Determination
42
Minnesota
News Council
In the Matter of the Complaint of
Randy Johnson against WTCN-TV, Golden Valley
Hennepin County Commissioner Randy Johnson complained
about two reports the station had broadcast regarding a breakfast
meeting of the county board that was "shrouded in secrecy."
He contended that the reports were inaccurate, unfair, created a false
impression of secrecy, hinted at illegality, and that he was not given
an adequate chance to respond.
Background: The majority of the members of
the Hennepin County Board began having a series of weekly breakfast
meetings, and the station broadcast a report about one such meeting
on its 5:30 p.m. news show August 21. The newscast referred to the
meeting as being "shrouded in secrecy" and "at the
crack of dawn," and said that notice of the meeting had not been
sent to the news media. The station said it had learned of the meeting
from unnamed government center sources. One of the minority members
of the board was quoted as having said the meeting may have been "outright
illegal."
Johnson, one of those attending the meeting, complained
to the station that notice had been placed in Finance and Commerce,
a daily publication that is the county's official newspaper of record,
in accordance with Minnesota's Open Meeting Law. He felt the station
had given the impression that he and the other commissioners had violated
the law.
The station broadcast a second, longer report on August
25, which included a short interview with Johnson. The notice in Finance
and Commerce was mentioned during the broadcast interview and in the
reporter's comments leading into it.
Johnson was still not satisfied with the station's
treatment of the meetings, feeling it had not dispelled the idea that
the breakfast meetings were in violation of the Open Meeting Law.
He demanded a retraction and an apology on the air, which was denied.
He complained that both broadcasts were inaccurate
and unfair and that he was not given an adequate chance to respond
to the implications of violation of the law. He told the Council that
the purpose of these meetings was to "exchange information."
In his opinion, the meetings may not even have fallen within the Open
Meeting Law, but he had placed the ad in the newspaper anyway, he
said.
Response of the news organization: The station
responded to the Council that both broadcasts were accurate and fair.
It contended that the thrust of the two broadcasts was not that the
commissioners had broken the Open Meeting Law, but that there were
some "rather unusual circumstances" surrounding the meeting,
including the early hour of the meeting, the small size of the meeting
room and the limited publicity the commissioners sought. The station
told the Council it knew about the notice in Finance and Commerce
before the original newscast and said the notice's existence was "implicit"
in the story. If it hadn't existed, the meeting would have been characterized
as "secret" rather than "shrouded in secrecy,"
the station said.
Determination of the Council: To say that the
breakfast meeting of a majority of county commissioners was just "information
trading" is to ignore the ease with which a board majority may
discuss issues, negotiate positions, and rehearse for the full board
meetings - without ever taking a vote. A consensus over coffee is
not consistent with open government, particularly if the officials
involved each represent more than 100,000 people and control a significant
public budget.
It is no doubt true that the station could have characterized
the meeting as something less potent than "shrouded in secrecy,"
but the Council recognizes that it is the role of television news
to take complex issues and pare them to understandable size and simplicity.
It is also the role of the news media to aggressively report the actions
of elected officials.
The lack of notice outside the minimum required by
law, the small size of the meeting room, the lack of a printed agenda,
and the hour of the meeting all contributed to the station's decision
to characterize the meeting as it did. These factors do suggest that
the commissioners did not intend to have their meetings widely publicized
or attended.
The Council finds that the station acted responsibly
and professionally in the reporting of this story and commends the
station for its determination to cover the actions of an important
and powerful public body.
As to the matter of unnamed sources, the Council has
said in the past that a news organization, when protecting the name
of a source, should inform its audience that it is doing so, so the
public can be alerted to any inaccuracies or biases that may be present
in the story. In this case, the station chose not to name a source
who could have injected his own biases into the information given.
The Council feels it is best to name sources whenever possible. The
complaint against the television station is not upheld.
Concurring: Fairbanks, Foley, Froyd, Fushan,
Hedberg, Hickman, Myers, Peterson, Rodriguez, Ryan, Shaw, and Whiting
Concurring Opinion: Peterson I suggest that
the views of our dissenting colleagues warrant thoughtful consideration
by the news media. It is not without significance that our dissenting
colleagues constitute almost half of the Council's participating public
members, who to some extent reflect public perceptions of responsible
news reporting.
Quite apart from the determination of the grievance
itself, I know all members of the Council concur in commending the
station for its complete cooperation in assuring a full and fair hearing
of the grievance. It has demonstrated leadership among major broadcasters
in this method of building bridges of understanding between it and
the public it is committed to serve.
Dissenting Opinion: Anderson, Hetland, Provost,
Selby and Staples - We agree that the station is to be commended for
covering the county board. However, the station should have said on
its August 21 broadcast that notice of the commissioners' meeting
had been published. The lack of customary notice, which usually includes
phone calls from the county public affairs office, does not, in our
opinion, warrant the secrecy language the station used. Johnson and
the other majority members of the board were given a disproportionately
brief period of air time in which to state their side of the story.
September 18, 1980
Read
Determination 43
Back
to Main Determination Index
Want
to comment? Send a message
to the News Council.
