Determination
120
Minnesota
News Council
In the Matter of the Complaint of
the Professor Shelton Gunaratne
Against the Fargo Forum
This complaint was heard on written submissions only.
The Fargo Forum declined to participate.
Bob Shaw and Nedra Wicks, former Council members,
took part as public members in order to ensure a balance of public/media
members. The proceedings took place at South Central Technical College
in Faribault.
Complaint:
Shelton Gunaratne is a journalism professor at Moorhead State University.
His complaint involved three articles - a December 13 news story,
a December 17 editorial about a 1997 public survey on higher education,
and a December 15 column critical of surveys. Professor Gunaratne
wrote an opinion piece to point out incongruities among the three
articles.
The submitted opinion piece contained the gist of
Professor Gunaratne's complaints about the reporting of the poll.
He suggested that the Forum use the following guidelines to
evaluate poll findings and to explain them adequately to readers:
Professor Gunaratne did not hear back from the opinion
page editor and sent an e-mail inquiring about whether his piece would
be published. He received no response from the editor.
Response:
The Fargo Forum declined to respond to Gunaratne or to try
to resolve the complaint. In a letter to Forum editor, Joe
Dill, the Council asked if the opinion page had a policy about guest
commentaries that it could share with Professor Gunaratne. Dill replied
that the paper had no desire to negotiate with the professor and expressed
surprise that the Council would consider such a "non-issue."
"We accept and reject letters to the editor and
guest columns every day, as does every newspaper," Dill wrote
to the News Council. "It's significant to note that we have published
a number of Gunaratne opinions over the years."
"The editor handling the opinion page elected
not to use the one in question, probably on the same day he decided
not to use a host of other offerings. Others might have been disappointed,
but they merely came back with an article on another opinion another
day."
"This all seems rather silly to me."
The Forum refused to respond to Professor Gunaratne.
Deliberation:
"If the Forum hadn't said anything about the poll taker, Phil
Harmeson, it would've been bad, but they gave accurate background,"
said public member Bob Shaw. He believed the information the complainant
felt should be included with all reporting on surveys and polls was
too complicated and lengthy. Public member Craig Shulstad said it
was adequate for the paper to show the bias of the poll taker.
While all Council members agreed that a paper should
not be expected to explain to every letter and commentary writer why
it rejected their piece, several media members said they would always,
as a simple courtesy, answer such a question if a contributor called
to speak with them.
Council members were disappointed that the Forum
did not choose to engage with its reader or with the Council, noting
that at this time many news outlets are trying to regain credibility
partly by opening up to candid discussions of ethics with the public.
Determination
1. On the question, "Did the Forum's 12/13/97
news story and 12/17/97 editorial leave out vital criteria readers
need to understand the reliability and validity of a public opinion
poll?" the Council voted unanimously to deny the complaint:
Concurring: Bailey, Bauerlein, Hage, Neddermeyer,
Pumarlo, Sellers, Shaw, Shulstad, Stauffer, Van Pilsum, Wicks
Recused: Keller
Presiding: Tomljanovich
2. On the question, "Should the Forum
have explained to Mr. Gunaratne why it rejected his commentary?"
the Council voted that it should not have been expected to do so.
Concurring: Hage, Neddermeyer, Pumarlo, Sellers,
Shulstad, Stauffer, Van Pilsum, Wicks
Dissenting: Bailey, Bauerlein, Shaw
Recused: Keller
Presiding: Tomljanovich
June 15, 1998
Read
Determination 121
Back
to Main Determination Index
Back
to News Council Main
Page
Want
to comment? Send a message
to the News Council.
