Determination
122
Minnesota
News Council
In the Matter of the Complaint of
DFL candidate Nancy Barsness
against the Morris Sun/Tribune
Participants included the complainant, Nancy Barsness
and editor/general manager of the Morris Sun/Tribune, Jim Morrison.
A handful of observers attended the hearing, including
students from the University of Minnesota Student Chapter of the Society
of Professional Journalists and, from the Silha Center for the Study
of Media Ethics & Law, William Babcock.
Background:
Nancy Barsness ran for a seat in the Minnesota House of Representatives
in the 1998 election against the incumbent, Torrey Westrom. During
the campaign it became known that the state Department of Labor and
Industry (DoLI) had assessed fines against Westrom and his family
for failure to carry workers compensation insurance in connection
with a family-owned construction business [the fines have since been
dropped]. The state DFL party brought attention to these fines just
prior to election day in a news release and in an ad that ran in the
Appleton paper. The ad was also submitted to the Morris paper, but
was withdrawn at the request of Nancy Barsness. The editor wrote an
editorial in response to that ad.
The newspaper editor said he believed the Barsness
campaign knew of Westrom's labor problems well in advance and withheld
the information in order to spring it on voters late in the campaign
to gain an election advantage. Barsness denied that.
Complaint:
In her complaint, Nancy Barsness charged that the newspaper was
biased in favor of her opponent, the paper's endorsed candidate, Torrey
Westrom, and that this bias showed itself in the following ways:
1. A 10/29/98 news story was biased, misleading, unfair
and ended with an implied and false conclusion that Barsness had lied.
The paper didn't ask Barsness for her side of the story.
2. A 10/29/98 editorial was inaccurate, misleading,
implied that Barsness had lied, and attacked Barsness personally with
sexist remarks. Further, the paper did not get Barsness's side of
the story.
3. The paper provided Westrom space on the editorial/letters
page on 10/29/98, several days after the paper's official letters
deadline, but did not offer the Barsness campaign similar space.
4. The paper refused to print a letter from Barsness's
campaign manager.
5. The paper gave unfair advantage to Westrom with
its policies and practices:
a) The paper let the Westrom campaign know what
ads were being run so Westrom could respond in the same issue, but
the Barsness campaign received no such notification.*
b) The paper sold Westrom the front page of The
Advisor (the advertising circular) for his political ads for the
last three weeks of the campaign.*
c) The paper failed to notify readers, on the front
page of The Advisor, of Barsness campaign inserts, as they did with
Westrom inserts.*
d) The paper did not print several letters to the
editor in support of Barsness.
| * The Complaints Committee
of the Minnesota News Council declined to put forward the complaints
related to advertising. Council policy is to consider complaints
about advertising only if they relate to political campaigns and
only if there is a charge of inaccuracy. The Council does not
issue determinations about advertising policy, which is a business
issue. |
Ms. Barsness's complaints were summarized in three
questions submitted to the Council for a vote:
1. Did the Sun/Tribune news story of 10/29/98 show
bias against Barsness?
2. Was the 10/29/98 editorial unfair to Barsness?
3. Did the newspaper's letters column give her opponent
an unfair advantage?
Response:
The Morris Sun/Tribune denied that it was biased in its treatment
of the Barsness campaign:
1. While the Sun/Tribune did not call Barsness when
preparing its news story, the story relied upon the DFL party press
release, which the editor believed presented her side of the story.
2. Of the editorial, Morrison said: "My editorial
represented my best efforts to get at the truth. I knew nothing about
the allegations against Rep. Westrom until the DFL news release reached
my desk at 1 p.m. Monday, October 26, just a week before the election.
Shortly thereafter, the DFL sent us a full-page ad based largely on
the Hotovec and Jenson statements [the workers whose cases led to
the DoLI investigation]. Based on our investigations, it seemed to
me that the DFL release and the DFL ad constituted a classic example
of an October surprise." (The term "October surprise,"
used in the editorial and objected to by Barsness, is a standard description
of new charges that come out very late in a race.)
