Determination
22
Minnesota
News Council
In the Matter of the Complaint of
Doug Elwood, Baker, Woodward and Brown against the St. Paul Dispatch
Doug Elwood, et al., acting on behalf of 14 area
gay rights groups, complained that an entertainment column contained
inaccuracies and descriptive words offensive to local gay rights groups.
Even though a second column by the same writer admitted and corrected
the errors, Elwood complained that it didn't sufficiently remedy the
original inaccuracies and that defamatory language was used in both
columns.
Background: Elwood, et al., objected
to two columns by the same well-known entertainment columnist for
the paper. The first column, entitled "Homos on El Soapos" ran on
December 22, 1975, and described the National Broadcasting Company's
new fair treatment programming policy toward gay persons. Elwood complained
that it contained not only factual errors but also a deliberate imputation
that all homosexuals commit crime. As evidence, the complainants quoted
the writer's comments on NBC's new policy:
"The lavender ladies laid into the network the other
day and must have shook em up but def. Because after the pow wow,
NBC indicated it would soon be doing a documentary on homos - and
you can bet it's not going to deal with recruiting in men's rooms
or that type of faggot who's such a problem to the New York City police.
What are they called? 'Hawks' or 'eagles' or something like that,
and prey on young boys in the Times Square area."
Elwood pointed out that public solicitation of sexual
acts and seduction of minors are criminal acts, but that there is
no reason to assert that all homosexuals commit such acts or that
a greater percent of homosexuals break the law than other groups in
society. They also complained that the first column contained derogatory
language and an offensive tone defamatory to gay persons.
The complainants asked for either a retraction or
allocation of the columnist's normal column space for a "guest column."
At a meeting with the newspaper editor, he said he felt some of the
language was in poor taste, but he rejected the request for a retraction
on the grounds that it would exacerbate the problem by bringing the
whole matter up again. He said a guest column was unrealistic.
A second column by the same writer appeared on January
16, 1976, entitled "NBC's homosexual policy." It was written in a
noticeably different tone and corrected the factual errors of the
first column. The columnist admitted he had not verified the information
received from his sources for the first column.
Elwood complained that the second column did not
apologize directly for the language used in the earlier story, and
they objected to the use of the term "homosexual" in both columns,
saying it was unacceptable to gay people (which they considered a
preferable term).
When the complainants met again with representatives
of the paper to voice their objections to the offensive language,
innuendo and implications that were not corrected in the second column,
the newspaper decided to adopt a new policy on the use of labels and
descriptive terms identifying gay persons.
Determination of the Council: Some of the
language in the first column was in poor taste; however, taste is
a matter of opinion, and opinion expressed in an entertainment column
is editorial. The public must be the judge of the reasonableness,
validity or tastefulness of editorial opinion.
The newspaper responded quickly and positively by
correcting the errors with a second column and by adopting a new policy
to prevent the recurrence of potentially offensive reference to minority
groups such as gay persons. In light of the new policy, the complainants'
request for either a retraction or "guest column" is unnecessary and
unreasonable.
Elwood took the position that a minority group in
society has the sole and inalienable right to determine for itself
the term or descriptive phrase by which it will be identified in public
media presentations; in particular, they reject the term "homosexual"
as unacceptable to gay people. We think otherwise. Journalists should
respect the rights and dignity of all minority groups, but the Council
rejects the right of any group to control the media's right to present
accurate and understandable news reports. If groups are commonly known
and identified in the public's mind by certain generic expressions,
the media may use those terms even though that use may not be preferred
by the minority group. Clearly if the minority is successful in getting
public acceptance and understanding of a new label or term, then the
media will properly and willingly use that term since it has become
the commonly understood reference to that group.
The complaint against the newspaper is not upheld.
Concurring Opinion: Spielman Columns are not
just expressions of opinion comparable to editorials, but are a combination
of news reports and commentary. They are a form of "insider's reports"
mixing news with opinions. Since the writers often pose as experts
in their fields, the necessity for accuracy of the information contained
in such columns requires the same diligence as in a straight news
story.
The first column was more than an expression of opinion
in which language was used derogatory to "gays." It was a report on
the supposed policy of NBC on the portrayal of homosexuality, and
it reported on what supposedly took place at a meeting of representatives
of "gay" organizations with network officials. While the Council majority
may well point out that the Council does not determine what is "good"
or "bad" opinion, or even "good" or "bad" taste, the Minnesota Press
Council was established to determine what is good and bad journalism.
In light of the information contained in the second
column, it is evident that the reports of NBC policy and what happened
at the meeting with NBC officials, as reported in the first column,
were grossly inaccurate and false. Further, from the derogatory language
used, it appears that the personal prejudices of the writer blinded
him to his duty to check his facts before writing the first column.
The statement on NBC policy obtained from the network vice president
and facts concerning the meeting with the "gay" organizations could
have been obtained before the December 22 column was written, as well
as later. This was bad journalism, and the fact that it was so is
tacitly admitted by the paper.
If this is where the matter had ended, the columnist
and the paper would be subject to censure by this press council. But
the matter did not end there.
In the January 16 column, the writer made full correction
of all errors of fact and reported in great detail the story of NBC's
policy and what had actually happened at the meeting. This was done
in the same place, with equal prominence, and with an even greater
amount of space than the offending column. The editor's memorandum
further lessened the likelihood that overt prejudice will blind the
paper's personnel to their obligations in the future. In addition
to this, the newspaper offered space in its letters-to-the-editor
column to the complainants, which was declined by them.
The corrections in the second column and the new
policy adopted by the newspaper constituted adequate remedy for the
earlier errors. The request for further retraction is excessive; the
demand for a "guest column" is unreasonable.
Concurring Opinion: Hetland - A signed column
is different from an editorial opinion. It does contain elements of
news reporting. However, since the signed column is primarily intended
to express the writer's opinions, conclusions and even prejudices
and is so understood and accepted by the reading public, it is fair
to impose upon that opinion writer the same freedom to express opinion
and the same obligation of factual accuracy as is imposed upon the
editor in his opinion writing.
March 12, 1976
Read
Determination 23
Back
to Main Determination Index
Want
to comment? Send a message
to the News Council.
