Determination
102
Minnesota
News Council
In the Matter of the Complaint of
M.J. "Mac" McCauley against Winona Daily News
Attending the hearing were M.J. "Mac" McCauley, the complainant,
and, for the Winona Daily News, Jim Galewski, news editor, and Stan
Schmidt, managing editor.
McCauley, a county commissioner in Winona, complains
that the newspaper was unfair by not asking for his comment when it
printed a story in which another commissioner quoted a constituent
who asked if McCauley was "on the take" or was just stupid, and a
second story in which the other commissioner said he believed McCauley
had cut a deal with a private company seeking a waste-disposal contract.
Discussion: McCauley has been a county commissioner
for six years, during which time the county has been considering a
landfill proposal and there has been much public debate. Three commissioners,
McCauley among them, favored granting a private company a contract
for solid waste disposal.
In a February 11, 1993 article on a county board
request for proposals, the paper reported:
"(Commissioner) Peterson said he believes
that Ladewig and Commissioner M.J. 'Mac' McCauley have cut a deal
with someone, possibly Brauer's group, and they are ready to move
forward with it.
"... When asked if he had negotiated with Brauer
or anyone else, Ladewig said, 'no.'
"Brauer wasn't available for comment. There was
no answer at McCauley's home."
An April 13, 1994 article reported:
"Peterson went a step further to say that
constituents had asked him, 'Are they (commissioners McCauley, Hill
and Ladewig) on the take or are they really that stupid?'"
McCauley said that the paper gave him no chance to
respond to either story. He was unhappy that his integrity and honesty
had been challenged. "All I want is for them to say that we are honest
citizens of this small town." Mrs. McCauley broke into the discussion
from the audience to say, "I feel like selling the house. When I go
to church I think, 'Is that what they are thinking about us?'"
Media member Kostouros sympathized: "You are being
defamed, but I think your beef is with a fellow commissioner. It's
not the newspaper's job to declare you honest."
Board member Thompson asked if the paper had investigated
the charge being made against McCauley; Schmidt said they had preliminarily
investigated it. Editor Galewski said that in hindsight they probably
should have tried to reach McCauley but they didn't feel it necessary
at the time because it was not a statement of commissioner Peterson
(he was quoting a constituent).
Public member Rabbi Cytron challenged this, saying
reporters need to be careful of using the excuse that because something
is said at a public meeting it is fair game. He pointed out that the
media can be manipulated and it incumbent upon them to follow up on
such claims. Managing editor Stan Schmidt said that McCauley had the
opportunity to respond at a public meeting or by submitting a letter
to the editor, which he never did. McCauley said that he did not submit
a letter because the paper's coverage of the solid waste issue had
been so negative he thought it would be hopeless, but he acknowledged
that the paper had never declined to publish a letter from him on
any subject.
Public member Graham asked if McCauley had aired
his complaint at a public meeting. McCauley said he had, at the township
officers meeting (which the paper doesn't cover), but not at the county
commissioners meeting (which the paper does cover).
Schmidt said that the paper would have given McCauley
a forum if he had called with his complaint. He pointed out that they
had done four stories already on the complaint before the News Council.
Media member Hilger told McCauley that he should take advantage of
the opportunity to explain his position and how the charge has hurt
him and his wife and friends. "I think you would find a sympathetic
ear."
Public member Simonett asked upon whom the obligation
fell: McCauley to complain or the paper to get a response and to follow
through?
Determination: The Council denied the grievance.
While Council members agreed that the paper should have given McCauley
an opportunity to respond to the charge of dishonesty, it was incumbent
upon McCauley to complain. As a public official, McCauley has access
to the news media and he did not take advantage of the opportunity
to challenge the accusations.
Concurring: Graham, Handberg, Hilger, Hoben,
LeGrand, Parry, Pumarlo, Seltzer, Smith, Sorensen Craig, Stanley,
Sellers, Simonett, Thompson, Wicks
August 18, 1994
Read
Determination 103
Back
to Main Determination Index
Want
to comment? Send a message
to the News Council.
