Determination
70
Minnesota
News Council
In the Matter of the Complaint of
The Bunkers against the Owatonna People's Press
This matter raises consideration of whether, and under
what circumstances, the news media should disclose the identity of a
witness to a crime. We set forth what we regard as the general considerations
for making this determination and decide, on balance, that the newspaper
here inappropriately published the name of a witness to a violent crime.
Background: The Bunkers bring this proceeding
against The Owatonna People's Press, a daily newspaper in Owatonna,
a city of about 18,000 people. The newspaper disclosed Mrs. Bunkers'
name in a front-page story on Saturday, March 14, 1987, concerning
an assault that she witnessed and reported in rural Steele County
the previous afternoon.
Bunkers and her family reside on 20 acres of wooded
land outside of Medford, Minnesota. Their home is in the northern
portion of Steele County, adjoining Rice County. Shortly after noon
on Friday, March 13, 1987, Bunkers noticed, through a window, a moving
car pull off the nearby road and enter a small path leading to a secluded
woodshed on her property. She left her house, went to her car, and
drove towards the shed. From her car, she observed what seemed to
be a violent assault occurring about 50 feet away. One man appeared
to be bent over another person, striking a fist or thrusting an object
at the person on the ground.
Bunkers yelled out, "What the heck is going on,"
which apparently was heard by the perpetrator. She then left the vicinity
without clearly seeing the face of the assailant. She drove to a neighbor's
home and asked him to report the incident to law enforcement authorities.
The neighbor called the emergency 911 number at the nearby Rice County
Sheriff's office in Faribault, then returned to the scene of the incident
while Bunkers stayed on the phone with personnel from the Sheriff's
office. A short while later, the neighbor returned, having seen nothing
at the scene. An investigator from the Sheriff's office soon came
to the scene. The investigation was later turned over to the Sheriff
of Steele County, where the alleged offense occurred.
About two hours later, a reporter from the Owatonna
People's Press called the Bunkers' home inquiring about the alleged
offense. The reporter had heard the incident broadcast over the area
law enforcement scanner. Bunkers' husband, who had come home from
work after the incident, told the reporter that he had no comment
and suggested that he call the Rice County Sheriff. Meanwhile, Bunkers
was back at the scene of the apparent crime with another law enforcement
investigator. She told him that she did not want her name released
to the news media. She claims to have made at least one or two similar
requests to law enforcement authorities during the afternoon.
The People's Press reporter subsequently spoke to
law enforcement authorities from both Rice and Steele Counties and
learned more details about the incident. Law enforcement officials
from both counties deny that they gave Bunkers' name to the reporter.
However, it appears likely that the reporter did get her name from
either the law enforcement authorities or the scanner, or perhaps
both. Later that evening, the reporter called the Bunkers' home a
second time seeking to verify Bunkers' first name. Bunkers spoke with
the reporter and, in her words, "pleaded" with him not to use her
name in any newspaper article about the event.
The reporter wrote the story later that night. It
is unclear if the reporter told the copy editor about Bunkers' request
for anonymity. The story was published in the newspaper the next morning
under the headline "Report keeps lawmen busy." It stated that law
enforcement personnel had responded to the reported assault on the
property. Although no victim or weapon was found, the story reported
that blood was found in the woods and on the road. It also identified
Bunkers as the witness and described what she had seen. The story
described the vehicle that she had reported to the authorities and
concluded by noting that there were no suspects and that the investigation
was continuing.
The next day, Sunday, March 15, 1987, the body of
a 28 year old, mentally retarded man was found stabbed to death about
seven miles from the Bunkers' home. The perpetrator was found and
arrested later that day. He subsequently pleaded guilty to second-degree
murder. Bunkers then brought this proceeding, charging that the People's
Press improperly divulged her identity in the Saturday morning story.
Noting that the assailant was at large at the time, Bunkers asserts
that identifying her by name as a witness placed her in jeopardy of
reprisal by the perpetrator.
