Determination
58
Minnesota
News Council
Cases 55 through 59 all concern media handling of
political campaigns and elections and were held on April 12, 1985.
Appearing at this multi-case hearing were candidates, political party
officials, campaign committee officers, and media representatives.
The presentations were thoughtful and informative, and the Council
expresses its appreciation to all who participated.
In the Matter of the Complaint of
Mary Jane Rachner against the St. Paul Dispatch and Pioneer Press
Grievant claims the newspaper improperly refused to accept
two of her campaign advertisements.
Background: Mary Jane Rachner was a candidate
for the Fourth District congressional seat in the November, 1984 general
election, running against the incumbent, Bruce Vento. She submitted
two advertisements to the St. Paul Dispatch and Pioneer Press. Both
were rejected. Descriptions of the two ads follow:
For some time the newspaper had been running
its own advertising campaign promoting the reading of newspapers and
using prominent St. Paul community leaders to explain the importance
of newspapers in equipping them to fulfill their responsibilities
in the community and as citizens. Rachner submitted an advertisement
which was a parody of this concept, using herself as the prominent
public figure.
The second ad was entitled, "Vote the R-Team,"
Reagan for President, Rudy for Senate, Rachner for Congress. The
ad displayed a passport photo of Rachner.
Response of the News Organization: Tom Golden,
advertising director for the St. Paul Dispatch and Pioneer Press,
appeared on behalf of the newspaper. As to the parody ad, he said
its acceptance would have prejudiced the substantial investment the
newspaper had made in its own promotional program. As to the "R-Team"
ad, he stated that Rachner was requested to supply written authorization
from the Reagan and Boschwitz Campaign Committees for the appearance
of these candidates' names in the Rachner ad, and that these authorizations
were never supplied. Indeed, the newspaper had been advised by the
public relations firm handling the Boschwitz account that its candidate's
appearance in campaign ads of others required authorization.
Discussion: As already stated, the newspaper
had a substantial and legitimate investment in its own promotional
ads which it could not be expected to prejudice by publishing the
parody ad.
The "R-Team" ad is more interesting. One supposes
that a candidate might publish an advertisement stating he or she
supports the policies of Mondale or Reagan. Neither Mondale nor Reagan
could, supposedly, object, and the advertisement's contents explain
to the reader something about the candidate's position. This, however,
is not the gist of the Rachner ad. It refers to Reagan, Boschwitz
and Rachner as a "team," the implication being not only that Rachner
supports Reagan and Boschwitz, but that Reagan and Boschwitz support
Rachner. In this context, the newspaper was justified in requiring
some assurance that the two other candidates named in the Rachner
ad had authorized the use of their names. Not receiving this assurance,
the newspaper was justified in rejecting the ad.
In the fall of 1983, Rachner had run an ad in the
Twin Cities dailies asking for contributions to "Women for Reagan."
The ad listed names of supporters and was signed by Rachner as District
65B I-R Secretary. I-R officials said that the ad was unauthorized
by the party, and there were other objections to its message and claims
by some signers that use of their names had not been authorized. With
this history, the newspaper had added reason to exercise caution with
the "R-Team" ad submitted by grievant.
The grievance is denied.
Concurring: Ashmore, Bednar, Brooks, Casey,
Earley, Falkman, Forsythe, King, Myers, Pearce, Persons, Ryan, Simonett,
Sundin and Warder
Partial Dissent: Graven - I dissent in part
from the majority determination. There are two basic complaints by
Rachner against the St. Paul Dispatch-Pioneer Press. The first had
to do with a parody ad. I agree that the St. Paul paper and its advertising
director were certainly within their rights to refuse to publish a
parody ad which made fun of an apparently substantial promotional
program of the paper. It is certainly a matter of judgment, and Rachner
was obviously guilty of lese majeste. There is no reason why
conscientious, fair, competent advertising departments and promotional
teams need have a sense of humor when their own interests are involved.
