompanied by a sunset over the Mississippi. At one point on the trip, the business executive was shown drinking champagne in celebration.

BN strongly objects to the report. It claims that any entertainment value is vastly outweighed by the danger involved in riding the rails. Because of the danger and the fatalities that occur, BN engages in a concerted, conscientious effort to police its railroad yards and to enforce the trespass laws. The railroad conducts numerous safety lectures for students, warning of the dangers of playing on and around trains. The railroad says that WCCO-TV’s story tends to frustrate its efforts to promote safety. Indeed, says BN, the atmosphere and tenor of the televised report, both in its dialogue and in the scenes pictured, sought to portray a dangerous, illegal activity as “fascinating,” an “unforgettable ride,” and a “thrill sport.”

WCCO-TV, on the other hand, says the focus of its presentation was not the illegal riding of railroad freight trains, but rather a human-interest feature story about an unusual person who engages in an unusual adventurous activity, much the same as television reports on persons who skydive and climb mountains, or even tall buildings. Moreover, the television station points out that the presentation did specifically call attention to the dangers involved and the illegality of the activity. Steward stated that riding the rails is illegal and dangerous at the beginning of the segment. The business executive was shown saying, “I think it’s really too dangerous for most people . . . . I really know what I’m doing and it’s still dangerous, and it’s a survival sport . . . . I don’t recommend it to anybody, no.” When asked why he had recommended that his trip be televised, he replied, “[I]t would be wonderful if some people could live it vicariously.”

The night following the show, WCCO-TV reported on viewer reaction. Two people called in who were highly critical of the story as “advocating law-breaking” and glamorizing dangerous and illegal activity. A third viewer, apparently a former hobo, enjoyed the story. Marcia Fluer announced that Burlington Northern had called “to tell us just how dangerous it is and BN officials said 55 people died hopping trains last year on BN property alone.”

Decision of the News Council: The full impact of the television report cannot, of course, be captured in this written decision, but the foregoing description gives some picture of what is involved.

The Burlington Northern, better than most, knows how foolhardy trespassing on its premises and the rolling stock can be, and the Council appreciates the railroad’s concerns for the safety of its own people and of the public. These are serious matters. If the television story had been about “riding the rails” as a general subject, we believe that a proper balance would have required showing the actual dangers and hazards involved. Proper balance would have required giving adequate time to the railroad’s perspective, explaining the safety problems presented by trespassers. But this was not the kind of story involved here. WCCO-TV’s presentation clearly was intended to be an entertaining, human interest, adventure story focusing on a particular individual who was leading a double life, a staid businessman during the work week, and a free-spirited hobo on weekends. As so presented, the Council finds the presentation was appropriate and responsible video journalism. We think the viewing audience (mostly older adults at the time slot shown) would find the story interesting and entertaining.

While the report may have glamorized the business executive, we do not think it tended to glamorize riding the rails as such. The program did warn about the dangers from the heavy equipment and “the characters lurking here,” and did warn the activity was illegal and that one could get arrested. The following night the station reported the adverse comments of two viewers as well as Burlington Northern’s warning and the sober statistics on fatalities. Considering the clearly announced focus of the television segment and viewing the story as a whole and in context, we find that the presentation was an entertaining adventure story responsibly reported.

The Council discussed the question of journalists’ breaking the law to get a story, and the consensus was that it occurs more often that most people probably imagine and that the press faces the same risk of arrest and charges as any member of the public when breaking the law. The Council believes that taking that risk is an editorial decision. Ron Handberg stated at the hearing that the station understood this risk and, if the station’s reporter or crew had been caught and arrested while doing this story, the station would not have presented a “First Amendment” defense. WCCO-TV acknowledges that the video tapes make it obvious that WCCO personnel did trespass on BN property. BN did not bring charges but elected instead to bring a complaint to the News Council, alleging that the report was socially irresponsible. We elect not to consider the question of the journalistic integrity of the story.

Grievance denied.

Concurring: Ashmore, Casey, Dornfeld, Igoe, Mundale, Parrish, Pennock, Simonett, Sundin, Swain, Tanick, Warder

Dissenting: McDowell, Orwoll