Response of the News Organization: The newspaper's
position is that it identified Bunkers because it felt her name was
important to the story in light of the limited information that was
available at the time. This is in keeping with the newspaper's "traditional"
policy of publishing the names of people who report crimes, and the
circumstances of those crimes, unless law enforcement authorities
specifically request that the identities be withheld. The newspaper
justifies this practice on the general grounds of the public's "right
to know" and, more particularly, the need to dispel rumors in the
community.
Determination of the News Council: Part
I -- General Considerations: Determining the propriety of identifying
a witness to a crime requires balancing the public's right to know
against the individual's privacy interests. We do not refer to the
"right of privacy" in its narrow legal sense. The courts in Minnesota
have not recognized a right to privacy against disclosure by the media.
Further, courts that do recognize an individual's privacy right hold
that the press is constitutionally entitled to report facts concerning
crimes which are true or contained in a public record. This includes
the names of perpetrators, suspects, victims, witnesses, or other
participants. While it is legally permissible to report the identity
of a witness, the question we consider is whether, and when, it is
appropriate to do so as a matter of journalistic practice.
The criteria that should be taken into account in
making this determination include the following:
- The circumstances surrounding the incident;
- The seriousness of the offense;
- Whether any arrest has been made or the alleged
perpetrator remains at large;
- The relationship, if any, between the victim,
perpetrator, and witness;
- Whether law enforcement officials or other knowledgeable
authorities caution against disclosure;
- Whether the witness requests confidentiality;
- The effect on other reporting about crime; and
- The effect the identification may have on the
actual or possible spreading of rumors.
None of these factors is conclusive. Nor are we able
to assign particular weights or priorities to any of these considerations.
Where applicable, each of these factors should be taken into account
by responsible members of the news media in making a determination
whether the beneficial effect of identification of a witness on the
public's "right to know" outweighs the witness' interests in maintaining
anonymity. Additional considerations may be appropriate depending
upon the facts of a particular case.
Part II -- Weighing the Considerations Here:
Applying these general considera-tions to the story in the Owatonna
People's Press presents a very close question. The public had a "right
to know" that a serious crime of violence possibly had been committed
and that the perpetrator was unknown and at large. The name and address
of an eyewitness added important credibility to the story. On the
other hand, the newspaper was required to weigh the countervailing
interests of the eyewitness in remaining anonymous. Bunkers requested
anonymity directly of the reporter. She did so because she genuinely
feared for her personal safety, rather than for personal reasons of
embarrassment or because of general dislike for publicity.
On the basis of the information known at the time,
and known to the reporter, Bunkers' fear was legitimate. There was
reason to believe a person had been violently assaulted near her home.
Blood was found at the scene. The perpetrator apparently saw Bunkers,
or at least had observed a person in a car who witnessed the incident.
The Bunkers live in a relatively isolated rural area and there had
been reports or criminal activity involving drugs in the area. Because
her name and address were published the next day, while the suspect
was at large, Bunkers had a reasonable basis for fearing that the
perpetrator might return to do her harm.
The newspaper considered the incident was serious
enough to warrant a story on the front page. The newspaper editor
stated that she had a feeling that the crime committed might be a
homicide, although no body had yet been found.
It is unclear if the law enforcement authorities
gave Bunkers' name to the newspaper. But whether they did or not is
not relevant to our determination. Once the newspaper lawfully acquired
her name, the question of whether to publish it was a journalistic
decision to be made by the newspaper, not the sheriff's personnel.
The newspaper, of course, might take into account any suggestion of
law enforcement personnel regarding the propriety or effect of disclosure
of the identity of an eyewitness to a particular incident.
Regardless of how her name was acquired, the newspaper
should have given more serious consideration to Bunkers' request for
anonymity. In fact, the reporter either did not mention it to the
copy editor or, if he did, it made no impression on the copy editor.
We do not, however, suggest that the media must necessarily refrain
from identifying a witness simply because a witness prefers anonymity.
