Determination
107
Minnesota
News Council
In the Matter of the Complaint of
Jackie Schwietz of Minnesota Citizen's Concerned for Life
against KTCA-TV "Newsnight"
Attending were Jackie Schwietz, executive director
of Minnesota Citizens Concerned for Life (MCCL), Mary Cracraft, MCCL
communications director, and Marice Rosenberg, MCCL vice president.
Representing KTCA's Newsnight Minnesota were Ken Stone, executive
producer, and Cathy Wurzer, reporter.
Background:
Schwietz was contacted by Cathy Wurzer and asked to give an interview
for a personality profile piece. She was told it would be a one-on-one
interview and that similar ones had been done with Archbishop Roach
and businessman Jeno Paulucci. She insisted that she be the only one
interviewed and was assured that she would be. On the day of the interview
Wurzer was on jury duty and another reporter, Maureen Willenbring,
conducted the interview.
KTCA aired promos before the program and Schwietz
learned that other people had indeed been interviewed. She called
Stone to complain; he told her they intended to run an introductory
piece to put her interview in context. She then asked that her interview
be withdrawn. He refused to do so.
When the program aired, a three-minute introduction
showed several legislators talking about Schwietz's role as a lobbyist
at the recent state legislative session. Ken Stone then said that
Schwietz didn't want people to see her interview but KTCA thought
it was important, and then Schwietz's interview followed (6 minutes).
Stone didn't say that Schwietz had requested the interview not air
because she felt the station had reneged on its promise to her.
Complaint:
Schwietz complained that the station acted unethically by violating
a promise to her about the nature of a piece they produced about her
for which she granted an interview.
Response of the news organization:
KTCA denied that any promise was broken because no promise was made
about what would be aired in the rest of the program.
Discussion:
There was no disagreement between the parties that Schwietz had been
told her interview would be a one-on-one piece. The disagreement concerns
the introductory piece, which Schwietz contends violated the agreement
and which Stone says is another piece entirely and therefore did not
violate the agreement.
After the interview was recorded the station decided
it needed a background piece to put Schwietz's comments into perspective
and to provide context. The background focused on the previous legislative
session, with several pro-life legislators expressing dismay at Schwietz's
behavior and at the tactics of the MCCL toward them. MCCL accused
them of compromising pro-life positions to help overhaul the MinnesotaCare
program. MCCL strategy was to stall the overhaul until pro-life strategies
had been incorporated into it.
Council members asked Wurzer about the promise she
made to Schwietz before the interview. Wurzer said they casually agreed
to do a half-hour interview, and she specified some subjects of discussion.
Schwietz said she never takes a conversation with a reporter casually
or off the record. She said she was reluctant to grant an interview
because in the past such interviews had turned out not to be personal
but political. She said she agreed to the interview with Wurzer because
she received much reassurance and believed they had a firm agreement.
When asked if she was expecting special treatment,
Schwietz said she was not, that she was told this was how all previous
pieces had been done. Schwietz said that, as the source agreeing to
do an interview, it was her prerogative to set ground rules. Stone
agreed that sometimes sources lay down very strict ground rules and
cited the example of a Minneapolis police officer and the major who
would not appear in the same room together.
Council members asked about the format of previous
pieces. Stone said that Schwietz's interview was only the third such
piece done and that the two that had been mentioned to her (Roach
and Paulucci) had not actually been done. Neither of the two pieces
done before Schwietz's had background, though two since have had background
in the form of an anchorperson's scripted introduction to provide
context. Wurzer said, "We've never used footage to introduce
these pieces in the past."
Media member Maureen Reeder asked Wurzer if she felt
she had kept her promise. Wurzer said she was uncomfortable because
Schwietz was upset and that she (Wurzer) had not been aware of the
background piece before it aired.
Stone said that the decision to provide context was
the news editor's decision, not the reporter's and he repeated that
no promise had been made that context wouldn't be provided elsewhere
in the program. He believed that context on the legislative session
was needed to demonstrate the news value of the profile. When asked
if he authorized reporters to make promises, Stone said there is no
formal policy, but it is understood that all promises must be cleared
with him. "If a promise is made, even if it was a bad judgment,
that promise is kept."
Broadcast media members Reeder and Trish Van Pilsum
told the Council that a lot of bargaining is sometimes needed to satisfy
both a source and a news director. They sympathized with Wurzer that
sometimes the treatment of a story changes and the source isn't happy.
Media member John Kostouros pointed out that one way to deal with
a story that is changing is to contact the source and explain.
Van Pilsum suggested that an anchorperson's introduction
would have upheld the spirit of the promise. Schwietz said that she
could see that such a set-up might be needed and had said that was
okay.
Van Pilsum said that she found the background piece
to be necessary: "To do less would have been irresponsible and
incomplete." Media member Kate Stanley, an editorial writer for
the Star Tribune, called the piece excellent journalism and called
the backgrounder the broadcast equivalent of a headline and photo
caption. She said she learned a lot about Schwietz and gained respect
for her.
Stanley asked Schwietz if she was unhappy with anything
said during her interview and Schwietz said she was not. Then what
harm, Stanley asked, had been done? "It harmed the integrity
of the station," said Schwietz. "I'm going to be extremely
careful in the future. I probably won't ever participate in one again."
John Seltzer, public member, said he believed Schwietz
had a promise and an expectation. "I've learned here that what
we're talking about is a moving target. That you don't know what the
story's going to be." He questioned whether reporters can even
make promises, and he advised sources: "When you do grant interviews,
it is at your own peril."
Van Pilsum said, "I would hate to have people
thinking that they have to talk to a reporter at their own peril.
But the media, at their own peril as well, characterize their stories
[to get sources to talk]. The harm is to the trust level."
Stanley urged the station to be vigilant when it makes
promises, but Seltzer countered that it seemed impossible to make
promises regarding a moving target. Reeder said it is the reporter's
obligation to say he or she can't make certain promises so sources
are not misled. Seltzer pointed out the difficulty for a reporter
in trying to build a trusting relationship with a source and then
undercutting that trust by acknowledging that they may not be able
to keep their word and that a story might change.
Determination 1:
The Council voted to deny the complaint that KTCA had acted unethically
by violating a promise. A majority of members agreed that there had
been misunderstandings but felt that the background information was
reasonable and that no promise had been broken.
Concurring: Amaris, Denny, Hoben, Kostouros,
Peterson, Pumarlo, Reeder, Smith, Stanley, Van Pilsum
Dissenting: Sellers
Abstaining: Anderson (chair), LeGrand, Seltzer
Determination 2:
The Council chose to consider whether KTCA violated an understanding
with a news source, a complaint that did not reach the level of unethical
conduct, but was unfair. The Council denied this complaint as well.
Concurring: Denny, Hoben, Kostouros, Peterson,
Pumarlo, Smith, Stanley, Van Pilsum
Dissenting: Amaris, LeGrand, Reeder, Seltzer
Abstaining: Anderson (chair), Sellers
September 21, 1995
Read
Determination 108
Back
to Main Determination Index
Want
to comment? Send a message
to the News Council.
