Determination
28
Minnesota
News Council
In the Matter of the Complaint of
Mary Peek against the St. Paul Dispatch and Pioneer Press
Mary Peek, a longtime DFL activist, complained that the
newspaper was irresponsible and unfair when it used her for publicity
purposes without prior permission, and when it reneged on commitments
made to her without first consulting with her.
Background: The editors of the newspapers
planned to combine the two papers for a special new Saturday edition.
As part of the edition, they planned a weekly feature that would present
the sides of various controversial public issues. The topic chosen
for the first feature was the effect of the abortion issue on politics
and political parties.
A Pioneer Press reporter contacted Peek about
the story. She was not enthusiastic about being quoted in such a story,
but she was assured that she would not be emphasized in the story
and that she was being contacted mainly because of her familiarity
with the political scene and her ability to suggest other sources,
not because of her earlier involvement with pro-abortion activities.
A second Pioneer Press reporter, assigned
to write the story, interviewed Peek. During the interview Peek stressed
her concern that the story focus on the political effects of the abortion
issue rather than on the philosophical issue of abortion itself. Peek
provided the reporter with names of other politically involved people
to contact, and again stressed her concern that she not be highlighted
in the article. The reporter assured her she would not be the focus
of the story, and told her the story would appear in several months.
A short time later an editorial column in the Pioneer
Press discussing the new weekend edition carried a miniature mock-up
of the new feature headed "Pro/Con: The Politics of Abortion." Using
a magnifying glass, Peek determined that only she and one other person
(the head of the abortion rights lobbying group) were mentioned on
the "Pro" side; names on the "Con" side were obscured in the mock-up.
She complained to the reporter that the article appeared to be an
inflammatory piece about feminists pushing abortion, and she felt
she had been "set up" since he had told her several other sources
would be contacted. The reporter assured Peek the story was not as
she pictured it, and promised to send her a copy of the story so she
could read it. Peek did not receive the copy and later left on a vacation.
Returning to the city several weeks later, Peek saw
billboards posted around the city carrying the same mock-up, with
the names on the "Con" side obscured and only the two names shown
on the "Pro" side - one of the names being her own.
Determination of the Council: A newspaper
engaged in its own promotional advertising has a status no different
from that of other advertisers, and has the same obligation to seek
and secure the consent of persons whose names or pictures will be
used in advertising and promotional activities. Using the name and
interview of Mary Peek in an unpublished story for promotional purposes
without securing Peek's consent departed from the accepted standards
of responsible, professional journalistic conduct.
It is true that a reporter has no obligation to permit
the subject of a news story to read the story before publication.
Further, there is no obligation to change the story in the event the
interviewee did read it and expressed dissatisfaction. However, once
a newspaper reporter or other news organization representative promises
the subject of a news story that he or she may see the article before
publication, there is a moral obligation to follow through on the
promise or to advise the person if and why the promise will not be
kept. Failure to do so by the newspapers constituted unacceptable
journalistic conduct.
There is no support for the notion that the newspaper
tried to "set up" Peek regarding the content or format of the story.
But the paper failed to communicate adequately with Peek regarding
the story as it was to be finally presented. The newspaper led Peek
to believe that she would not be a primary focus in the story, or
at least that other interviewees would be contacted. This failure
to follow through on commitments made to the interviewee was unprofessional
and improper.
The complaint against the newspapers is upheld.
September 30, 1977
Read
Determination 29
Back
to Main Determination Index
Want
to comment? Send a message
to the News Council.
