Determination
111
Minnesota
News Council
In the Matter of the Complaint of the
Dr. L. David Mech against
the Star Tribune
Attending the hearing was the complainant, Dr. L.
David Mech, a biologist specializing in wolf research with the National
Biological Survey. Accompanying Mech were Walter Medwid, director
of the International Wolf Center (IWC), and Nancy Gibson, an associate
of Mech's at the IWC. Representing the Star Tribune were Pam
Fine, managing editor, Tom Meersman, reporter, and Marilyn Hoegemeyer,
story editor.
Background: The Star Tribune said the story
originated when the paper received information that Mech and the International
Wolf Center had been sued by a former IWC employee. Meersman interviewed
more than two dozen people and interviewed Mech twice. On July 23,
1995, the Star Tribune published a copyrighted article on page
one, above the fold, with the headline, "Is wolf expert above
the rules? Incidents raise ethics questions."
Mech complained to the Star Tribune, asking for almost
two dozen corrections; the paper made two. Mech also asked for rebuttal
space on the Commentary page with a front-page referral; the paper
gave him 36 inches with no front-page referral. Mech remained unsatisfied
with the Star Tribune's response because he felt the paper
had not taken responsibility for what he considered irresponsible
journalism. Also, Mech said the original article was circulating on
the Internet and had spawned articles in other publications that repeated
and distorted its charges. Therefore, Mech asked the Minnesota News
Council to review his complaint.
Complaint:
Mech identified 28 specific points of contention in the article. The
News Council grouped these points under four general complaints. Mech
complained that the story:
1. Carried a prejudicial headline that implied he
was guilty of ethical violations. Further, the framing strongly
implied serious wrongdoing and set a false stage for all that followed.
2. Used inflammatory and prejudicial language to
support unsubstantiated attacks on his character and behavior.
3. Was based upon information from sources who were
anonymous, biased or lacked the authority to judge his behavior,
which made it difficult for readers to judge their reliability.
4. Leveled charges against him without providing
substantiation or context that would have provided balance.
Response of the news organization:
The Star Tribune defended the story as fully documented, fair
and balanced. It said the article followed standard journalistic practices
and raised legitimate questions about the activities of a well-known
scientist. Further, the paper said it had provided readers ample opportunity
to learn Mech's views both within the story and in the lengthy Commentary
piece written by freelance journalist Dave Anderson at Mech's request
and published on December 10, 1995. More specifically, the paper responded
that:
1. The headline reflected legitimate questions posed
by numerous people interviewed for the story.
2. The passages to which Mech objected were summaries
at the beginning of the story; the assertions they contained were
explained in greater detail later. Also, a summary statement by
Mech, in his defense, ran near the beginning of the story with further
explanation later.
3. The article contained 16 named sources, all of
whom were chosen either because of their scientific expertise, their
direct experience working with or for Mech, or their knowledge of
rules and regulations pertaining to wolves. It also included several
people who spoke on condition on anonymity because they said they
feared retaliation by Mech. Those sources were used primarily to
support what named sources said in the story.
4. The article provided substantiation for its major
points both in statements from qualified sources and documents that
pertained to the issues raised.
Discussion:
Mech claimed that the article's presentation implied serious wrongdoing
when, in his opinion, the worst thing the article had accused him
of was accidentally killing a wolf while tranquilizing it in the presence
of a British film crew. However, he said, even that charge lacked
context - that he had drugged wolves thousands of times without incident.
He argued that the article did not merit being marked copyrighted
and placed on the front page next to a story about Susan Smith, a
woman convicted of murdering her two young sons. Mech expressed concern
that many people don't read beyond the headlines and that it wasn't
until 34 lines into the story that he was quoted. Further, Mech calculated
that the statements in his defense totaled less than 10 percent of
the article. He questioned the fairness of the paper's being able
to control which of his comments it published and how they were presented.
Carol Pine, a public member, asked Mech if he considered
himself a public figure; he replied he did not. Pine then posed the
same question to the paper; Pam Fine, managing editor, answered that
it did consider Mech a public figure because he works for the University
of Minnesota and receives public funding. Pine then asked what the
paper's standards are for news coverage of public figures. Fine said
that many factors influence how a story about a public figure is played,
among them importance, interest and the effect on the community.
Media member Trish Van Pilsum asked the paper how
large a factor exclusivity of a story is in determining its placement.
Fine answered that generally speaking, when a newspaper has exclusive
stories, it plays them prominently.
Public member Ann Barkelew asked the paper to explain
what standards it uses to judge a story as fair. Fine answered that
the paper considers balance and accuracy fundamental to fairness.
She said the paper asks itself if its stories present the right picture,
if it's right to hold a person up to questioning, and if the story
is clear and makes sense.
Public member Laurisa Sellers said that while the
stated purpose of the article was to raise legitimate questions, it
seemed to go beyond that and, in effect, pointed readers in the direction
of answers. She asked the paper if giving readers direction fit its
journalistic standards. Meersman responded that his findings were
substantiated by numerous people.
