Determination
110
Minnesota
News Council
In the Matter of the Complaint of the
Ellen Mork against
WJON Radio, St. Cloud
Attending the hearing were Ellen Mork, the complainant,
and Andy Hilger, owner and general manager of WJON radio, the respondent.
Background:
In mid-October, 1995, during a school board campaign, school board
member Steve Ringsmuth was quoted in a St. Cloud Times newspaper
article criticizing board member Ellen Mork. She was a member of the
Multi-Culture, Gender Fair, Disability Aware committee (MCGFDA). The
Times article began by saying criticism of one board member by another
was unusual and an editorial ran with the headline "Official's
Comment Needs Explanation."
The next day, WJON radio in St. Cloud, along with
27 other media and nonmedia recipients, received an anonymous letter,
allegedly from district teachers and support staff, defending Ringsmuth
and expressing concern about the MCGFDA committee. The letter questioned
why it had taken so long to develop a new Religion and Education policy
and charged that the committee had engaged in censorship, "arbitrarily"
pulling books from school libraries that the committee deemed to be
"offensive or possibly offensive." The letter writers said
they felt they had to remain anonymous to protect their job security
and workplace harmony, but, they said, "we are aware that an
anonymous letter lacks credence and is not to be taken at face value,
without proper research and verification. We are certain, as a credible
journalistic team, that you would wish to get to the truth of the
matter."
The same day, Hilger received a copy of a letter to
the St. Cloud Times in which school board member Joe Lisbon
explained his own concerns about the committee. He had shared them
with Ringsmuth, including Ellen Mork's alleged threat to sue the school
district if it put Christmas trees in the schools. Hilger spoke with
Ringsmuth to clarify Ringsmuth's concerns and then prepared an editorial,
which aired on October 23.
WJON is one of very few radio stations in the country
to air editorials. It has done so for 30 years, and it gives anyone
who disagrees with an editorial free airtime to respond. A person
who is the subject of an editorial is contacted by phone prior to
airing to arrange a response. If he or she cannot be reached, a copy
of the editorial is hand-delivered.
Complaint:
Mork complained that Hilger's opinion piece was based on false rumors.
Her complaint contended that:
1. Andy Hilger, the editorialist, had an obligation
to check Ringsmuth's assertion that the MCGFDA committee had pulled
books from school libraries without the authority or knowledge of
the school board and that she was a prime mover in censorship, and
2. Offering an opportunity to respond after an editorial
has already aired is not sufficient for fairness and balance, but
that the editorial needed to include her version of the facts.
Response of the News Outlet:
Hilger responded that the goal of his editorial was not to judge the
facts of the issue but to get it out in the open so people could discuss
it. Nor was he simply repeating rumors; he was voicing the concerns
of another school board member. He said he made several attempts by
phone to get a response to his editorial from Mork, but she did not
return his calls. He said further that Mork had several opportunities
before the election to get her points across. On Friday, October 27,
Mork and Ringsmuth appeared on WJON's morning interview program, FOCUS,
to discuss election issues. On November 6, the day before the election,
WJON endorsed Ringsmuth for re-election, and a counter-endorsement
by Mork's supporters ran immediately following. Mork's response to
WJON's October 23 editorial also ran four times that day.
Discussion:
Mork argued that WJON could have let Ringsmuth air his own charges
without incorporating them into an editorial, but when those charges
became part of the editorial, the station had a responsibility to
check the facts.
When Council member Don Smith asked Hilger if Mork's
disavowal of the allegations might have caused him to change or withdraw
his editorial, Hilger responded that it would not; that the charges
were Ringsmuth's, not his, and that the issue needed to be laid on
the table so public attention could be focused on it.
Council member Kate Stanley, an editorial writer for
the Star Tribune, asked Hilger if he didn't consider it his
responsibility to check assertions that public officials make to him.
Hilger said sometimes he would call to check, but that Ringsmuth was
a school board member who should know. Nedra Wicks, a public member
from Rochester and an appointed member of the state board of education,
expressed concern that a journalist would believe someone simply because
he was a sitting school board member.
Mork presented letters stating that the removal of
library materials was done by social studies teachers (not the MCGFDA
committee) after examining the audio-visual and other materials for,
among other things, relevance and currency. Council member Wicks asked
if Hilger considered removal of outdated material to be censorship;
Hilger said that was not the point of the editorial.
