Determination
105
Minnesota
News Council
In the Matter of the Complaint of
University of Minnesota Women's Studies Department against
the Star Tribune
Representing the Women's Studies department were department
chair Amy Kaminsky, former acting chair Jacqueline Zita, and professors
Naomi Scheman and Leola Johnson. Representing the Star Tribune were
Pam Fine, newsroom leader, Maureen McCarthy, assistant city editor
and reporters Maura Lerner and Anne O'Connor.
Complaint:
The Department objected to two articles in the Star Tribune on July
21, 1994. The Department made three claims of unfairness:
1. That the articles distorted the reality and hurt
the image of the Department by focusing on one course, which the Department
said was unrepresentative of its offerings;
2. That the paper committed an ethical violation by
using an undercover reporter in a classroom and by mischaracterizing
the story it was working on when it approached the acting department
chair, Jacqueline Zita, for comment;
3. That the main article relied uncritically upon
the writings of Christina Sommers, whose work has been funded by organizations
the Department characterized as "right wing."
Response of the news organization:
1. The article acknowledged that the class was unusual, quoting Zita
as saying the class was "not at all typical," and "an
unusual and exceptional course for us";
2. The newsgathering method was not unethical because
the University of Minnesota is a public institution and its courses
should be open to the public; the reporter was a legitimate student
registered for credit in the course and she never lied about who she
was (although she didn't say she was writing an article), and the
reporter told the acting chair she wanted to talk about both the department's
accomplishments and alleged shortcomings;
3. The article did contain critical comments about
Sommers by Zita, Dean Julia Davis of CLA and Professor Janet Spector.
Discussion on #1:
The Star Tribune explored the national debate over the academic rigor
of women's studies departments on college campuses, fueled by Christina
Sommers' book Who Stole Feminism? and a Mother Jones article
in 1993 charging that women's studies programs support a specific
agenda, have no tolerance for dissent and engage in male bashing.
Education editor Maureen McCarthy said the paper decided the best,
most vivid way to explore and localize the debate was to examine the
Women's Studies Department at the University of Minnesota and to include
a first-person account of a course. They chose the course "Woman:
A Sense of Identity" because it used sharply criticized teaching
techniques, such as sitting in circles, sharing personal experiences
and feelings and writing in journals.
The reporter, Anne O'Connor, was a senior in the Journalism
School as well as a part-time staff reporter for the Star Tribune.
She took the class for credit and wrote about her experience. O'Connor
did not misrepresent herself to the professors or her classmates,
but did not reveal that she was writing an article about the class.
The Department charged that the Star Tribune was biased in choosing
to report only on the course "Woman: A Sense of Identity,"
an extension division class. Scheman said O'Connor was registered
for a course in the regular curriculum but dropped it because the
extension class better fit her thesis that women's studies is not
academically rigorous. Chair Amy Kaminsky said the course was created
before the Department came into existence to help older women returning
to school to develop the personal and intellectual skills needed to
ask critical questions about their place in society. The course is
not content driven, but experiential. Editor McCarthy said the paper
chose this class because it was looking for a course that incorporated
controversial teaching techniques that were receiving national attention.
It did not intend to do a survey article about the Department in general.
O'Connor did sign up for another course, but it was taught in more
conventional academic way, so she dropped it. Fine pointed out that
the Department has said it fully supports the use of the teaching
methods. She also said the article clearly stated the course was not
representative.
Scheman questioned the Star Tribune's contention that
it was examining teaching techniques, noting that the first-person
story focused instead on content, not technique, and that no source
was quoted talking about the teaching methods, which are also used
in Ph.D. programs.
The reporters and editor were asked if they had ever
written about pedagogical methods before; McCarthy said she had written
about teaching at the lower levels and higher level science education,
but not in liberal arts. O'Connor said she asked the Education Department
to comment on the scholarly nature of the techniques but it declined
to comment.
Fine said the stories were intended to paint a picture
of the national debate, indicate the range of opinions, and dispassionately
focus upon a local class experience. Scheman said the national debate
was not about whether courses like "Woman: A Sense of Identity"
exist, but whether women's studies departments are academically rigorous.
"[The Star Tribune] didn't enter that debate," she said.