As to the R-Team decision, I do dissent. I appreciate
the majority's position and the manner in which it chooses to emphasize
the facts. One assumes from the majority that what is involved here
is only misleading advertising, and an advertising department does
have some obligation to police the precincts. But I don't think that's
what's really involved here and I see the majority sustaining what
I consider a fairly insidious and dangerous practice in Minnesota.
Let me elaborate.
The bald facts here are that Rachner is not and was
not the Republican establishment's favorite. The Republican party
chose not to endorse anyone against the obvious and apparent winner,
Vento, in the Fourth Congressional District. Rachner chose to run
in the Republican primary and won. She was the Republican candidate
for Congress. This presented a possible embarrassment to other Republicans,
and apparently to Senator Boschwitz who was making a statewide race
which was, at least at that point, clearly not in the bag. He probably
had not yet even started composing his now-famous memo on how to win
elections. But the two-party system means that each party has a broad
umbrella or tent, and politics makes strange tentmates.
The fact is the St. Paul Pioneer Press squelched
an ad by a legitimate candidate for Congress who had the greatest
credential in the world to be running; that is, she had won the primary
fair and square. Whether the powers that be wanted her to win or not
is another question. She did and she claimed to be a Republican, and
she sought to purchase an ad which emphasized certain similarities
between her and people that she perceived to be much more popular
than she, namely Boschwitz and Reagan. They do have certain similarities.
Their first or last names begin with an R (a key political point).
Secondly, they were all running on the Republican ticket. Boschwitz's
advertising agency vetoed the ad.
Rachner, for better or worse, claimed to be supporting
Boschwitz and Reagan and wanted people to elect her because she was.
In the context of most political advertising, her claim that there
was a "team," that is, Republicans duly nominated by their parties
by law for high Federal office sharing a common letter of the alphabet
and perhaps even common principles seems to me to be not misleading.
I think the majority makes too much of the word "team." It says that
Rachner's claim to be part of the Reagan team implies that Reagan
wants her aboard that team. That narrow, crabbed reading might be
possible in academic halls, but in the context of robust political
debate and hyperbole it is clearly, in my judgment, fair comment by
Rachner, who after all wanted to get to Congress to help (as she said)
Reagan's program and Boschwitz's program. The fact that Reagan didn't
know, and had probably written off Minnesota anyway, is immaterial.
Letting Boschwitz's ad director squelch the ad (the Pioneer Press
basically gave them the option to let the ad run or not by asking
for their consent to the use of the Boschwitz name) strikes me as
being bad policy for a newspaper in this state.
If the Ku Klux Klan wanted to come in Minnesota and
run an ad in support of Walter Mondale, it seems to me they have a
perfect right to do so, even though it might, in fact, embarrass Mondale,
or for that matter Joan Growe, and I don't think the paper should
go to Mondale's ad director to see if Mondale objected to the use
of his name. I assume that if the Mad Fascists for Boschwitz had declared
their support for Rudy he would have taken great and public delight
in repudiating the support. The question of what to do with Rachner's
support - she being viewed as a political loose cannon on the deck
- was more dicey, however. After all, she had won a primary and she
had some support. The Boschwitz campaign was spared the disagreeable
task of facing up to the Rachner issue, because the St. Paul Pioneer
Press advertising department decided to give Boschwitz what was, in
effect, veto power over what kind of ad Rachner could run. I think
this was wrong, and we ought to say so.
The issue is not partisan. Do the Republicans really
think the Star and Tribune (to select a paper at total random) ought
to check out with Gary Hart or Ted Kennedy's advertising gurus whether
or not some DFL candidate for Congress can run an ad claiming to be
a Hart Democrat or a Kennedy Team Player?
Partial Dissent: Chucker - Harold Chucker
associates himself with the Graven dissent, particularly with respect
to the paper letting Sen. Boschwitz's ad director squelch the R-team
ad, giving the agency, Graven points out, the option to let the ad
run or not by asking their consent to use of the Boschwitz name, and
sparing the Boschwitz campaign the task of facing up to the Rachner
issue.
April 12, 1985
Read
Determination 59
Back
to Main Determination Index
Want
to comment? Send a message
to the News Council.
