Determination
50
Minnesota
News Council
In the Matter of the Complaint of
Thomas Egan and the Federal Land Company against the Minneapolis Star
and Tribune
The newspaper in two separate complaints was accused
of deliberately creating a false impression of the Eagan City Council's
handling of major land development issues in Eagan since 1975. The
complainants were Eagan City Councilman Thomas Egan, Eagan Mayor Bea
Blomquist, and Martin Colon, representing the Federal Land Company.
Background: Egan and Blomquist felt that they
in particular had been implicated in the story, which was published
in one of the newspaper's community sections on December 2, 1982,
with the headline "Brothers find Eagan climate favorable."
The newspaper, which later published two minor corrections, maintained
that the article was accurate and balanced.
The article reviews at length events surrounding approval
by the city and implementation by the Federal Land Company, owned
by Martin and Vernon Colon, of a 10-year-old plan to develop land
in Eagan. The article also describes the less successful efforts of
other developers to secure from the city council and the city advisory
planning commission, approval and financing for other proposed developments
in the city.
The complainants identified 20 instances of what they
contended were inaccurate or misleading statements that portrayed
Blomquist and Egan as consistently favoring Federal over other developers.
Determination of the Council: The Council believes
that the main journalistic issue presented by the case is not whether
the description of events is accurate or inaccurate, but rather whether
these events were properly reported by the newspaper. We conclude
that they were not. Through a combination of unclear, incomplete and
judgmental reporting, uncritical acceptance of conclusions from participants
in the controversy and, in at least one important instance, the use
of innuendo, the article creates an unfair and misleading impression
of the complainants. This can be seen in the development of two of
the article's major themes.
The first asserts that the city, over a four-year
period, consistently approved projects presented by Federal and opposed
projects presented by other developers that constituted potential
competition for Federal.
In response to that contention the complainants identified
nine city approved projects in which Federal Land had no interest.
Three of these projects actually competed directly with Federal projects
or with tenants of Federal's shopping center.
Further strengthening the article's clear implication
of favoritism to Federal in city development decisions is the absence
of any information that would enable the reader to judge the merits
of the respective proposals from the city's point of view.
The second major theme of the article involves the
roles of Blomquist, Egan and Martin Colon and the motives of the two
city officials in supporting Federal projects and opposing those of
potential competitors. The article's only direct reference to Blomquist's
and Egan's motives in allegedly favoring Federal is given in an obscure
paragraph that creates an impression that the two were influenced
by political contributions from the Colons:
Over the past year, their success in Eagan has come
while the Colons have helped finance the re-election of both Blomquist
and Egan. In 1981, the Colons contributed $200 each to two city
officials. In addition, the Colons contributed $200 to Blomquist
in her unsuccessful bid this fall to become a state legislator from
House District 38B. There have been no suggestions that the contributions
were improper.
The Council is not persuaded by the managing editor's
suggestion that inclusion of this statement could have been intended
to dispel the notion that political contributions were involved because
the amounts were so small.
The newspaper created an impression of the performance
of the two city officials and a principal owner of Federal Land Company
that was both biased and unfair. This impression was created not by
literal misstatements of fact - although these may or may not have
existed - but through implication, innuendo and omission of important
facts.
As we said in the Sternberg against the Minneapolis
Tribune case, the News Council recognizes the right of a newspaper
or broadcast station to decide what facts, quotes and the like to
include in news reports and features. Clearly not all of the material
obtained for a story need or can be included. But when inferences
are drawn from circumstantial evidence, it is not enough to select
only those circumstances that support the inference. Furthermore,
the Council recognizes the need for provocative leads and illustration.
However, the Council also believes that news stories, particularly
when they concern serious charges affecting a person's reputation,
should be fair, balanced and thorough. These requirements apply with
no less force to stories that characterize the actions of public officials
than to others. It is the Council's belief that in this instance the
newspaper failed to meet that standard.
The complaint against the newspaper is upheld.
Concurring: Brommer, Brooks, Earley, Egert,
Forsythe, Gilson, Graven, Hedberg, Higgins, Pearce, Peek, Ryan, Selby,
Simonett, Ziegenhagen
December 1982
Read
Determination 51
Back
to Main Determination Index
Want
to comment? Send a message
to the News Council.