Discussion on #2:
Scheman, professor of women's studies and philosophy, argued that
the Star Tribune's use of an undercover reporter observing and participating
in a class without identifying her mission was deceptive and did not
comply with the SPJ guidelines for use of deception:
- the information gained was not vital to the public
interest,
- there were other ways to gain the information,
and
- the harm done to the Department's image was not
outweighed by any harm prevented by the story, since there was no
harm to the public.
Newsroom leader Pam Fine said there was much discussion
among the staff about the ethics of doing this kind of story. The
University is a public institution, she said, and therefore its courses
should be open to public scrutiny; the SPJ guidelines cited did not
apply because reporter O'Connor was not undercover: she did not hide
or misidentify herself in any way. All information she gave was accurate
and she participated fully as a student in class. The paper took precautions
not to invade the privacy of other students, and O'Connor called every
student after the course was over to get permission before using any
of their comments in her article (only one student refused). She also
interviewed the faculty after the course and told them she was writing
a story. While Fine acknowledged that the use of a reporter as student
might be unusual, she did not believe it was unethical.
Scheman said O'Connor could not have experienced the
class as an average student would because she was involved in the
process of reporting it. While one of the faculty members had said
she would not have changed her instructional techniques had she known
a reporter was in the class, she did say she would have been able
to understand O'Connor better if she had known her purpose in attending.
Editor McCarthy said that in her experience people always change their
behavior when they know a reporter is present: they say or don't say
something, they strut or hide.
Council members asked O'Connor about the nature of
her participation in class. O'Connor said she participated fully and
was a class leader, as she said she is in all of her classes. Council
media member Ron Handberg said he was concerned that O'Connor's participation
may have led other students to make comments that O'Connor later quoted
in her article.
Handberg asked if she had generated any negative comment
by her participation and she said she did generate comment. Newsroom
leader Fine found the inference that O'Connor had provoked dissent
"nefarious, if you consider we went back to everyone quoted and
asked to use their comments." She said the comments were the
true opinion of the participants and that they are responsible for
their own comments, not O'Connor.
Media member Jim Pumarlo asked the Star Tribune if
it could have put together a package without O'Connor's article. Fine
agreed it could have done so, but McCarthy said the paper would not
have done so because the important local element would have been missing.
Scheman said the paper could have asked other students in the class
to relate their experiences.
Regarding the complaint that Lerner misrepresented
the nature of the story, Zita said Lerner told her she was working
on a piece about the field of women's studies and the anniversary
of the department. Zita said Lerner did mention Sommers' name during
the phone call but she had no idea the story was to be an expose based
on Sommers' ideas. Zita said when Lerner interviewed the assembled
faculty she asked no questions about the quality of the department
and there was no investigation into course offerings, projects undertaken,
graduates or faculty qualifications. She said she found the interview
biased and very upsetting.
Fine said that prior to the interview Lerner told
Zita she wanted to talk about criticisms of women's studies and had
faxed her the Mother Jones article.
Discussion on #3:
The Department complained that the stories relied uncritically upon
the opinions of Sommers and did not identify what they called the
"right-wing" funding of her work. Lerner said no one told
her of the right-wing funding. Zita said she didn't know about it
at the time of the interview and admitted that she didn't tell the
Star Tribune after she found out about it. Professor Leola Johnson
said that the professors who knew about it weren't contacted, but
added that the Minnesota Women's Press had found this information
itself without being told by the Department. Fine said the paper used
Sommers' work because she had gained national attention and was particularly
critical of the Minnesota program. Fine pointed out that the article
provided balance by quoting Zita calling a passage of Sommers' book
"a cartoon," quoted the Dean of CLA saying, "That woman
has really gone off the deep end here," and quoted Professor
Janet Spector saying of Sommers' criticisms, "It reminds me of
the early '70s - it's trivializing what we do to see that we don't
get funding."
Scheman agreed that it was fair and essential for
the Star Tribune to give the department an opportunity to respond
to the charges but argued that as interested parties they necessarily
came across as self-serving and defensive. She said that since this
was a national debate national sources should have been interviewed
as well. Fine said she typically prefers to use local experts on national
issues.
