Determination
67
Minnesota
News Council
In the Matter of the Complaint of
Bill Batcher against the St. Paul Pioneer Press Dispatch
Present at the hearing were Bill Batcher, the grievant,
and Douglas Hennes, Metro Editor for the St. Paul Pioneer Press Dispatch.
Background: In the fall of 1986, there was
a spirited election campaign for state representative for District
64B (St. Paul's Highland Park area, considered to be a swing district)
between Bill Batcher, the I-R candidate, and Howard Orenstein, the
DFL candidate. Prior to the general election campaign, there had been
a hotly contested campaign for the DFL endorsement both for the House
seat and the Senate seat in that area. In the general election, Orenstein
was the winner.
On October 21, 1986, the Pioneer Press Dispatch published
an article entitled "Batcher, Orenstein color Highland race." The
article includes the following passages:
"Saying that "he's one of us," Batcher and
his campaign have tried to paint Orenstein as a carpetbagging opportunist
who bought a house in the district a year and a half ago only because
he saw a legislative seat opening up.
"Moreover, Batcher has not shied away from the
spread of rumors about Orenstein, first that he is not really married
and then that he is secretly the cousin of the current DFL Rep.
Dick Cohen, who is vacating the seat to run for the state Senate."
Batcher contends these statements in the article
are unfair, inaccurate and biased. He concedes he stressed his native
roots in the Highland area as a lifelong resident in contrast to his
opponent's relative newcomer status; but he says he never used the
phrase "carpetbagging opportunist," which he says contains a derogatory
implication he has no intention of conveying. More importantly, Batcher
says the newspaper article strongly suggests that he was spreading
the false rumors about his opponent's marital status and relationship
to the DFL Senate candidate. Batcher says he became aware of the rumors
at some point in the campaign but he further states emphatically that
he was not the source of the rumors, nor did he spread them. Apparently,
the rumors were being spread by others, including possibly DFLers
disappointed in the endorsement contest, but not by Batcher himself.
Indeed, Orenstein, who had alerted the reporter to the spreading of
the false rumors, did not attribute the rumors to Batcher.
On October 22, 1986, the Pioneer Press Dispatch endorsed
Orenstein for election "because he better appreciates the need to
seek common ground in the legislative process." The paper added, "We
also are concerned with Batcher's campaign tactics, which involve
too many innuendoes and rumors and not enough issues." When Batcher
protested to the newspaper, he was offered access to its Letters to
the Editor column. On October 29, Batcher's letter was published in
which he said, "I do not recall ever hearing the rumor that Howard
Orenstein was not really married. I, therefore, could not and did
not spread that rumor. Howard told me that he was married last November
[i.e., the prior fall] and I have never questioned that fact." In
his letter to the editor, Batcher also stated he had asked Orenstein
if he was related to Cohen and Orenstein had said, "Check the record."
At the hearing, Batcher testified that when his opponent told him
to check out the rumor, he then asked about 15 persons whether they
had heard a rumor that Orenstein and Cohen were cousins and if they
knew it to be true or false.
In the October 21 article, Batcher was also quoted,
and quoted correctly, as saying:
"I don't see anything unusual in being curious
about someone's background . .. I think he's [Orenstein's] been less
than forthright. .... [W]henever I've talked to anybody, I've represented
it [the rumors] as something I've heard."
Discussion: While the newspaper article reports
that the campaign "has turned personal" and describes the two rumors
being circulated about Batcher's opponent, nowhere in the article
are the rumors attributed directly to any source. By reporting, however,
that "Batcher has not shied away from the spread of rumors about Orenstein,"
the article implies that Batcher was the source of the rumors. There
is, however, no evidence of this, except we believe that checking
out the Cohen rumor with 15 persons did have the effect of spreading
that rumor. It should be noted that Batcher's opponent did not attribute
the source of the rumors to Batcher when talking to the reporter.
In preparing for the October 21 story, the reporter
interviewed Batcher by telephone on October 16. Batcher says he was
taken aback by the reporter's confrontational approach. Rather than
flatly disassociating himself from the rumors and asserting their
lack of relevance to the campaign, Batcher responded that "I don't
see anything unusual in being curious about someone's background.
. . I think he's been less than forthright." This response might well
have led to the reporter writing that Batcher "has not shied away
from the spread of rumors." Unfortunately, this also left the impression
that Batcher was spreading the rumors.
Considering all the facts and circumstances, the
Council believes that the October 21 article was not unfair, inaccurate
or biased. We think the reporting was, however, incomplete in its
lack of attribution of the source of the rumors and in not including
Batcher's denial of spreading the marriage rumor. In view, however,
of grievant's rather ambiguous reply to the reporter's questions during
the telephone interview, we cannot say this incompleteness supports
any claim of unfairness or inaccuracy on the part of the newspaper.
Batcher did not complain to the newspaper about the
reference to "carpetbagging" until his grievance was initiated. We
accept Batcher's statement that he never used the term, and that his
position throughout the campaign was simply to make the point that
his greater familiarity with the district better equipped him to represent
the district. We cannot say, however, that Batcher's position on the
residency issue may not, in the rough and tumble of a spirited political
campaign, have been perceived differently by others, and, therefore,
we cannot say that the use of the term "carpetbagging opportunist,"
in a piece of political reporting, was unfair.
The grievance is denied, but with the observation
that as to the rumor attribution issue, the newspaper article lacked
a necessary completeness.
Concurring: Ashmore, Chucker, King, Larson,
Parrish, Persons, Ryan, Simonett, Stone, Swain, Warder
Dissenting: Brooks, Orwoll - The dissenting
members agree that the paper was not inaccurate and probably not deliberately
unfair. But the lack of a "fair shake" does come to mind in this case.
While we agree that the problem was one of incompleteness, that word
by itself is somewhat inane. There was a whole lot more missing than
clarity on the rumor issue. Orenstein's reaction to the marriage rumor
was missing. More solid information on the candidates' positions was
missing. The newspaper's representative told us the editorial page
decided on its endorsement choice in September, but the endorsement
of Orenstein followed this October 21 article by one day and largely
attributed the endorsement of Orenstein to his opponent's alleged
campaign of rumors and innuendo, reported the day before. As we understand
the majority, this was a good article that just had a little something
missing. We think fairness called for a whole lot more.
Special dissent: Mundale - Basically, I agree
with the dissent as stated, except that I do not feel our observations
should include the matter of the editorial endorsement, which was
not part of the complaint.
May 28, 1987
Read
Determination 68
Back
to Main Determination Index
Want
to comment? Send a message
to the News Council.
