Determination
48
Minnesota
News Council
In the Matter of the Complaint of
Scott Shely vs. Stillwater Evening Gazette
Scott Shely of Stillwater, a member of Concerned Citizens
for a Nuclear Free World, a local group formed to promote a mutual
Soviet-U.S. nuclear weapons freeze, complained about unfair and inadequate
coverage of the group and of the nuclear freeze movement.
Background: Specifically, Shely complained
that the paper:
- Failed to cover a march by the local freeze group
because the paper's publisher is opposed to the freeze movement;
- Unfairly associated freeze proponents with radical
leftists in an editorial;
- Unfairly denied pro-freeze letter writers access
to its letters column to respond to the editorial, and unfairly
attached editor's notes to the two pro-freeze letters it did publish;
- Distorted news about the Stillwater City Council's
consideration of a nuclear freeze resolution.
Determination of the Council: 1. Finding
on the paper's decision not to cover the march. Shely alleges
that the paper did not cover the march because, when he went to inform
the paper that the march would be taking place, the editor told him
he did not believe in the freeze movement and would not devote news
space to the march. When Shely later protested by phone that this
was unfair, the editor dismissed him by saying the paper belonged
to him and that he had no further time for Shely. However, the paper
did publish a notice on the front page of the paper that the march
was going to take place. And, in a news story on the Stillwater City
Council's decision not to vote on a freeze resolution, which appeared
10 days after the march, the paper also briefly mentioned that the
march had taken place.
Clippings submitted to the Council showed that before
and after the march the paper published a variety of stories and letters
to the editor on disarma-ment issues, including the freeze. The newspaper
also addressed the freeze issue in it own editorial columns and notes
attached to letters to the editor. It decided not to publish a story
on the march itself because it felt the march was staged simply to
dramatize the freeze movement, added nothing to the public understanding
of the issues involved, and was therefore not newsworthy, according
to the newspaper editor, who said he attended the march.
Countless special interest groups seek to popularize
issues by staging events for the benefit of television cameras and
the print media. These groups are clearly entitled to seek media attention,
but they cannot always expect it as a matter of right. At the same
time, news media editors must have wide discretion to determine what
stories to report on and how to report them, provided, their decisions
are unbiased and made in good faith. In this case, although the publisher's
remarks to Shely before the march tend to bring into question the
editor's subsequent claim that he simply found the march not to be
newsworthy, the paper did cover the nuclear freeze issue before and
after the march. The Council can find no clear showing of editorial
bias in the paper's decision not to cover this one event.
This part of the complaint against the newspaper is
not upheld.
Concurring: Brommer, Brooks, Graven, McCollough,
Pearce, Simonett, Staples
Dissenting Opinion: Allen, Early, Fairbanks,
Gilson, Peek, Ziegenhagen - We are cognizant of the problem staged
events can present to the media. Manipulation by both sides - media
and demonstrators - is always possible. In this case, however, both
parties to the dispute agree that such a march was an unusual event
for Stillwater and that nothing like it had taken place in that city
for at least five years.
The Washington County Commissioners and Stillwater
City Council members were about to vote on a nuclear freeze resolution.
Approximately 500 local people had signed a petition of support, the
St. Croix Valley Ministerial Association had held a number of weekly
meetings on the issue, and between 75 and 100 persons did turn out
to demonstrate in the streets of downtown Stillwater. The newspaper
itself considered the freeze issue important enough to cover and speak
out on in its editorial columns, and with notes attached to letters
to the editor. Clearly, this was a matter of significant local interest.
Two other area newspapers thought so and covered the march.
Given all the circumstances, we believe the paper
exercised poor news judgment in failing to cover the march. With the
current debate over the freeze issue, at the national and local levels,
the paper would have done well to cover the march and let its readers
decide the merits of it themselves. We are also concerned with the
appearance of bias engendered by the editor in his initial confrontation
with Shely. Readers have a right to expect newspaper news pages to
be as accurate as professional journalists can make them. When news
judgment appears to be influenced by the personal bias of a publisher,
the credibility of the paper, and of the news media in general, is
undermined.
Finding on the paper's March 7, 1983 editorial
The Council finds the March 7 editorial on the freeze movement to
be well within the bounds of acceptable editorial opinion. The newspaper
is entitled to express whatever opinions it likes in editorials, as
long as those opinions are anchored in facts. In this case, the paper
did not go beyond the facts. This part of the complaint is not upheld.
Concurring: Allen, Brommer, Brooks, Early,
Fairbanks, Gilson, Graven, McCollough, Pearce, Peek, Simonett, Staples,
Ziegenhagen
Finding on the paper's handling of letters to
the editor: The Council finds the paper's handling of the letters
to the editor to be a reasonable exercise of editorial discretion.
In this case the newspaper did not overstep the proper bounds of professionalism,
either in the number of letters it published in response to the March
7 editorial, or in the editor's notes it attached to the letters.
Whether an editor chooses to respond to letters with editor's notes,
editorials, or signed opinion pieces is up to the individual taste
and judgment of the editor. This part of the complaint is also not
upheld.
Concurring: Fairbanks, Gilson, Graven, McCollough,
Pearce, Peek, Simonett
Dissenting Opinion: Allen, Brommer, Brooks,
Early, Staples, Ziegenhagen - It is not possible to determine whether
the paper had handled letters to the editor fairly or professionally
because the Council was given no specific figures on the number of
letters received and no indication of the letters' content. Three
letters published by the paper were submitted as evidence. The first,
published on March 4, the day before the rally, asked the Washington
County Board and Stillwater City Council to support the freeze. The
second, published on March 10, criticized the March 7 editorial and
supported a freeze. The third, published on March 15, opposed the
freeze. Thus just one of the three dealt with the editorial.
It was testified at the hearing that a "flood"
of letters was sent to the paper on the subject of the editorial.
Publication of one letter hardly seems representative of a "flood."
It is, of course, the editor's privilege to publish as many or as
few letters as he wishes. But professionalism dictates that a balance
be struck among letters on various issues.
The letter of March 10 was accompanied by an editor's
note of unnecessary length and editorial quality. It would have been
more professional for the editor to point out, briefly, that the readers
have misinterpreted the editorial. It is unprofessional for editors
to chide readers or to lecture them in such a format as a note appended
to readers' letters.
Finding on the paper's March 16, 1983 news story:
Finally, the Council finds that the paper's March 16 news story on
the city council's consideration of the freeze resolution to be judgmental
and inaccurate. While the complainant took objection to the headline,
the Council finds that it is not objectionable since it can be easily
understood in the context of what the city council did, and in fact,
the city council took no action on the resolution. But the lead paragraph
is misleading. It was and is clear that the nuclear freeze movement
is not dead in Stillwater. The refusal of the city council to act
on the resolution is only one small phase in the active freeze movement.
This may have been clear in the context of the rest of the story,
but the article's implication that somehow the city council's lack
of action was a death-dealing blow to the nuclear freeze movement
would seem to be going beyond the facts. To this extent, the Council
finds this complaint to be unwarranted.
Concurring: Fairbanks, Gilson, Graven, McCollough,
Pearce, Simonett, Staples
Concurring in part, dissenting in part: Allen
Brommer, Brooks, Early, Peek, Ziegenhagen - I concur with the determination
on the March 16 news story, but I think the headline is also misleading.
The city council did not let the nuclear freeze die. It let the nuclear
freeze resolution die.
March 22, 1983
Read
Determination 49
Back
to Main Determination Index
Want
to comment? Send a message
to the News Council.