Determination 1:
Distortion by using unrepresentative course The Council found in favor
of the Star Tribune and did not uphold the Department's complaint.
Members felt the stories were basically fair and balanced, given their
limited objective. Dissenting opinion focused on a broader definition
of fairness (see opinion at end). Seven members expressed concern
about a headline that suggested the stories were broader and referred
to women's studies courses in general, and not to the one course in
specific.
Concurring: Barkelew, Cytron, Handberg, Kostouros,
LeGrand, Parker, Parry, Pine, Pumarlo, Smith, Sorenson-Craig, Thompson,
Wicks
Dissenting: Sellers, Seltzer
Abstaining: Anderson
Determination 2:
The Council found in favor of the Star Tribune and did not uphold
the Department's complaint. Members felt that the paper had respected
students' privacy. They saw no subterfuge, and attributed the Department's
frustration to a difference of expectations about the nature of the
article.
While they believed it fell short of "unethical
behavior," eight members expressed concern about the use of a
reporter as an active participant in the class and about her leadership
role. Public member Terry Thompson said, "It's a slippery slope;
allowing reporters in the classroom could have a chilling effect on
academic freedom." Parry said she would feel concerned if reporters
couldn't go into classes to report. "How many things involve
writing about our experiences? I would be surprised if the Women's
Studies faculty hadn't done the same."
Concurring: Barkelew, Cytron, Handberg, Kostouros,
LeGrand, Parker, Parry, Pine, Pumarlo, Sellers, Seltzer, Smith, Sorenson-Craig,
Thompson, Wicks
Abstaining: Anderson
Determination 3:
The Council found in favor of the Star Tribune and did not uphold
the Department's complaint.
Concurring: Barkelew, Cytron, Handberg, Kostouros,
LeGrand, Parker, Parry, Pine, Pumarlo, Sellers, Seltzer, Smith, Sorenson-Craig,
Thompson, Wicks
Abstaining: Anderson
Dissenting Opinion: Laurisa Sellers
I am struck by what can happen when a news organization decides to
give serious coverage to an issue and a community outside what Ray
Suarez, host of NPR's "Talk of the Nation," referred to
last week in Minneapolis as the "narrow band of reality"
that news organizations cover. They look for something to make it
newsworthy. If they happen to choose a controversy, that's great.
Until controversies within those outside-of-the-band communities are
covered, we will just get the usual celebrations and festivities stories.
But, given their infrequent (or non-existent) eye on these communities,
I believe that news organizations must then look to see if they are
providing enough information about the "new" community for
readers, viewers and listeners to get at least some sense of the context
of the community.
I would argue that the normal definition of fairness
- was the story balanced, did both sides get a chance to present their
viewpoint? - is inadequate. If I read, watch or listen to a story
about term limits, about the Mideast, about education funding, health
care, restaurants, or a proposed business merger, I can take the story
in using the information and opinions gleaned from the dozens (or
hundreds) of reports I have heard on those topics. When news organizations
go out of the narrow band of reality, I believe they have a responsibility
to build a context. As the News Council for all Minnesotans, I think
we have a responsibility to raise the question of whether or not an
adequate context exists for "fair" reporting.
We have to find a way for out-of-the-band voices to
be heard. I was disheartened by what I perceived to be the patronizing
attitude of some Council members. Too much of what I heard could be
characterized as "Well, you really don't understand how newsrooms
work, the role of the media, what you can and can't do with the media."
We told those "outsiders" that they don't really have a
voice because "there's a system and that's not the way it works
and no, the rules aren't up for discussion." We basically said,
"If you're lucky we'll decide to venture outside the normal band
and tell something about your reality, but it will be on our terms."
Are we enforcers of the rules as defined by the media? Are we allowed
to push for a review of the rules? Do we have any role in raising
issues about how the rules impact those whose voices and whose lives
are not a part of the "majority reality?" There are so many
communities outside of the narrow band whose voices are distorted
or muted because the majority community doesn't know how to listen
and doesn't even know that it doesn't know. The cost of our ignorance
is piling up.
June 22, 1995
Read
Determination 106
Back
to Main Determination Index
Want
to comment? Send a message
to the News Council.
