Determination
27
Minnesota
News Council
In the Matter of the Complaint of
Ronald Dicklich against KBJR-TV, Duluth
Ronald Dicklich, St. Louis County commissioner from Hibbing,
complained that the station failed to substantiate two reports on an
alleged secret plot to fire a public official when it relied on secondary,
unnamed sources.
Background: On June 13, 1977, the station
reported on its 6 and 10 p.m. news broadcasts that three Iron Range
commissioners "allegedly secretly plotted" to fire the St. Louis County
planning and zoning director. Dicklich, one of the commissioners charged
in the report, complained that the reports were totally false and
were based on hearsay rather than fact.
According to the news director, Dick Gottschald,
the report was based on information from the planning and zoning director
himself, from another KBJR news director whose brother was one of
the commissioners reported about, and from some anonymous sources.
None of the commissioners was contacted to refute or verify the story.
Gottschald admitted that two unnamed sources were uncertain about
particulars of the secret meeting. His most important source, he said,
was the other news director who, Gottschald said, got his information
from his brother. That news director told the Council his information
came not from his brother but from another source who claimed to have
discussed the matter with other commissioners. The planning and zoning
director said he did not remember discussing the alleged secret meeting
with Gottschald, and that his knowledge of the meeting was based on
information from staff members who had heard it from other staff members.
Gottschald said the story was intentionally vague,
that the very nature of a secret meeting makes it difficult to find
out what happened, and that the broadcast was a "political speculation"
story.
Determination of the Council: (This was the
Council's first determination against a broadcast station, as it expanded
its purview in January 1977 to include complaints against the broadcast
media.)
The TV station failed to trace rumored allegations,
including several made anonymously, to a hard factual origin, and
failed to acknowledge contradictions in the accounts of the rumored
meeting offered by at least two of its sources. As in Lindstrom against
the St. Paul Union Advocate, "the time at which a reporter is satisfied
with the truth and accuracy of his story is a matter solely for decision
by the reporter and his newspaper (or broadcast station). Once printed
(or broadcast), however, the accuracy of the news story must be justified
by facts if a proper challenge is raised. If the names of the informants
are not disclosed, other facts relied upon by the newspaper (or broadcast
station) must be produced or the Council must conclude that no substantiating
facts exist, or that the newspaper (or broadcast station), for reasons
best known unto it, prefers not to present its substantiating facts
and is content to be judged on the evidence presented by others."
The Council recognizes that in the gathering of the
news there are circumstances in which sources cannot be named. However,
to the degree specific sources are named, the report gains credibility;
to the degree sources are not named, the report tends to lose credibility.
And as in Lindstrom, "if the (news organization) wished to protect
its sources, then fairness and candor would indicate that the (news
organization) should have told its readers that its informants did
not wish to be identified. This would have alerted readers of the
possible inaccuracy of the report."
In the June 13 reports, the station failed not only
to attribute the story in any way, but also to broadcast a response
from those charged with improper actions. The Council further believes
that the opportunity to reply offered by the station was not an adequate
remedy for the unsubstantiated news reports.
The station's reports of an alleged secret plot to
fire a county official were so unsubstantiated as to constitute a
significant departure from the standards of responsible journalism.
The complaint against the television station is upheld.
August 11, 1977
Read
Determination 28
Back
to Main Determination Index
Want
to comment? Send a message
to the News Council.
