Determination
103
Minnesota
News Council
In the Matter of the Complaint of
Ellis Olkon against the Twin Cities Reader
Attending the hearing were Ellis and Nancy Olkon (the
complainant and his wife) and David Carr, editor of the Twin Cities
Reader. Reader reporters Rose Farley and Burl Gilyard were also present.
Complaint: Ellis Olkon is the lawyer-husband
of Nancy Olkon, a candidate for Hennepin County Board of Commissioners
in 1994. The Twin Cities Reader published a story in August 1994,
just before the primary election, that characterized her tenure on
the Board in the late '70s as tumultuous and brought up her husband's
conviction (now expunged) and temporary disbarment. Mr. Olkon complains
that:
1. The Reader was unfair in relying upon sources
hostile to him and by not contacting him for comment on the story,
although at least half of the story was about him and not about
his wife, the candidate.
2. The Reader defamed him by reporting that federal
officials had accused him of having a financial interest in the
Bunny Hutch, "a notorious St. Louis Park whorehouse,"
and reporting that he "had" a witness testify to something
in a court case, unfairly implying that he had induced false testimony.
He says he was not charged with any crimes related to the Bunny
Hutch.
3. The Reader story inaccurately characterized the
results of a lawsuit the Olkons filed against Mark Andrew, another
county commissioner, alleging unfair campaign practices.
Response of the news organization: Editor Carr
responded that there were indeed errors of wording in the story but
that they were corrected within the story; that Farley, the reporter,
did not rely upon a hostile source for her background information
but did her own background work from the extensive public record available
about Ellis Olkon's past; and that the Reader had not mischaracterized
the disposition of the lawsuit. He said he believed that it was unnecessary
to contact Ellis Olkon because Nancy Olkon had given adequate responses
when she was interviewed for the story and that sources friendly to
the Olkons had been interviewed (although they were not included in
the story).
Discussion: Council members explored whether
the errors in the article were substantive enough to qualify as defamatory
and whether Ellis Olkon should have been interviewed before publication.
Regarding contact prior to publication, Carr said the Reader did not
need Ellis Olkon's input because there was an extensive public record
of his history, including his disbarment from the practice of law
for five years. Olkon said he had been pardoned in 1992, and complained
that even though the Reader knew this it didn't include it in the
article.
Olkon pointed to the practice of reporters' repeating
errors in drawing from stories that have run in other newspapers and
magazines. Council member Parry asked if Olkon had contacted the Star
Tribune, which he said had run several incorrect stories about him
over the years, to ask that the public record be corrected, and he
said he had not.
Council members noted that in terms of space and graphics
the Reader story was about both Olkons and they questioned why, given
that focus, Ellis was not interviewed. Carr acknowledged that the
story needed Ellis Olkon in it to make it interesting and that "maybe
it was not best to just leave it to Nancy" to comment.
On the matter of defamation, Olkon said he was never
accused by federal officials of having a financial interest in the
Bunny Hutch. Carr admitted this was an error but said that the sentence
immediately following it (saying Ellis was never charged with any
crime related to the Bunny Hutch) corrected the error. The second
page noted that Olkon's involvement was unsubstantiated rumor. Olkon
questioned why the Reader was repeating "unsubstantiated rumor."
On the third complaint, of inaccurate characterization,
Olkon complained that the Reader's choice of the term "thrown
out," had a different meaning from the term "dismissed,"
which was stamped on the court document. Carr said the Reader is prone
to use vernacular and that he considered the terms interchangeable.
Olkon also complained that the Reader showed bias
by not publishing a letter pointing out errors in the article until
after the election, although it was received in time to have run it
before the election. Carr acknowledged that the letter defending the
Olkons had run late, but denied bias. He said the letter was ready
to go in the issue before the election, but somehow didn't get in:
"It's non-defensible. I can explain it, but I can't excuse it."
Determination #1: The Council sustained the
complaint that the Reader was unfair in failing to give Ellis Olkon
a chance to comment on his own behalf. Dissenting council member Stanley
said that, given the fact that the public record had stood uncorrected
for 15 years, it would have been admirable to contact him, but not
reprehensible not to.
Concurring: Denny, Graham, Handberg, Hilger,
Hoben, Kostouros, LeGrand, Peterson, Pumarlo, Sellers, Seltzer, Smith,
Thompson, Vargas
Dissenting: Parker, Parry, Sorensen Craig,
Stanley
Abstaining: Anderson
Determination #2: The Council voted to dismiss
the complaint that the Reader defamed Ellis Olkon. Parry said that
the errors showed no malice, and Stanley said there was no serious
misimpression created by the errors in details.
Concurring: Denny, Hoben, Kostouros, Graham,
LeGrand, Parker, Peterson, Pumarlo, Sellers, Seltzer, Smith, Thompson,
Vargas
Dissenting: Hilger, Peterson, Pumarlo
Abstaining: Anderson, Handberg
Determination #3: The Council voted to dismiss
the complaint that the Reader unfairly characterized the Olkons' lawsuit
against Andrew.
Concurring: Denny, Hoben, Kostouros, Pumarlo,
Smith, Graham, LeGrand, Peterson, Sellers, Seltzer, Thompson, Vargas
Dissenting: Handberg, Hilger, Parker, Pumarlo
Abstaining: Anderson
Read
Determination 104
Back
to Main Determination Index
Want
to comment? Send a message
to the News Council.
