Determination
40
Minnesota
News Council
In the Matter of the Complaint of
MN Dept. of Public Welfare against KSTP-TV
The Minnesota Department of Public Welfare (DPW) complained
that four news reports were inaccurate, incomplete, misleading and
sensationalized accounts of a proposed DPW rule designed to control
the uses of aversive and deprivation therapies in DPW-licensed facilities.
Background: In late 1979 the DPW proposed its
Rule 39, intended to regulate the use of aversive and deprivation
therapy in state-licensed and operated facilities. This type of therapy
seeks to discourage undesirable behavior through the use of noxious
or painful stimuli or through depriving a patient of service or activities
to which he or she would otherwise be entitled. According to DPW,
this type of therapy had been in use for 20 years without restriction,
and the rule was to establish limitations and guidelines for its use
for the first time.
The station broadcast two reports calling it "a
rule that would legalize bodily punishment," and stating that
it "for the first time spells out punishments for unacceptable
behavior." In a meeting with station officials, DPW representatives
pointed out that Rule 39 specifically said that the two therapies
were not to be used as punishment and must be part of a comprehensive
program of treatment. The rule was designed to stop patient abuse,
not to sanction it, DPW said.
DPW also complained that the station listed only the
most severe forms of therapy and did not explain that as a result
of Rule 39 they would be used only for the most severely and profoundly
retarded and mentally ill and only after positive forms of therapy
had proven ineffective. DPW said that the station's report had implied
that people in daycare centers, nursing homes, and state hospitals
would be "punished" under Rule 39. The rule would protect
such people from being subjected to this type of therapy, DPW said.
DPW officials also complained that the reporter working on the story
did not attempt to contact them when preparing his first two reports.
All but one of the taped interviews broadcast were from opponents
of aversive and deprivation therapy and Rule 39, DPW said.
Several days after the meeting between the station
and DPW, the station aired a new story at 6 and 10 p.m. on the controversy
surrounding the rule. DPW complained that the subsequent broadcasts
repeated that "for the first time Minnesota would allow harsh
treatment of patients in state-licensed programs and hospitals"
and again emphasized the most severe forms of therapy that might be
used.
Response of the news organization: The station
refused to provide DPW or the Council with tapes of the broadcasts
in question, although it did provide DPW with scripts of the broadcasts,
minus taped interviews. The station also declined to participate in
the hearing. However, the station's attorney did send a letter to
the Council stating that the broadcasts were fair and accurate, and
that the matter was now moot because DPW had withdrawn the rule. The
station also said it did not recognize the Council's jurisdiction
over it.
Determination of the Council: The Council agrees
with DPW that the first broadcasts inaccurately and unfairly reported
the content and intent of Rule 39. The station should have studied
the language of the rule more carefully and also should have tried
to speak with proponents as well as opponents of the rule.
But while the inaccuracies of the first newscasts
might be excused in part because of the complex language of the rule,
the continued misrepresentations of the rule's intent in the second
reports, after DPW officials had explained the rule's intent and application
to the station, are inexcusable.
Furthermore, by presenting a decidedly unbalanced
report of the rule, the station failed in a news organization's duty
to fully inform the public so that the public can evaluate for itself
the proposals and actions of its government.
The Council also feels that the station was taking
credit for the public outcry against the rule, and through its reports
was seeking the withdrawal of Rule 39. While editorial opinion has
its place in broadcast as well as print media, it should be clearly
labeled and separated from news reports.
It is the Council's opinion that the station was attempting
to make the news while reporting the news through the slanted, sensationalized
and inflammatory reports it presented. The complaint against the television
station is upheld.
March 26, 1980
Read
Determination 41
Back
to Main Determination Index
Want
to comment? Send a message
to the News Council.
