Determination
36/37
Minnesota
News Council
In the Matter of the Complaint of
Minnesotans Against the Downtown Dome (MADD) against the Minneapolis
Star and Minneapolis Tribune
Minnesotans Against the Downtown Dome (MADD), a coalition
including neighborhood activists and sports fans opposed to construction
of a sports stadium in downtown Minneapolis, complained that the Star's
and Tribune's treatment of the long-standing stadium issue revealed
a broad pattern of biased and inadequate coverage.
Background: MADD was formed in December 1978
after the Metropolitan Sports Facilities Commission gave final approval
to build a domed stadium in downtown Minneapolis. MADD contended the
papers' coverage of the issue was inadequate and unfair because it
relied excessively on official sources, such as legislators and sports
facilities commissioners, and did not adequately cover organized opponents.
Potential problems involved in the downtown stadium site were treated
as "obstacles," MADD said. In general, the group charged,
the papers published news stories in a manner that promoted the downtown
Minneapolis site rather than completely examining alternatives.
The biased coverage was caused, in part, by a conflict
of interests on the part of the newspapers' publisher, MADD claimed.
The group called for a thorough examination of the Star's and Tribune's
stadium coverage in 1978 and 1979 during which the newspapers' publisher
was active in promoting a downtown stadium and invested in the site.
This sponsorship of the downtown stadium operated in a subtle - not
open - manner to inhibit aggressive and fair coverage of the stadium
issue by the Star and Tribune reporters and editors, according to
MADD.
In response to the complaint, the Star and Tribune
submitted all their coverage of the issue - hundreds of articles from
1970 through March 1979 - and urged that the entire coverage be examined.
The newspapers denied MADD's allegations. After filing its original
complaint, MADD filed a supplemental complaint against the Star because
the newspaper failed to publish a letter to the editor from MADD.
The letter responded to excerpts the Star had published of its response
to MADD's complaint. The Star objected to certain portions of the
letter that addressed the stadium issue rather than the Star's published
response. The newspaper said it felt MADD had been given ample space
to present its views on the stadium issue in an opinion piece that
the Star had published. The Star told MADD it would publish the letter
only if the portions it objected to were deleted. MADD refused and
the letter was not published.
Determination of the Council: Examination of
the Star's and Tribune's stadium coverage from 1970 through March
1979 indicates that their readers received a reasonably fair, accurate,
and balanced reporting of events and issues surrounding the ongoing
controversy. No serious distortions, no major omissions, and no clearly
discernible pattern of bias could be detected.
Nevertheless, MADD has raised a serious question when
it alleges that the newspapers relied excessively on official sources
for facts and for interpretations of those facts. While in this case
all sides of the matter were found to have been covered adequately,
it should be noted that all newspapers must be sensitive to the need
to cover all points of view in a debate and to seek out sources that
may or may not be as readily available as public officials and professional
lobbyists. Without these special efforts, readers would be denied
important information with which to make decisions on public policy
issues.
No evidence could be found to sustain MADD's contention
that Star and Tribune publisher's sponsorship of a downtown stadium
site influenced, either directly or indirectly, the judgments of the
newspapers' editors and reporters in covering the stadium issue. It
cannot be recommended here that the owner of a newspaper should not
take part in community affairs, or that a publishing corporation should
not become financially involved in community projects.
However, as the National News Council has noted, such
a situation can damage a newspaper's credibility, as it has here.
When an owner or publishing corporation places a newspaper in a position
where the public may perceive a conflict of interest, the editors
should undertake special steps to ensure fair and aggressive news
coverage. For example, the editors of the Star and Tribune could have,
in this case, established a task force of staff members and the public
to monitor coverage and suggest improvements. Such a group could help
to improve a newspaper's credibility and performance in the community.
The complaint against the Minneapolis Star and Minneapolis
Tribune is not upheld.
However, the Star should have published the letter
to the editor from MADD. It is difficult to see how MADD could have
responded to the Star's rebuttal of the complaint without also addressing
the stadium issue. After all, MADD's complaint - the subject of the
Star's published response - is about the coverage of the stadium issue.
The Star's refusal to publish MADD's letter effectively denied readers
the opportunity to read a different view of the complaint. The Star's
action also deprived the letter writer of the opportunity to respond
to statements affecting his reputation. The supplemental complaint
against the Minneapolis Star is upheld.
Dissenting: Shaw, Fairbanks and Rodriguez By
proposing a "task force" to "monitor" a newspaper's
performance - certainly an unworkable remedy for conflict of interest
- the Council has sidestepped the most important issue involved here:
Is it ethical in the first place for publishers to become involved
in the same events their newspapers cover as news? I say it is not.
They both make it more difficult for news staffs to work, and create
a perception of conflict of interest where very little conflict may
be present. The image of a newspaper publisher should be one of single-minded
devotion to producing a newspaper, the standards and objectivity of
which are beyond question. That should not only be the appearance,
that should be the fact.
Concurring in Part, Dissenting in Part: Spielman
While I cannot agree with the sweeping dictum of (dissenting opinion)
Bob Shaw that persons in the news business should be social eunuchs
and have no other affiliation or participation in community affairs,
I do agree with his dissent that the publisher's appearance of conflict
of interest seriously damaged the credibility of the newspaper. This
is particularly true because of the dominant position of the Minneapolis
Star and Tribune Company's newspapers throughout the state.
Read
Determination 38
Back
to Main Determination Index
Want
to comment? Send a message
to the News Council.
