Determination
49
Minnesota
News Council
In the Matter of the Complaint of
St. Louis County Attorney's Office against the Minneapolis Star Tribune
Mark S. Rubin, assistant county attorney for St. Louis
County, complained that the newspaper unfairly and improperly published
the name and city of residence of a complaining witness in a criminal
proceeding for swindling when the witness, suffering great personal
embarrassment, objected. Rubin brought the grievance on his own behalf
and on behalf of one of the victims of the swindle, a 55-year-old
woman from Brooklyn Center.
Background: In February 1983, Rubin was prosecuting
a fortune teller operating in the Duluth and Virginia area for theft
by swindle, the complaint alleging the defendant had swindled at least
11 people of some $220,000. The evening of February 2, the Brooklyn
Center witness was called by a newspaper reporter who was writing
a story on the criminal case. The witness unsuccessfully pleaded with
the reporter not to use her name in the article. The witness then
called Rubin, who in turn made several calls to the reporter's supervisors,
but was told it was the newspaper's policy to publish names of crime
victims in cases such as this. On February 21, under the headline
"Fortune teller faces 11 swindling counts," the newspaper
published an article about the case, naming the Brooklyn Center woman
as one of the victims and also naming two women from the Duluth area.
In May 1983 the criminal proceedings were concluded with a guilty
plea.
The grievants contended it was improper journalistic
practice to publish the names of the three victims, and in particular
that of the Brooklyn Center victim. These names, or course, were a
matter of public record. Rubin argues, however, that their publication
discouraged victims from cooperating with prosecuting authorities
and would prejudice prosecution of other cases in the future. He further
argued that, in this instance, publication of the Brooklyn Center
victim's name was unnecessary to the newspaper story and needlessly
caused great embarrassment, humiliation and mental anguish to the
victim, although he did concede that the physical health of the witness
was not endangered by publication.
At the Council hearing, the paper's managing editor
stated it was the newspaper's long-standing policy to publish the
names of victims and witnesses, assuming there was no overriding reason
weighing against publication. He said the newspaper does not publish
the names of rape victims nor the name of witnesses whom law enforcement
officials can demon-strate are in clear danger of bodily harm or property
damage. In this case, he stated, none of the exceptions to the general
rule to publish names applied.
The grievants conceded that not every case of embarrassment
justifies non-publication, but they contended that this case was unique
because the victims were truly victims, many of them elderly, vulnerable
and susceptible to suggestion by someone unscrupulous; they turned
over their money not in any "get-rich-quick" scheme, but
to have their money "cleansed of evil." The circumstances
were highly unusual and humiliating to those duped. The lead paragraph
of the newspaper article accurately describes the case:
The complaints read like mystical, magical folk
tales, replete with accounts of snakes popping out of eggs, the
face of Satan lurking in a tomato, tea leaves, palm readings and
tarot cards.
Determination of the Council: In this bizarre
situation, the grievants contend that it is cruel, unfair and unnecessary
to have published the names. They point out that the Duluth News Tribune,
published in the area where the 10 other victims lived, chose not
to identify any victims. It might be added that the Minneapolis Star
and Tribune in a subsequent news reports on the case, did not again
use the names. Rubin argues that the swindle victims should be treated
no differently from victims of sex offenses whose names are not published.
With respect to sex offenses, it is important from
the standpoint of public policy that these crimes be reported and
prosecuted, and he says publication of names of victims would seriously
deter that policy. In addition, there is concern for the personal
torment to which rape victims would be put if they were to be publicly
identified in the news. If there is concern for the embarrassment
and mental sufferings of the rape victim, it can be argued that the
same concern should apply, in appropriate cases, to victims of other
kinds of crimes.
On the other hand, the newspaper is the recorder of
public events. If it yields to every request not to publish a name
already part of the public record because it would be embarrassing
to the person involved, the newspaper, particularly a large metropolitan
daily as here, would not be fulfilling its expected role to keep the
public informed. To report the news with the persons involved remaining
anonymous leaves the news incomplete, lacking concreteness and, at
times, raises questions about the credibility of the news report.
In this case, considering all the circumstances, we do not find the
analogy to the rape-victim cases sufficiently compelling. Here the
victim's subjective embarrassment, though real and painful, does not
attain that kind or degree where it can be said the newspaper exceeded
a proper exercise of its discretion in electing to publish the victim's
name. The prosecution of the fortune teller proceeded to a successful
conclusion. The newspaper, following its established procedures, carefully
considered the request not to publish and reasonably concluded that
grievant had not shown that an exception should be made to the general
rule to publish.
The complaint against the newspaper is not upheld.
Concurring: Earley, Forsythe, Graven, Higgins,
Kramer, McCollough, Simonett, Staples, Ziegenhagen
Concurring in Part 1, Dissenting in Part: Peek
- I agree with the majority with the exception that I feel if any
names of victims were to be used, all names should have been used.
Women, especially elderly women, are already victims in our society,
even without their being targets of a swindle. These women should
not have been victimized further by being singled out of a group of
a dozen people for comment.
Dissenting Opinion: Fairbanks, Gilson, Ryan, Selby
Although we are not suggesting impropriety on the part of the newspaper,
we are not ready to let the paper off the hook in this particular
case. Although we do believe that the newspaper followed its guidelines,
we also believe that a greater degree of sensitivity and consideration
could have been used in dealing with a victim's personal request.
We feel that this older victim was embarrassed unnecessarily by the
publication of her name. Considering that she specifically requested
on several occasions and to several people that her name not be used,
we are concerned that the unusual nature of the story may have taken
precedence over judgment and taste, based on the fact that the use
of names would have made it a better story.
We do not agree that, in this particular case, the
publication of names of victims added a degree of authenticity to
this story. We do feel, however, that publication of names added a
"local slant," in this case at the emotional expense of
the victim and of no particular gain to the newspaper. We believe
the newspaper could exercise wider latitude in sensitivity and consideration
when dealing with the request of victims, on a case-by-case basis.
In this particular case, the victim had already suffered unnecessary
loss of dignity and privacy. Publication of her name added to this
suffering.
A general media practice has been to withhold names
of rape victims. We suggest that consideration be given to the victims
of non-sexual crimes, i.e., that the media reappraise their long-standing
policies regarding specific cases that, one can argue, parallel rape.
March 1983
Read
Determination 50
Back
to Main Determination Index
Want
to comment? Send a message
to the News Council.
