Determination
116
Minnesota
News Council
In the Matter of the Complaint of
Mpls. Police Lt. Mike Sauro against
the Star Tribune
Attending the hearing was the complainant, Minneapolis
Police Lieutenant Mike Sauro. The Star Tribune declined to
attend, saying it did not contest the validity of the complaint.
Background:
On December 14, 1996, the Star Tribune published an article
about the settlement of a police brutality lawsuit, headlined, "Minneapolis
City Council approves $25,000 Sauro settlement." Sauro complained
to the News Council, saying he was not called by the paper for this
story, resulting in an incompleteness and inaccuracy. Had the paper
reached him, Sauro said, it would have learned that he had been dismissed
from the lawsuit several weeks prior to the settlement. Thus, the
settlement was not a "Sauro settlement."
When presented with the complaint through the News
Council, the Star Tribune wrote to Sauro, offering to run the
following clarification:
A story in December 14 editions should have said
that former Minneapolis police Lt. Mike Sauro was not a party to
a police brutality settlement between the city and Hazem Judah.
Mr. Sauro was dismissed from suit last November.
Sauro declined to accept the clarification because
he said it did not account for all of the errors the story contained,
nor did it tell his side of the story, which should have been included
in the original article. The Star Tribune did not publish the
clarification.
In another attempt to resolve Sauro's complaint, the
paper offered him space on the editorial page for a commentary telling
his side of the story. Sauro declined, saying anything he wrote would
appear self-serving and defensive, and that the paper would not be
taking responsibility for the errors it made.
Finally, on May 20, 1997, the Star Tribune
published the following statement, under the headline "Apology":
A story and headline December 14 should have made
clear Minneapolis police Lt. Mike Sauro was not a party to a police
brutality settlement between the city and Hazem Judeh. Sauro was
dismissed from the suit last November. The story also should have
included either comments from Sauro or a synopsis of his version
of the events.
Sauro did not accept the paper's apology as a resolution
to his complaint, saying he wanted his complaint judged by an independent
body and made part of the public record.
Complaint:
Sauro complained that the Star Tribune's failure to contact
him for a story naming him violated a basic rule of fairness in journalism.
He said he has been the subject of many news articles during the past
few years, but that this was the first time he was not contacted for
a story involving him. Sauro said he understands that mistakes happen,
but felt that in this case the Star Tribune demonstrated "total
incompetence." The proposed settlement document the reporter
used to write the story contained Sauro's version of the events leading
to the lawsuit, yet the reporter chose not to include that information
in the story. Sauro questioned why the editor who reviewed the story
was not more critical of its lack of balance.
In addition, Sauro said the paper inaccurately reported
the incident leading to the lawsuit. The article reported"
"Judeh claimed that after he was in handcuffs
on the floor, he was kicked in the face by Sauro. Judeh's claim
was supported by his wife, who was present at the time, and corroborated
by other store employees who saw some of Judeh's interaction with
the police officers."
Sauro said that several police officers present at
the incident testified before a federal grand jury and in sworn depositions
that he never kicked or struck Judeh. Further, he said, the two officers
who did give Judeh his injuries filed police reports documenting the
force they used during Judeh's arrest, resulting in the injuries he
sustained. Sauro also questioned the eyewitness corroboration cited
in the paragraph. He said Judeh's wife was outside during the arrest,
and the store employees were lying on the floor, face down, with their
heads covered, as is standard police procedure. Thus, they were not
able to see the force used by the other officers against Judeh.
Sauro also complained that there was no attribution
for the information that was in the story. He assumed that it came
from Judeh's attorney, and said such attribution would help readers
judge the reliability of the information.
Response:
Editor Tim McGuire submitted the following statement to be read by
the executive director at the hearing, "I am pleased the chairman
will state the nature of the complaint and detail the apology the
Star Tribune published, and that he will then seek a vote to
uphold the complaint."
Discussion:
Council member Nedra Wicks asked Sauro why he declined the paper's
offer of space on the editorial page. Sauro reiterated that he believed
any commentary he wrote would appear self-serving and readers were
less likely to take it seriously. He added that it is not his job
to write articles for the newspaper.
Council member Laurisa Sellers asked Sauro what role
he played in the paper's publishing of the apology. Sauro said he
did not see it when he read the paper that morning, and found out
about it only when a co-worker mentioned it to him. Sauro said that
if it had been printed with the same prominence as the story, he might
have accepted it as a resolution. He added that it read more like
an apology to the readers for confusing them, rather than an apology
to him for failing to contact him.
Council member Jim Pumarlo asked Sauro why he complained
to the News Council without first complaining directly to the paper.
Sauro said he felt his complaint was so serious that it needed to
go directly to the News Council. He said every article ever written
about him had mistakes, and that he had called the paper to account
on some of those, but that this case was a matter of intentional disregard
for fairness.
Determination:
There was no deliberation on this complaint. The Council voted unanimously
to uphold the complaint that the Star Tribune story inaccurately
portrayed Sauro's role in the incident and his status in the lawsuit;
failed to name a source for the allegations against him and failed
to include his version of the events.
Concurring: Amaris, Conner, Hoben, Kostouros,
Peterson, Pumarlo, Sellers, Thompson, Wicks, Wychor
Abstaining: Anderson
June 12, 1997
Read
Determination 117
Back
to Main Determination Index
Back
to News Council Main
Page
Want
to comment? Send a message
to the News Council.