Many witnesses and other voluntary participants in newsworthy events
request anonymity. The media are not obliged to honor these requests,
no matter how fervently expressed. The use of specific names often
is necessary to establish credibility, dispel rumors, and otherwise
present an accurate account of any event. Being involuntarily identified
as a witness to a newsworthy event is one of the prices we pay for
living in a free society with an unfettered press.
In these circumstances, though, we think better practice
would have been to refer simply to an eyewitness whose identity was
not being disclosed at present. Disclosure of Bunkers' identity would
have been more appropriate, as Bunkers herself acknowledged, after
the perpetrator was apprehended.
We admire both parties to this grievance. Bunkers
acted courageously and responsibly in reporting the incident, which
led to apprehension of the perpetrator. We also are impressed with
the goodwill and sincerity of the newspaper and its employees.
The editor, Debra Flemming, exhibited keen sensitivity
to the various considerations underlying this issue in her presentation
to the Council. Flemming's perceptiveness also was manifested in a
column she wrote in the newspaper a few months after the incident.
That article fairly examines the issues raised by Bunkers' complaint
and the newspaper's position. An analysis of this kind is particularly
welcome because it familiarizes the community with the issues and
permits readers to evaluate the merits of the dispute. We encourage
others to initiate similar dialogue on perplexing issues of the responsibilities
of the media, even if they do not involve an actual News Council hearing.
Despite the newspaper's sincerity, we find that,
on balance, the publication of Bunkers' name was inappropriate in
the circumstances of this case. We sustain the grievance.
Concurring: King, Mundale, Ryan, Simonett,
Stone, Sundin, Tanick, and Warder
Dissenting: Ashmore, Bednar, Casey, Dornfeld,
Falkman, Orwoll, Persons - We concur with Part One of the majority
opinion, that legitimate requests for anonymity should be carefully
weighed against various considerations, including those listed by
the majority. We also agree that, on balance, this was a close call.
We disagree, however, with the direction in which the balance should
be tipped. The newspaper acted appropriately and the complaint should
have been denied.
It is clear the Owatonna People's Press reporter
was following a loosely defined newspaper policy when he named Bunkers
in his initial story. It must be noted that the newspaper printed
information routinely made available to the media. The newspaper's
conduct after the incident proved to be compassionate; editor Debra
Flemming was apologetic in a follow-up column. The paper showed an
extra effort to tell all sides of the story once it became clear that
the initial story caused the Bunkers to fear for their safety. The
newspaper did everything we would have expected in this situation
and more. Flemming wrote: "It's impossible . . . to say that we'll
never use the name of a witness of a violent crime . . . . We will,
however, consider even more carefully the potential dangers . . .
." The People's Press was forced to think hard about its policies,
or lack of them.
The newspaper and authorities were initially unaware
that they were dealing with a murder case. Authorities did not request
that the witness not be named. It was not firmly established that
Bunkers did not want her name used because she was afraid the perpetrator
would come back and hurt her. Instead, we heard phrases like, "You
are not to use my name in the story," which would suggest a position
of (mock) authority, and would make most reporters angry, or at least
annoyed. If that is the case, Bunkers did not properly communicate
her fear to the night editor. By the judicial standard, this certainly
creates more than a "reasonable doubt," and should tip the balance
toward denial of the complaint.
A major point in the discussion by those who voted
to uphold the grievance seemed to be that the witness' name was not
necessary to the story . . . that the story would have been "just
as good" without the name. How would a lawyer react if one of his
clients stood to be convicted by the testimony of an unnamed witness?
More important, we are telling the newspaper to censor information
not because there is a convincing reason to (because the Bunkers'
fear for their safety was not necessarily established with the reporter),
but because "the story would be just as good without it."
The publication of Bunkers' name was appropriate
in this case. The grievance should have been denied.
October 23, 1987
Read
Determination 71
Back
to Main Determination Index
Want
to comment? Send a message
to the News Council.