"[Barsness] keeps repeating the assertion that
her campaign did not know of the DoLI investigation until late October.
I have good grounds to question this. The Jenson sworn statement was
dated September 22 and it contains five separate references to a state
investigation of these matters.... This sworn statement was in (the
Barsness campaign manager) Mr. Wojtalewicz's hands no later than September
22, yet Wojtalewicz claims that he knew nothing about a state investigation.
Our investigation traced the sworn statements to the office of Mr.
Wojtalewicz. The statements were notarized by Jodi Sterud, a notary
employed by Mr. Wojtalewicz's law firm, on September 22.
"I operated on the reasonable assumption that
Ms. Barsness, her campaign chair Brian Wojtalewicz, and [DFL party
chair] Dick Senese were acting together on behalf of the Barsness
campaign. I am convinced that most newspaper editors would have made
the same assumption.
"Ms. Barsness calls our endorsement of her opponent
a conflict of interest. However, I doubt that the Star Tribune, Pioneer
Press or New York Times would be willing to forgo endorsements of
races they cover. Like most papers, we rigorously separate our news
and editorial functions. Newspapers have a basic right to express
political opinions."
3. Of the letters, Morrison said: "We certainly
did not deny access to Barsness. The only thing we refused to print
was her campaign manager's letter to the editor - which he wanted
us to print on Election Day. We announced our letters deadline early,
repeated it often, and stuck to it. We printed every pro-Barsness
or anti-Westrom letter to the editor that we received by deadline.
However, we did not print some of the pro-Westrom letters we received
because there were so many of them."
Morrison explained that the only restrictions his
paper places on letters to the editor are that 1) the letter may not
be libelous and 2) the letter must be from a subscriber. He said no
letters received after the deadline were printed. Eight letters received
before the deadline were not printed - one critical of Barsness, three
in favor of Westrom, four for other races - because the writers didn't
live in the local area, weren't subscribers, or the letters were submitted
to multiple newspapers simultaneously.
Discussion:
Media member Lee Canning asked if the paper had given written procedures
to candidates at the beginning of the campaign season. Morrison said
it did not have a document, but the paper did print notice of the
letters deadline repeatedly.
Media member Pia Lopez asked Morrison how he anticipated
Barsness would have an opportunity to respond to the October 29 editorial.
Morrison said there was no perfect solution to this situation. "I
had intended no new letters or editorials, but when the charges came
out, I felt it was very important that someone address them. As it
turned out, that left no opportunity for response."
Several Council members were confused by the nature
of the Westrom response, appearing as it did in a box on the editorial
page. Barsness referred to it as an ad. Morrison said he did not consider
it to be an ad or a letter. He explained that the paper had called
Westrom on Monday the 26th to ask for his response to the serious
charges being raised by the DFL. Westrom's response was received on
Wednesday the 28th at 2:15, only minutes before press time, too late
to get into the news story. The paper decided to put the response
on the editorial page, even though it was received after deadline
for that page. Morrison considered it an exceptional case.
Media member Dave Hage asked Morrison if Barsness
was also offered an opportunity to respond to the new information.
Morrison said she was not.
Media member Don Shelby asked Morrison to explain
his role in the newsroom. Morrison said he works in news, not advertising.
He is 1/2 owner of the family-owned paper, founded in 1898. He works
closely with the news reporter, and he sets editorial policy and writes
editorials. He said the staff is too small to allow for a separation
between editorial and news functions.
Shelby asked Morrison if his advice to the reporter
writing the news story might have been tinged with editorial color.
Morrison said it was not. Shelby asked if Morrison had directed the
reporter to get both sides. Morrison said he had not, but in retrospect
that would have been the prudent thing to do.
Media member Nancy Conner asked Morrison if he had
tried to reach Barsness before writing the editorial. He said he had
not. He said he assumed that the state DFL was acting in concert with
the local campaign. Lopez pointed out that the ad and the press release
were both from the DFL party, not the Barsness campaign. She asked
Morrison what evidence there was that the local campaign was working
in concert with the state party. Morrison said he had no evidence.
