Determination
41
Minnesota
News Council
In the Matter of the Complaint of
Coalition for a Progressive DFL against the Duluth News-Tribune
The Coalition for a Progressive DFL complained that
the newspaper failed to find substantial evidence for the claims it
made in an article about the Coalition's fundraising efforts. The
Coalition also claimed that a follow-up article inadequately clarified
misconceptions created by the first and that the follow-up did not
receive comparable treatment to the first.
Background: The newspaper reported that the
Coalition had sent a fundraising appeal on behalf of then-State Senator
George Perpich to "traditionally conservative business interests"
and corporate political action committees (PACs) in Washington, D.C.
The paper also reported it had been received "within the last
10 days." Perpich had recently considered running against the
incumbent DFL congressman for the party's endorsement for the 8th
District U.S. House seat. The paper reported that it had obtained
copies of the appeal from an unnamed "company representative."
The fundraising appeal consisted of two letters, one
from the state chairperson for the Coalition, Tom Peek, and one from
Perpich. The Coalition for a Progressive DFL is an organization of
DFL party loyalists formed to work against the influence of special-interest
and conservative groups within the party. Perpich's letter outlined
his background and his stands on issues. The paper said that Peek's
letter asked for contributions to Perpich of $100,000 to $200,000.
The article also included comments from Perpich indicating his surprise
at the appeal being sent to business executives and PACs.
Peek complained to the paper about the article, which
he felt contained many misleading statements and factual errors. He
outlined these for the paper, which printed another article in response
to his complaints. Peek felt that this second article perpetuated
the misconceptions of the first. Peek told the Council the first article
created the impression that the Coalition had violated its charter,
which prohibits its members from contributing to or working for a
candidate running against a DFL-endorsed candidate. The incumbent
DFL congressman was endorsed a week before the paper had said the
appeals were received in Washington. Peek told the Council the fundraising
appeal had been sent out over two weeks before the endorsing convention,
and had only been sent to individual Coalition members.The Coalition
does not allow organizational memberships and has no one on its mailing
list with a Washington address, Peek said.
Peek also maintained that while his letter did begin,
"Do you know it now costs between $100,000 and $200,000 to run
for Congress?" it went on to ask each member to give up a movie,
a dinner out, or an evening on the town and contribute that money
to Perpich's campaign. The letter also specifically mentioned contributions
in the $2 to $100 range, he said. Peek also complained that he was
not contacted for comment, even though the paper used his name and
quoted his letter in the story.
Peek said it was possible that someone who wanted
to discredit the Coalition and Perpich had sent the letters to Washington
in the hope that they would be publicized. He complained that the
paper had not adequately presented the Coalition's side of the story
and had relied on unnamed sources for too much of its information.
While the paper did explain that the Coalition would have been in
violation of its charter by sending out the appeal after the convention,
the second article also stated that the appeal had nonetheless been
received in Washington after the convention, Peek said. It also perpetuated
the idea that the appeal had asked for $100,000 to $200,000, and no
attempt had been made to find out if the source for the original story
was a valid one, Peek complained.
He also was not pleased with the placement of the
two stories. While the first article ran on page 2 with other news
stories, the second article was placed on page 8, was much shorter,
had a smaller headline, and was next to the obituaries.
Response of the News Organization: The newspaper
responded that its sources were "unimpeachable" and that
it had seen more than one copy of the letter from more than one source.
The paper said it had not been able to find out if the letter had
been received directly from the Coalition or from other sources, though
it said it had tried. The paper also asserted that the opening sentence
of Peek's letter could have been interpreted as a request for $100,000
to $200,000 by a PAC.
Determination of the Council: It is understandable
that the newspaper could have concluded that the Coalition had sent
the fundraising appeal to Washington, but it should have checked further
into the origins of the letter before publishing the first article.
It is one thing to say that something "appears" to be the
case; it is another to have the facts to prove it.
After Perpich expressed surprise that business interests
had received the Coalition's fundraising appeal on his behalf, the
paper should have gone to the Coalition for a statement. If it had,
it would at least have learned of the charter's prohibition against
working for unendorsed candidates. Also, the Council feels the letter
clearly requested $2 to $100 from each member, not $100,000 to $200,000
as the paper claimed.
As the Council has said in the past, when a newsgathering
organization decides to protect the identity of a source, it should
make the fact known to its audience so it can be alerted to possible
inaccuracies in the story. The paper failed to do this. The Council
also is puzzled by the use of anonymous sources for this story. If
the Coalition was indeed approaching Minnesota business interests
for support for Perpich, why couldn't the paper have found someone
who was willing to state for the record that the letters had indeed
been received from the Coalition?
The Council also finds that the second article did
not adequately clarify the misconceptions created by the first. It
still implied that the Coalition was asking for large donations, and
that it had sent its appeal to business interests after the endorsement
of the DFL incumbent. At the very least, the second article should
have contained a more complete report of the Coalition's side of the
story. The Council feels that follow-ups should receive comparable
treatment. In this case, the second article was clearly not given
such treatment.
The complaint against the newspaper is upheld.
June 3, 1980
Read
Determination 42
Back
to Main Determination Index
Want
to comment? Send a message
to the News Council.