Media member Maureen Reeder said she thought the story
was an example of solid journalism. "As a journalist, often you
end up reporting what your gut tells you. That's an important part
of journalistic practice," she said.
"Along with respecting the gut feeling of the
reporter, we must respect the gut feeling of the interviewee,"
added public member Terry Thompson.
Many members were troubled by the placement and tone
of the article. "This was a story with a point of view,"
media member Ron Handberg said. "I'd be far more comfortable
if the paper had neglected the copyright and instead labeled it analysis."
Barkelew agreed. "The headline carries a powerful punch. If I
read no more, I would think this is a bad guy."
Mech also questioned the fairness of the Star Tribune's
corrections policy. Included in the original article was the statement:
"Mech serves on various boards that directly or indirectly control
much of the funding for wolf research projects." A correction
ran in the Corrections column on page two on November 19, 1995, stating:
"An article on Page 4A July 23 incorrectly stated that Phil Sauer
was executive director of the International Wolf Center in Ely, Minn.
He was interim administrator. The article also said L. David Mech
serves on various boards that directly or indirectly control much
of the funding for wolf research projects. Mech serves on one board
and one scientific panel, neither of which controls funding."
Mech asked how that correction compared to the front-page presentation
of the original accusation.
Rabbi Barry Cytron, a public member, said the story
did more than raise questions. He called the story prejudicial and
challenged the practice of making an assertion on the front page while
placing the correction on page two. Fine responded that most newspapers
anchor corrections in a set place so that readers don't have to search
for them. She added that if an error reaches the level where it seems
unfair to put it inside, papers may elect to put it outside.
Sellers asked the Star Tribune if, when it
ran the correction, it considered also noting that the story was based,
in part, on anonymous sources who feared retaliation. Fine answered
that the paper did not consider doing so because its policy is to
keep corrections narrowly focused on facts. Sellers pressed the issue,
saying that the fundamental reason for granting these sources anonymity
was undercut by the correction. Meersman defended the use of the anonymous
sources, saying that the correction did not say that Mech does not
influence funding, but that he does not sit on boards. Fine explained
that the paper allows the use of anonymous sources when it has multiple
sources speaking to the same point, when they're highly credible and
their credibility is unimpugnable. In this case, she said, anonymous
sources were used as secondary sources to support named sources.
Mech challenged the paper's use of sources he deemed
non-authoritative, specifically 1) photographer Jim Brandenburg, who
commented on the scientific validity of Mech's research, and 2) an
IWC student volunteer who said Mech misused government vehicles. Mech
questioned why these people were quoted rather than wolf researchers
or, in the case of use of vehicles, his supervisor. He quoted the
syndicated columnist William Raspberry who said, "But for the
most part, we'd rather report the scandal we suspect than the service
that we know."
Fine said that Meersman asked Mech whom he should
talk to and then interviewed them. Meersman said he tried to interview
Mech's supervisor, but found that Mech had faxed the supervisor and
told him not to talk to Meersman, but to refer Meersman to the IWC
lawyer. Fine said Brandenburg and the student volunteers were used
as sources because they were eyewitnesses, not experts.
Determination 1:
The Council upheld the complaint that the headline was prejudicial
and that the framing set an unfair tone for the information that followed.
Concurring: Amaris, Barkelew, Cytron, Denny,
Peterson, Pine, Pumarlo, Sellers, Seltzer, Thompson
Dissenting: Conner, Handberg, Hoben, Reeder, Smith, Van Pilsum
Abstaining: Anderson
Determination 2:
The Council upheld the complaint that the article used inflammatory
and prejudicial language.
Concurring: Amaris, Barkelew, Cytron, Denny,
Hoben, Peterson, Pine, Pumarlo, Sellers, Seltzer
Dissenting: Conner, Handberg, Reeder, Smith, Thompson, Van
Pilsum
Abstaining: Anderson
Determination 3:
The Council denied the complaint that the article was based upon comments
from sources who were anonymous, biased or lacked authority to judge
his behavior.
Concurring: Barkelew, Conner, Cytron, Denny,
Handberg, Hoben, Peterson, Pine, Pumarlo, Reeder, Smith, Thompson,
Van Pilsum
Dissenting: Amaris, Sellers, Seltzer
Abstaining: Anderson
Determination 4:
The Council denied the complaint that the article leveled charges
against Mech without providing substantiation or context.
Concurring: Amaris, Conner, Cytron, Denny,
Handberg, Hoben, Peterson, Pine, Pumarlo, Reeder, Sellers, Smith,
Thompson, Van Pilsum
Dissenting: Barkelew, Seltzer
Abstaining: Anderson
June 20, 1996
Read
Determination 112
Back
to Main Determination Index
Want
to comment? Send a message
to the News Council.