Media member Kathleen Stauffer asked Morrison what
investigation was conducted and referred to in the editorial. Morrison
said he investigated the origin of the sworn statements and the role
of campaign manager, Brian Wojtalewicz, in obtaining the statements.
"The campaign treated the sworn statements as God's truth. The
public may not understand what a sworn statement is. They assume it
must be true. I think most people here (at the hearing) realize it
may or may not be true."
Barsness reiterated that she had never seen the ad,
or the press release prior to Friday (the 23rd), and had not had anything
to do with the creation or placement of either of them. Members asked
Barsness what the relationship was between herself, her local campaign
and the state DFL party. Barsness said this was her first campaign
with political party endorsement and that she had received no money
from the state DFL, but only attended a training session in July.
She had been paired with a mentor, with whom she rarely spoke. She
had never spoken with Dick Senese. She said that the state party had
no input into her local campaign, or her local endorsement."They
concentrate on state officers, not local races," she said.
Hage asked Barsness how the state DFL party came to
know about the Westrom incident and to issue the press release. Barsness
said she did not know; her campaign manager, Mr. Wojtalewicz, had
probably given them a copy of the sworn statements. She believed her
campaign chair may have been in contact with the state DFL and that
he may have known about the ad submitted to the Appleton paper, but
she did not. "I suppose they thought they were assisting me,
but I didn't want that." Barsness said that when she knew (on
the 26th or 27th) that the ad had been submitted to the Morris paper,
she asked that it be pulled because she believed it was too negative
for her campaign.
Public member Bill Diaz asked if the DoLI ever formally
announced the fines. Barsness said it did not. The Herman Review had
heard of the fines and Barsness gave that paper a copy of the statements,
but they did not do a story about it. The Willmar paper had done a
story. Barsness said she did not give the Morris paper a copy of the
announcement because of a run-in they had had previously over ads.
Media member Monika Bauerlein asked Barsness in what
way the Morris paper had made it look like she was lying. Barsness
said that by inference, if the paper said her campaign manager, Brian
Wojtalewicz, knew about the charges, then she knew. They could have
called her, or Mr. Wojtalewicz's office, to confirm who knew what
and when.
Public member Willie Johnson, inquiring into Barsness's
complaint of sexist remarks, asked Morrison why he chose the word
"shrill" to describe Barsness. Morrison said he looked up
synonyms for strident, a word used in a prior story.
Deliberation:
Bauerlein said she felt a great deal of sympathy for the struggles
of a small weekly paper working with limited resources, especially
when called upon to cover breaking news events. "Having had similar
experiences, I've become very careful about carrying anything in the
paper when there is no time to respond."
Her recommendation to avoid charges of bias: "Draw
the line and stick to that line."
Shelby asked the Council to consider what it takes
to show bias. He pointed to numerous stylistic problems in the articles,
such as the quote marks around the term "October surprise,"
which is unattributed. Stauffer pointed to unusual use of quote marks
around the term "farm 'crisis'," in an earlier article about
Barsness, implying that it is a matter of opinion whether there really
is a farm crisis. Hage felt these inconsistencies did not rise to
the level of bias but were examples of "extremely lazy reporting."
When does sloppiness rise to the level of bias? Shelby
pointed out that most of the third and fourth columns of the news
story were lifted from Westrom's defense statement. "The paper
went to great lengths in defense of Westrom and, it seems, to explain
(the problem) away."
Further, Shelby believed the Sun/Tribune "failed
the test of journalism and, in essence, libeled Hotovec and Jenson,
by saying they lied under oath" when the paper quoted Westrom's
attorney saying some of Westrom's political opponents have given false
sworn statements. "Did you reach out to Hotovec and Jenson to
ascertain if it was true?" Shelby asked.
Hage was concerned that the paper raised the issue
of the "October surprise" in such a way that it served the
interests of the Westrom campaign against Barsness, but he believed
that it was an issue any reporter would feel the need to raise.
