Determination
68
Minnesota
News Council
In the Matter of the Complaint of
Phillip Villaume against KARE-TV
On September 9, 1986, KARE broadcast two versions of
a story by reporter Bernie Grace concerning the opening day proceedings
in a Hennepin County murder trial. At the outset of those proceedings,
Judge Delila Pierce granted a motion by Phillip Villaume, the complainant,
allowing him to withdraw as the court-appointed counsel for the defendant
because of repeated threats made against him by the defendant's father.
In his grievance, Villaume complained that the KARE news reports were
"incomplete, inaccurate, unbalanced, biased, excessively sensationalized
(and) unfair," and held him up to public ridicule. Representatives of
KARE responded that the reports were a fair and accurate summary of
what had transpired in the courtroom.
Background: In its 6 p.m. newscast, KARE reported
that Villaume was allowed to withdraw from the case after the defendant's
father got into a shouting match with Villaume and accused Villaume
of "not doing a good job" of representing his son. The report included
a taped comment from the defendant's father in which he again threatened
Villaume. The 6 p.m. report included no response from Villaume.
Representatives of KARE said their reporter unsuccessfully
attempted to contact Villaume for comment for the story. Villaume
said he was not aware of any effort to contact him. Instead, Villaume
said, he saw the report on the 6 p.m. news, called the station and
spoke with news executive Tom Kirby. Villaume said he asked for the
opportunity to respond to the allegations by the defendant's father
and that Kirby dispatched a cameraman to record his response.
In its 10 p.m. report, KARE again reported that Villaume
had been allowed to withdraw from the case after the attorney and
the defendant's father had engaged in a shouting match in the courtroom.
This time, the report also said the defendant's father had "accused
Villaume of trying to commit adultery with his wife."
Unlike the 6 p.m. report, the 10 p.m. version stated
that Villaume wanted to withdraw because the defendant's father had
"repeatedly threatened him." It included a taped comment from Villaume
about his concern for his safety, as well as his response to the adultery
charge ("an out-and-out lie"). It also reported that the defendant
had told the judge Villaume was "the best attorney he's ever had."
In his complaint, Villaume focused on his objection to KARE's use
of the adultery accusation made by the defendant's father, which he
said was totally groundless. He submitted transcript of the court
proceedings in which he explained that his only contact with defendant's
mother was to request that she provide her son with suitable clothing
to wear in court, so he would not have to appear before the jury in
jail fatigues. The defendant told the court he was aware Villaume
planned to contact his mother for this purpose. Villaume argued that
the allegation was so outrageous, and so lacking in foundation, that
it should not have been reported at all.
Response of the News Organization: Representatives
of KARE responded that they gave Villaume the right to deny the allegation,
and that their story had been balanced and fair.
Decision of the News Council: The Council
holds that the KARE reports were not inaccurate or biased, but they
were incomplete.
We believe the station was justified in reporting
the shouting match and the allegations made by the defendant's father,
including the one that Villaume attempted an adulterous relationship
with the defendant's mother. It was this belief that apparently prompted
the defendant's father to renew his threats against Villaume. The
incident was bizarre, but it did happen and KARE's reporting of the
incident - stating that it was bizarre - was not irresponsible journalism.
KARE contends that its taped interviews fairly gave
its viewers the opportunity to see and hear the participants to the
dispute and to make an informed evaluation of the adultery accusation.
We agree. No reasonable viewer would have given any credence to what
obviously was an outrageous and untrue charge.
But the KARE reports - particularly the 6 p.m. version
- were lacking. They did not make it clear that before the opening
day of the trial, Villaume had been the subject of repeated threats
from the defendant's father and had gone to court that morning for
the purpose of withdrawing from the case. Viewers may have gotten
the faulty impression Villaume withdrew from the case after the defendant's
father confronted him in court and accused him of not providing adequate
legal representation to his son.
The grievance is denied with respect to accuracy
and bias, but sustained with respect to completeness.
Concurring: Brooks, Chucker, Dornfeld, Larson,
Mundale, Orwoll, Persons, Ryan, Stone, Swain, Warder
Abstaining: Simonett
Dissent: Parrish, Ashmore - I am dissenting
from the majority opinion of the News Council for two reasons. First,
the Council failed to accurately report its own decision on Villaume's
original complaint, and second, the members of the Council took it
upon themselves to discuss and rule upon elements of the news broadcast
that were not at issue.
Villaume's original complaint was limited to one
very specific item. He claimed that KARE should not have reported
the adultery aspect of his withdrawal at all. The premise of this
complaint is that Villaume has the right to dictate what can and cannot
be reported, i.e., what is or is not newsworthy. The Council considered
the facts relating to this issue and found that the station was justified
in reporting the adultery allegation.
Villaume further claimed that the report was inaccurate,
biased and misleading to the public because not enough details were
given. The Council considered the facts relating to this issue and
agreed with KAREÕs contention that it had given all participants to
the dispute an opportunity to be seen and heard, allowing the viewers
"to make an informed evaluation of the adultery accusation."
If the Council had stopped at this point, after fully
considering Villaume's original complaint, I would join in their decision.
Unfortunately, the Council went beyond the scope of the original complaint
and began to consider other ways the KARE report might have injured
Villaume, injuries that must not have been readily apparent to Villaume
since they were not included in his original complaint. After their
consideration, the Council decided that another aspect of the story
was "incomplete" in that KARE failed to clearly report that Villaume
had intended to withdraw from the case even before the shouting match
occurred. The Council therefore upheld Villaume's complaint as to
incompleteness, even though the incompleteness the Council found had
nothing to do with his original complaint.
I find this decision unsettling. I do not believe
it is the role of this News Council to discovery injuries for a complainant.
In addition, the Council expanded their consideration of an isolated
element in a particular story and turned it into an indictment of
the way television reports the news. The Council has taken the disturbing
position of finding a report accurate, yet incomplete, while failing
to consider the constraints under which television reports the news.
As long as a story is accurate, its completeness is irrelevant. While
a story may be so incomplete as to be inaccurate, that was not the
case in this instance. If the Council finds a report accurate, no
further consideration is necessary.
May 28, 1987
Read
Determination 69
Back
to Main Determination Index
Want
to comment? Send a message
to the News Council.
