Determination
47
Minnesota
News Council
In the Matter of the Complaint of
MN Gun Owners' Political Victory Fund against the Minnesota Daily
The Minnesota Gun Owners' Political Victory Fund complained
that the newspaper inaccurately stated that Attorney General Warren
Spannaus had not "pushed for more legislation" in the six
years since the state's existing firearms laws were passed. In addition,
the gun owners complained that the newspaper did not respond satisfactorily
to the charge, losing the group's first letter to the paper and then
incorrectly telling it that it didn't publish corrections to editorials.
An offer to print a letter to the editor for the group was rejected
and a correction demanded.
Background: The article at issue was an opinion
piece entitled "Cheap shots on the air" published in the
August 9, 1982, issue of the Minnesota Daily, the student newspaper
of the University of Minnesota. It commented on a radio debate between
then Attorney General Spannaus and former Governor Rudy Perpich, who
were opposing each other in the September Democratic gubernatorial
primary election. Spannaus subsequently lost the election to Perpich.
In the opinion piece, the writer accused Perpich of taking a "cheap
shot" at Spannaus when he claimed during the debate that the
attorney general had been "'harping' about guns and had spent
12 years in office "talking about guns and polarizing the people
of the state."
Elsewhere in the article the writer stated: "Spannaus,
of course, was the driving force behind the state's current gun control
legislation. During his first six years as attorney general, it was
his top priority. In the six years since it passed, however, Spannaus
has not pushed for more legislation. He is satisfied, he says, that
Minnesota has the handgun legislation it needs."
The group contended that Spannaus had, indeed, pushed
for more legislation, pointing out that the attorney general proposed
a new firearms measure in 1981. Under a draft of the proposed bill,
dated February 10, 1981, anyone injured by a pistol could sue anyone
who had transferred the gun in violation of existing state gun laws.
"Intervening transfers shall be no defense to the claim,"
the bill draft stated. This measure would have extended current liability
for illegal gun sales perpetually. It thus amounted to a new firearms
measure.
Response of the news organization: The paper
maintained that the opinion piece was accurate, contending that what
Spannaus proposed in 1981 was crime control, not gun control. It claimed
that the average reader probably takes "gun control" to
mean putting limitations on who can buy or carry guns, noting that
the proposed bill dealt with stiffening penalties. Neither the writer
nor the paper was aware of the proposed bill, but even if they had
been, they said, the story would not have been written or edited any
differently.
The paper believed the gun group's request for a correction
was inappropriate, since this matter involved a difference of opinion,
not a question of fact. The paper said that it would still be happy
to print a letter from the group, but that a correction was not warranted.
Determination of the Council: This marks the
first time the Council has reviewed a complaint against the Minnesota
Daily. Although it is a student newspaper, it is a publication of
recognized influence in the community. By agreeing to participate
in the proceedings, the Daily has shown a desire to be judged by the
same standards that the Council applies to general circulation newspapers.
The Council believes that the questions of whether
or not Spannaus "pushed" his proposal and whether or not
his proposal was "more" gun control legislation or expansion
of the existing law are matters of differing interpretation. The Council
thus acknowledges the semantic ambiguities in the documents of this
case, but it believes these are not central to the case.
The fact is that Spannaus did make a proposal - officially
designated as a new law - dealing with penalties for those who transfer
handguns that are used to injure persons. It is a matter of record
that the proposal was aired in public and put into legislative language
even though it was not introduced in the Legislature.
The Council finds that the paper's failure to mention
Spannaus' activities resulted in an incomplete and therefore inaccurate
statement. In the last analysis it is the reader who counts, and in
this case the reader did not get the information that would have qualified
the paper's statement.
Furthermore, the paper should have promptly published
a correction on the matter when it was brought to their attention.
The complaint against the newspaper is upheld.
Concurring: Allen, Brommer, Fairbanks, Forsythe,
Hedberg, Higgins, McCollough, Miles, Peek, Ryan, Selby, Simonett,
Ziegenhagen
Dissenting Opinion: Kramer and Staples It is
a matter of differing interpretation regarding the question of whether
or not Spannaus "pushed" new gun control legislation. We
believe that the attorney general could have had powerful authors
introduce a bill in the legislature if he had wanted to "push"
his proposal.... Thus, while others disagree, we do not believe he
"pushed." The author may not have been aware of Spannaus'
proposal because no bill was introduced. Despite what some people
believe should be the case, editorials and opinion articles often
lack facts that may be relevant to an issue. We believe the offer
by the paper to run a letter to the editor was a fair response. Since
the story at issue was an opinion article, the opinion of the Minnesota
Gun Owners' Political Victory Fund would have been shared with readers
on the same pages. In our opinion, there was not a misstatement of
fact, but there was omission of information the author did not know
about because no bill was introduced. Therefore we dissent from the
majority opinion.
January 11, 1983
Read
Determination 48
Back
to Main Determination Index
Want
to comment? Send a message
to the News Council.