Media member Tony Carideo asked the Council to consider
the package as a whole. The paper went to great lengths to allow Westrom
to make a response, which they carried verbatim on the letters page,
"but they didn't go to extraordinary lengths for the [Barsness]
campaign." Carideo found the policy of publishing letters only
from subscribers to be odd. Canning conceded it was a strange rule
but had no problem with it as long as it was applied evenly.
As to the letters column, Canning told the paper he
believed it owed its readers an explanation for bending its normal
rules for printing letters. Conner agreed: "I don't see why,
if you ran Westrom's response, you couldn't run another response solicited
from Ms. Barsness.... If you're going to endorse candidates, it's
very important to be scrupulously fair in your letters column and
in your news coverage."
Public member Rachel Quenemoen, a rural sociologist
from Dawson, Minnesota, commended the Sun/Tribune editor for tackling
the issue. "Most small town papers avoid controversy like the
plague, especially when time is critical.... How can we nurture every
little paper across this state to be the wary watchdog that we need
them to be?"
Bauerlein agreed: "I'm impressed that the Sun/Tribune
tackled the issue. Your instincts on the timing were solid instincts.
I'm troubled [by the publication of Westrom's response above], but
I don't quibble with the news story."
Canning was similarly impressed: "The news story
went far beyond most news stories in small papers. It was handled
well, given the short time frame that the paper had to deal with.
I would have felt better, however, if the paper had called Ms. Barsness."
Canning was not so impressed with the editorial, however.
"I am grossly disappointed by the language of the editorial.
Where is your proof of these allegations? ... You characterized Ms.
Barsness in ways that were grossly unfair. As a member of the media
I would apologize to [Barsness] in person."
Further, Conner noted that if small papers don't have
enough staff or resources to maintain the desired wall between news
and editorial, they should create hurdles between the two departments
to ensure absolute fairness.
Closing Statements of Complainant and Respondent
Barsness: Morrison said they had a policy of
not attacking a candidate in the last issue, but that's exactly what
they did. My name was in the headline, not the DFL or Dick Senese.
We - my campaign - had something to say. The paper needed to make
an extra effort to get both sides, not just the side of their endorsed
candidate.
Morrison: Nancy Barsness was responsible for
the conduct of her campaign. If she didn't approve of the actions
taken by her campaign staff or the state DFL she should have disavowd
it. She did not. She made no effort to distance herself.
"I don't regret attacking the actions of the
DFL. Ours is a minority position. If you look at the context of all
the papers in our area, ours is the only one who took this point of
view. Can this state handle one Republican columnist?"
Determination
1. On the question of whether the Sun/Tribune news story of 10/29/98
was biased against Barsness, the Council voted 9 to 9, neither upholding
nor denying the complaint.
Voting to Uphold: Carideo, Conner, Costello,
Diaz, Johnson, Keller, Shelby, Stauffer, Tilley
Voting to Deny: Bauerlein, Canning, Hage, Lopez, Neddermeyer,
Quenemoen, Reister, Shulstad, Vang
Abstaining: Bailey
Recused: Schroeder
Presiding: Stringer
2. On the question of whether the 10/29/98 editorial
was unfair to Barsness, the Council voted 14-4 to uphold the complaint:
Concurring: Bauerlein, Canning, Carideo, Conner,
Costello, Diaz, Hage, Johnson, Keller, Lopez, Quenemoen, Reister,
Tilley, Vang
Dissenting: Neddermeyer, Shelby, Shulstad, Stauffer
Abstaining: Bailey
Recused: Schroeder
Presiding: Stringer
3. On the question of whether the newspaper's letters
column gave her opponent an unfair advantage, the Council voted 16-2
to uphold the complaint:
Concurring: Bauerlein, Canning, Carideo, Conner,
Costello, Diaz, Hage, Johnson, Keller, Lopez, Neddermeyer, Quenemoen,
Schroeder, Shelby, Shulstad, Stauffer, Tilley, Vang
Dissenting: Canning, Reister
Abstaining: Bailey
Recused: Schroeder
Presiding: Stringer
April 15, 1999
Read
Determination 123
Back
to Main Determination Index
Back
to News Council Main
Page
Want
to comment? Send a message
to the News Council.