Stanley asked Hilger if Mork was a prime mover of
"censorship" of library materials; Hilger said he didn't
have the facts, that he was an editorial writer, not an investigative
reporter.
Council member Nancy Conner, Reader Advocate of the
St. Paul Pioneer Press, asked Mork why, during her on-air interview
with Ringsmuth, she hadn't confronted Ringsmuth directly about the
charges. Mork said she didn't confront him for two reasons: 1) she
believes it is improper to attack a fellow school board member, and
2) the program followed a specific question-answer format. She did
respond to the charges when a caller raised the issue, but she said
rumors aren't stopped by denials from the subject.
Council member Syl Jones, a commentary writer for
the Star Tribune, said Mork had an opportunity to respond and
the audience knows to expect healthy debate from WJON. Council member
Maureen Reeder said that opinions are thrown out to the public for
the purpose of being disproved and the editorial itself clearly showed
that Hilger did not know the facts when he said "If these
facts are true...." so Hilger was telling his audience that he
didn't know. Stanley responded that "editorial writers have a
profound obligation that needs to be fulfilled, not simply to pass
along for public consumption the charges... of some party, but to
offer deep reflection... based on facts, carefully ascertained and
verified. It's true that he has a right to say any darned thing he
wants, and it's true that the Constitution upholds that right, but
did he fulfill his ethical responsibility in saying it? I'm worried
he didn't. Even now he doesn't know the truth."
Stanley continued, "[Hilger] deserves a compliment
for following the exhortation of John Milton: 'Let truth and falsehood
grapple,'" but she pointed out that he had the potential to hurt
Ellen Mork substantially and it was not alleviated by the phrase,
"If these charges are true."
"The primary responsibility of an editorial writer,"
Stanley argued, "is to make sure he or she offers someone who
is the target of an attack the right to reply within the original
piece."
Council member Mollie Hoben agreed, citing the Women's
Studies case in which it was argued that a respondent to an attack,
arguing after the fact, is not in an equal position and that Mork's
position should have been in the original piece. Conner said that
was particularly important with radio: "a radio editorial passes
by in a fleeting moment. The rebuttal may never be heard by the same
person who heard the attack. That creates a special responsibility
to capture both sides within one broadcast."
Council member Don Smith said, in defense of the station,
"My paper does not go to the degree this station goes to to get
a defense." Council member John Kostouros agreed that WJON's
process was exemplary: "You had all the right things in place
but you didn't do them. There are not many more inflammatory charges
than religious censorship to school board members.... and a lot of
it isn't your opinion, it's Ringsmuth's opinion."
Reeder said that people don't expect editorials to
be factual, to which Wicks responded "If I thought that the articles
I read on the editorial pages weren't based on fact, I'd cancel all
my subscriptions. There is an implicit belief by the public that these
are learned opinions based on fact." Jones disagreed, citing
editorials in the 1950s that supported segregation. "If black
people had believed them, they would have all gone out and killed
themselves." He views an editorial as part of a debate.
Reeder countered that the Council was assuming there
were factual errors in the editorial: Stanley responded, "We
don't need to know there was falsity, the point is (Hilger) doesn't
know.... the question is, do editorial writers have fewer or more
responsibilities than reporters and I say we have more. Editorial
writers are reporters plus. We have every duty that investigative
reporters have and then more."
Council member Jim Pumarlo, editor of the Red Wing
Republican Eagle and an editorial writer, agreed that editorial
writers have an extra responsibility for fair play. An editorial carries
extra weight and has a higher standing, being both an institutional
and an individual stand. He said that just as a news story shouldn't
run without comment from the other side, an editorial shouldn't either.
Determination:
The Council upheld the complaint that WJON had an obligation to verify
facts alleged in an editorial.
Concurring: Conner, Cytron, Hoben, Kostouros,
Pumarlo, Seltzer, Smith, Stanley, Wicks
Dissenting: Barkelew, Jones, LeGrand, Reeder
Abstaining: Anderson
The Council chose not to vote on the second item because
members believed that the first vote had adequately addressed it.
June 6, 1996
Read
Determination 111
Back
to Main Determination Index
Want
to comment? Send a message
to the News Council.
