Determination
63
Minnesota
News Council
In the Matter of the Complaint of
Lori Peterson against the Moorhead State University Advocate
In attendance at the hearing were Lori Peterson and Glenn
Tornell, faculty advisor to the Advocate. The student who was the editor
of the Advocate at the times involved was not able to attend the hearing
but submitted a written statement. The grievant claims the Advocate
published false, inflammatory and unfair statements about her.
Background: In March 1983 the Advocate published
a favorable profile of Lori Peterson and her interests in political
and feminist issues. On November 8, 1984, the paper published a front-page
story, in which Peterson was briefly quoted on the decision to withdraw
a purportedly pornographic magazine from the campus bookstore. On
May 17, 1984, the paper published a humor issue entitled the "Badvocate"
in which public figures on campus were satirized. There were several
references in the "Badvocate" to the grievant - as, for example, Peterson
praising the president of the university for making Penthouse required
reading for students. The grievant objected and submitted two letters
to the editor under the pseudonym "Sue Carlson," which contained personal
attacks on the editor. It appears the editor knew the grievant was
the letter writer. The letters were not published.
On May 16, 1985, the Advocate published an editorial
replying to several critics of its humor issue, in which the following
paragraph appeared:
"We also angered Lori Peterson, but that
was expected. We discovered that Peterson secretly taped phone conversations
with myself and Glenn Tornell and has divulged the contents of those
tapes to others. Her friend, Sue Carlson, unwittingly admitted this
to me in a phone call Friday, and who knows if that conversation was
live or Memorex?"
The editorial went on to say this was "pathetic behavior"
for someone with political aspirations and was conduct unbecoming
a Truman scholar. The editorial further said Peterson had been invited
to respond to the "Badvocate," but said she had not done so. The editorial
was entitled "Sour notes: sour grapes."
Peterson says she has never taped any phone conversations.
Glenn Tornell says that while he once suspected that the complainant
was taping a phone conversation with him, he does not actually know
of any taping of phone conversations, either his own or of others.
Peterson also says the newspaper refused to print anything she had
to say.
Discussion: This is only the second time the
Council has heard a complaint against a college newspaper. By agreeing
to participate, the Advocate has agreed to be judged by journalistic
standards applicable to general circulation newspapers, and the Advocate
is to be commended for agreeing to the submission of this grievance
to the News Council.
The grievant says she was misquoted in the November
8, 1984, story, but the reporter says she was not. We are not in a
position to judge this dispute on facts. At the Council hearing, the
grievant withdrew her complaint about her treatment in the newspaper's
humor issue and, we think, properly so. Not only the grievant, but
many others, including the student editor, were treated satirically.
While the satire was heavy-handed and the humor perhaps debatable
to some, clearly no reader could mistake the references to Peterson
in the "Badvocate" as anything other than satire.
Peterson's main complaint is the May 16, 1985, editorial.
She agrees an editorial writer has great latitude in expressing opinions,
but she claims the opinions here were based on certain facts that
were inaccurate and untrue. Specifically, she denies taping any phone
conversations with the editor and she questions the use of a fictitious
Sue Carlson as a source of information.
The factual basis for an editorial opinion should,
of course, be accurate. This Council is not in a position to decide
the dispute over whether any phone conversations were taped. We can,
however, make one observation. The editorial writer says her information
about "secretly taped phone conversations" came from Sue Carlson,
a friend of Peterson's. It is undisputed that there is no such person
as Sue Carlson and, in her written response to the News Council, the
editorial writer indicates that she knew this. If the editorial writer
meant to say the information came from Lori Peterson using the name
of Sue Carlson, the writer should have said so. In that the editorial
names an actual person by the name of Sue Carlson as the source of
its facts, it is clearly in error and, to this extent, the Council
sustains the grievance. To the extent the grievance rests on other
facts that are in dispute, the Council must decline to consider it.
Concurring: Casey, Chucker, Clark, Earley,
Falkman, King, Larson, McPherson, Mundale, Parrish, Persons, Simonett,
Stone, Warder
May 30, 1986
Read
Determination 64
Back
to Main Determination Index
Want
to comment? Send a message
to the News Council.
