Determination
5
Minnesota
News Council
In the
Matter of the Complaint of
Verne Long and Wendell Erickson against the Worthington Daily Globe
State
Representatives Verne E. Long and Wendell O. Erickson complained that
the paper ran an inaccurate and unfair headline stating the two had
voted continued support for the Vietnam war. Their complaint included
a subsequent editorial that identified the two as "warhawks" who "wanted
more war."
Background:
In January 1973, Long and Erickson voted against two state legislative
resolutions opposing U.S. involvement in Vietnam. The newspaper carried
an AP dispatch on the action and supplied its own headline. Long and
Erickson told the Council that they voted against the resolution not
because they favored war, but because the resolutions were defective
and there were better ways to end the war. The legislators objected
to the headline "Rep. Erickson, Rep. Long vote continued support for
war."
In an
editorial the following day, entitled "Erickson, Long vote for still
more war," the paper used the quotation "We want more war" in a manner
that might suggest the words were a direct quote, the legislators
complained. They also objected to being characterized as "warhawks"
who "voted instead to perpetuate the war."
Response
of News Organization: The paper claimed that the first headline
was a fair and accurate appraisal. The editor said the editorial was
"outside the purview" of legitimate complaint to the Council. He disagreed
that the phrase "We want more war," could have been mistaken as a
direct quotation of Long's and Erickson's remarks, and further noted
that the paper's publishers had repeatedly invited the two to submit
a letter or statement expressing their disagreement and setting forth
their own interpretations of their votes against the anti-war resolutions.
The paper promised to publish such a statement in full, without deletions
or accompanying comment, but Long and Erickson chose not to do so
because they felt they had been wronged and shouldn't have to be put
in a position of defending themselves.
Determination
of Council: The news headline was inaccurate and unfair. While
headlines should be allowed reasonable latitude, on news pages they
ought to offer a generally correct, objective and non-opinionated
title for the news story. The headline should be factually consistent
with the text of the news story and supported by facts within it and
most certainly should not be a distortion of those facts. In this
case, the facts were that the legislators voted against two resolutions;
they did not vote in favor of anything. The paper's use of quotation
marks of a hypothetical statement summing up the editor's judgment
about the impact of the votes was misleading. The editorial should
not lead readers to think the legislators said, "We want more war."
To this extent, the complaint against the newspaper is upheld.
However,
the remainder of the editorial, which expressed strong - even passionate
- opinion, fell well within the range of acceptable journalism. Newspapers
should be free to express honest opinion; it is for the public to
distinguish between "good" and "bad" opinion in editorials. Therefore,
the complaint is accepted in part, rejected in part.
February
27, 1973
Read
Determination 6
Back
to Main
Determination Index
Want
to comment? Send a message
to the News Council.
