Determination
51
Minnesota
News Council
In the Matter of the Complaint of
Bartlett for Sheriff Campaign Committee against the Austin Daily Herald
Jim Bartlett, a deputy sheriff of Mower County, ran
for the office of county sheriff against the incumbent, and following
a heated election campaign, his campaign committee filed a multiple
complaint against the paper, implying that it had contributed to Bartlett's
defeat in the general election. The committee complained that the
paper:
- Failed to adequately cover several incidents concerning
incumbent Sheriff Wayne Goodnature's record in office which reflected
negatively on the incumbent's competence;
- Unfairly demanded changes in several of the committee's
political advertisements and refused to publish one ad;
- Unfairly denied Bartlett supporters access to the
newspaper's letters-to-the-editor column; and
- Failed to give proper coverage to the election
results.
Background: During the fall 1982 campaign,
Bartlett repeatedly challenged the competency and integrity of the
incumbent sheriff. Contrary to the grievant's position, it appears
the paper did report about the various challenges in its news stories.
While the paper might have reported the incidents in more detail,
the Council cannot say that the extent of the news coverage of these
items was not within reasonable editorial discretion.
One of the challenges raised by Bartlett concerned
the sheriff's approval of "on-call" pay for one of his deputies,
which was subsequently struck down by the county board, which ruled
the deputy was not entitled to the supplemental pay. The Bartlett
committee claimed it submitted a political advertisement to the paper
in which it referred to the "on-call" payments to the deputy
as "illegal" payments. After consulting with the county
auditor, the newspaper refused to print the ad unless the word "illegal"
was changed to "unauthorized." Other papers did publish
the ad, and the committee refused to make the change requested by
the Herald. The News Council finds that it was not unreasonable for
the newspaper to refuse to publish the political ad without the requested
change.
More troublesome is the grievant's claim that the
paper refused to publish other political ads because the advertisements,
in referring to Bartlett, used the words "tall," "trustworthy,"
and "honest." He claimed the ads were rejected because these
phrases would reflect adversely on Bartlett's opponent. The newspaper
editor denied any such ads were refused and said they would have been
accepted. To refuse to publish such ads for the reasons alleged would
be wrong, but since copies of the rejected ads were not furnished
to the Council, it does not have sufficient evidence to make any judgment
on the newspaper's conduct and finds the charge not proven. Also troublesome
is the claim of lack of fair access to the letters-to-the-editor column.
On September 30, people from the Bartlett committee submitted a letter
protesting the destruction of their lawn signs by Goodnature supporters.
Because the editorial page had already been "made up" for
the day, the newspaper published the protest as a front page news
story. Two days later the paper published a front page denial and
countercharge on the lawn sign issue by Goodnature. This, in turn,
prompted a flurry of letters to the editor. On October 4, Janet Marsden,
a Bartlett supporter, submitted a letter, sworn before a notary, stating
she had witnessed Goodnature "willfully" destroying Bartlett
signs at the county fair. The editor refused to print the letter on
the advice of counsel, saying that this was a legal matter for the
county attorney. At the Council meeting, the editor explained that
he did not want a "trial by newspaper."
Under the circumstances, the Council believes it was
not unreasonable for the paper to refuse to publish this letter. During
the remainder of October, the newspaper did publish other letters
commenting on the lawn sign issue, mostly from Goodnature supporters.
Bartlett asserts that other letters from Bartlett supporters were
rejected by the paper. The newspaper says this is not so, that it
did publish whatever was submitted.
It may well be that these other pro-Bartlett letters,
if submitted, should have been published. Again, the Council is unable
to resolve this dispute of fact without examining the rejected letters.
The editor says these letters, if not like the Marsden letter, would
have been printed. If such letters had been submitted, the Council
believes, under the circumstances, that it would have been unfair
not to have published them. On this record, however, the Council finds
this complaint of lack of access to the paper not proven.
Finally, Bartlett complains that in a front page story
the day after the election, the paper reported a separate tally of
the city vote in the sheriff's race but not a separate tally of the
rural vote. This was important to the Bartlett people because their
candidate carried the rural vote. The paper points out, however, that
it did report a complete detailed breakdown of the sheriff vote, in
box score forms, on page two. In other words, the full story on the
voting patterns was reported and it was not improper for the paper,
in its editorial discretion, to place the story on its pages as it
did.
As a closing observation, the Council questions whether
the newspaper's coverage of the Goodnature-Bartlett dispute was as
complete as it might have been. It appears that the neighboring Rochester
Post-Bulletin, as well as the more distant Minneapolis Tribune, provided
more comprehensive coverage.
The complaint against the newspaper is not upheld.
Concurring: Brommer, Brooks, Forsythe, Gilson,
Graven, Higgins, Kramer, McCollough, Pearce, Ryan, Selby, Simonett,
Ziegenhagen
February 1983
Read
Determination 52
Back
to Main Determination Index
Want
to comment? Send a message
to the News Council.
