Determination 151
Minnesota News Council
Hearing #151: Mari Newman v. the Minnesota Daily
August 16, 2007
Hamline United Methodist Church
St. Paul, MN
.jpg)
Background
In May 2007, local artist Mari Newman filed a complaint about an article in the Minnesota Daily, the student newspaper of the University of Minnesota. A review of a play called “The Madwoman of Chaillot” had opened by referencing the disabled artist as a local “crazy woman.”
Newman, who is known for her colorfully decorated home in South Minneapolis, felt the terms used to describe her in the review were unfair. Newman said that she was fearful that the article’s citation of her full name and address would provoke vandalism and verbal abuse.
Media Response
Though the Minnesota Daily’s staff had turned over almost immediately after the article was published- Daily staff changes with each academic term- the current editors and reader representative responded swiftly to defend the article.
They said the article did not reference Newman pejoratively, but in fact praised her as a nonconformist. The Daily also pointed out that because she has been the subject of many stories in the local press, Newman is a public figure subject to public critique.
THE HEARING
Council members considered the following questions:
- Was it unfair of the Daily to use Newman to introduce a review of a play about a woman with “questionable mental faculties?”
- Was the article unfair when it described Newman as a “maniacal, googily-eyed token crazy lady?”
- Was the use of Newman’s first and last name and the location of her residence unfair in the context of this article?
Q & A
At the hearing, Mari Newman was assisted by Craig Dunn, executive director of VSA Arts. He stated that the reference was an “invasion of privacy” because the article was a theater review that had “nothing to do with her.” “Is this how the media handles people with disabilities?” he asked, “Is it open season?”
Newman, whose home functions as a public art installation, has been the subject of media attention in the past. She felt this that the Daily’s article was different, however, in that it was personal - “It’s about me, not my art or my house or my ideas,” she said.
Dunn observed that “eccentric” would have been a better description to use in the article’s opening paragraph. “Disabled people,” he said, “often do not get the luxury of being called that. Rich people are ‘eccentric,’ but poor people are ‘crazy.’ The language was offensive and it furthered a stereotype.”
Student editors Emily Banks and Michael Marino of the Minnesota Daily were present to defend “crazy” as a subjective term. “The reporter was trying to communicate that Mari is different, but commendably so,” said Banks. “It was meant to celebrate nonconformity.” She called attention to the article’s punch-line:
“But [the character]- much like the fabled madwomen of our bosom cities- sullies up the world’s starchy, stagnant imagination with a little crackpot excitement and creative escapism. And nowadays, that can’t come in hearty enough doses.”
Banks commented that referencing Newman and other well-known locals was the writer’s attempt to connect the play to students’ daily lives. “Arts writing is innately subjective,” she said, “you need opinions and creative, colorful writing.”
Banks mused that if she had been editor when article was published, she might have done things differently, but said that in the context of a full reading, the article did not impugn anyone’s character.
Deliberation
“When you combine the word crazy with words like maniacal and googily-eyed, does it still mean ‘eccentric?’ What about the reference to ‘questionable mental faculties?’” said Tom Forsythe of General Mills. “I don’t understand why it is necessary to pick on someone for a theater review- Mari is totally extraneous.”
Steve Schild, a journalism professor at St. Mary’s University, demurred, “I always tell my students to never forget that they’re writing about real people... but Mari is a public figure who has availed herself and her eccentricity to the world.”
“When you draw attention to yourself,” agreed Reed Anfinson of the Swift County News-Monitor, “you can’t necessarily control it.”
“But is undue harm okay when you’re trying to be creative? The writer was going for shock value and nobody stopped her,” said Karen Boros, a journalism instructor at the University of St. Thomas.
Jim Pumarlo, a newspaper consultant, conceded that if he had edited the article, he would have toned it down. “I’m not as critical of the Daily as I first was, though,” he said, “It appears that Mari’s status as a vulnerable adult is not common knowledge.”
“You have to look at the whole thing,” added Al Zdon of the MN American Legion. “It’s actually laudatory to Mari at the end. It was perhaps not well written and fell short of what the writer was trying to do, but that’s fairly common in journalism.”
Thom Fladung, editor of the Pioneer Press, quipped, “I would admit that journalism often falls short of the ideal, but then again, so does my car, my plumbing, my education, my legal advice…”
“I think it’s a question of motivation gone astray; it led to harm even if it was inadvertent,” concluded Wendy Wyatt, a journalism instructor at the University of St. Thomas. “Technology really makes the first paragraph relevant- few people will read the whole story.”
Vote
The first two complaints were upheld and the third complaint dismissed.
- Was it unfair of the Daily to use Newman to introduce a review of a play about a woman with “questionable mental faculties?”
The Council ruled “YES” by a vote of 10 – 4.
- Was the article unfair when it described Newman as a “maniacal, googily-eyed token crazy lady?”
The Council ruled “YES” by a vote of 11 – 3.
- Was the use of Newman’s first and last name and the location of her residence unfair in the context of this article?
The Council ruled “NO” by a vote of 10 – 3 with one abstention.
Attendance
Council Chair
