Determination
71
Minnesota
News Council
In the Matter of the Complaint of
Nancy Barsness against the Pope County Tribune
In attendance at the hearing were Nancy Barsness, the
grievant, and John R. Stone, publisher of the Pope County Tribune.
Grievant Nancy Barsness complains that the Pope County
Tribune failed to give fair and adequate coverage of a sex discrimination
claim against Watkins Aircraft Support Products, Inc. (Watkins or
WASP), a light manufacturing firm located in Glenwood, Minnesota.
Background: In 1985, the City of Glenwood
received a grant from the Minnesota Small Cities Development program.
The city loaned these grant funds to Watkins for expansion of its
operations. The Glenwood Development Corporation was designated by
the city to make reports, to handle repayment of the loan, and to
reinvest the funds in other worthy development projects.
On April 6, 1987, the Minnesota Department of Energy
and Economic Development (DEED) wrote a letter to the mayor stating
it had received a letter from an employee of Watkins "alleging that
the company is discriminating against women in both hiring and employment
practices," which, if true, would violate the grant. The city was
asked to inquire into the matter. On April 10, 1987, the mayor wrote
the Department that "[w]e could find no discrimination." In early
June, Barsness met with Gene Wenstrom, who was working part time for
the Development Corporation, and with a director of the Development
Corporation to discuss the sex discrimination charges and the then
pending investigation by the Department of Human Rights.
About 2 months later, on August 4, 1987, grievant
Nancy Barsness appeared at the meeting of the Glenwood City Commission,
at which time she presented a two-page statement mentioning the complaints
of sex discrimination at Watkins, questioning the administration of
the grant funds, and claiming lack of oversight of the project by
the city. Barsness explained that "several female employees" had brought
the matter to her attention the previous March. in her capacity as
an outreach consultant for the Minnesota Women's Fund. Also, on August
4, Barsness gave John Stone, who was reporting the commission meeting
for his newspaper, a two-page "news release" setting out in detail
the discrimination complaints involving the West Central plant operated
by Watkins, and identifying the two women complainants by name.
Stone reported these events in the Pope County Tribune
for August 10, 1987, in two stories, both under his byline. In the
same issue, Stone wrote an editorial, "It should have been handled
better," in which the newspaper was critical of the Barsness news
release and generally defended the Watkins operation as beneficial
to the community's economy. The next issue of the newspaper contained
a letter to the editor from Barsness claiming the previous week's
coverage of the Watkins story was biased. The editor appended an editor's
note to this letter, setting out a long verbatim quote from the Barsness
statement given to the city commission.
On September 11, the Department of Human Rights announced
that it had found probable cause that unfair discriminatory practices
had been committed by Watkins. This news was fully and fairly reported
by the newspaper in its issue of September 21. On September 28, the
newspaper published an editorial, "Good intentions apparently not
enough," which was sympathetic to Watkins. Another editorial entitled
"Good news" appeared in the paper on October 5, commenting on a study
about why some small towns survive while others fail, and noting,
among other factors, that successful communities did not have "entrenched
leadership" unwilling to accept change but "[n]ew-comers were welcomed
into leadership roles." Barsness responded to this editorial with
a letter to the editor in the October 19 issue pointing out that the
study had specifically mentioned "acceptance of women in leadership
roles," and citing the editorial's failure to mention this as "once
again demonstrat[ing] how biased this newspaper can be ...." The editor
appended a note to this letter denying the charge of bias.
Finally, an editorial on October 13, 1986, commenting
on several pending election contests, stated, "Nancy Barsness has
been pecking at County Auditor Bill Boyle ...." Barsness objects to
the word "pecking," claiming it implies "hen-pecking," a subtle form
of sexism.
Discussion
Delay in coverage: The first claim is that the
newspaper should not have waited until August 10, 1987, to report on
the sex discrimination story, but should have printed a story in April
when the mayor received the letter from DEED, or at least in early June
after Barsness had met with Wenstrom.
The April 6 letter from DEED was vague, not specifying
what the alleged discrimination might be. It was within the newspaper's
discretion not to treat the letter as a news story, at least not until
further developments. The mayor's response, finding no discrimination
at Watkins, made within only a few days after DEED's letter, suggests
the city's investigation may have been perfunctory. On the other hand,
it appears that the Department of Human Rights was making its own
confidential investigation and the parties concerned were waiting
for its report. We find no evidence of a "cover-up," either by the
city or the newspaper. Indeed, Barsness, in her statement to the city
commission, stated she would give the benefit of the doubt to the
city in its cursory investigation because it "did not know what specifically
to look for when they visited WASP." While Barsness had met with Wenstrom
in early June, neither Barsness nor Wenstrom reported their discussions
to the Development Corporation or the newspaper. Stone was told the
discrimination matter was being worked on, apparently satisfactorily.
The Development Corporation did not meet in July.
On August 4, Barsness formally presented her complaint
about the city's handling of the Watkins matter at the city commission
meeting, thus making the matter public. The newspaper promptly reported
her charges. We do not believe it was improper for the Pope County
Tribune not to have reported on the Watkins discrimination matter
sooner. Small, out-state communities are concerned with economic development
needed for survival and the need to encourage businesses which create
jobs; at the same time, they are concerned with the important social
issues of equality in today's society. The local newspaper tries to
balance these concerns, and, in a case such as we have here, unless
it has the considerable resources needed for investigative reporting,
may wait until unsubstantiated rumors and vague allegations gain some
substance before publishing a story which may otherwise be inaccurate,
unfair, or premature. Barsness, quite properly, created a news story
by utilizing the public forum of a city commission meeting to present
her claims formally and specifically. At this point, quite properly,
the newspaper reported that news story. This first grievance is denied.
Inaccurate, unfair coverage: The second claim is
that the coverage of the discrimination story in the August 10 issue
was inaccurate and unfair, and that, in reporting the story, Stone
should have made a "disclaimer," disclosing he was a vice president
of the Development Corporation.
The News Council has carefully reviewed the articles
in the August 10 issue. While there are some inaccuracies, they are
minor and the Council finds that the complaints of the women employees
and the position of their employer were fairly and adequately reported.
One of the articles says that Barsness thought the DEED inquiry made
in April had been "fairly investigated" because the city had not then
known what to look for. We agree with Barsness that this was inaccurate,
and editor Stone now agrees. Barsness' position, rather, was that
the city's failure to investigate more fully was excusable under the
circumstances. While Barsness objects to the article stating that
two women had brought the matter to Barsness' attention rather than
"several," the news release did refer to two women. Also, we do not
think it was necessary for the news articles to contain a disclaimer
by Stone. In editorials expressing a point of view, it may be appropriate
to have a disclaimer; in Stone's editorial involved here, we believe
Stone should have noted his connection to the Development Corporation.
This second grievance is denied as to inaccuracy
or unfairness but sustained as to the failure of the editorial to
note Stone's connection to the Development Corporation.
Letters to the editor: The third claim deals
with the newspaper's treatment of Barsness' three letters to the editor.
In each instance, the editor appended an editor's note responding
to what was said in the letter.
As a general rule, we think it best not to append
an editor's note to a letter to the editor, unless a note is needed
to correct a statement of fact or to identify the letter writer, or
perhaps to present the letter in its proper setting. An editor should
avoid using an editor's note to argue with the letter writer. To do
so is to give the editor the "last word," which will be perceived
as unfair and which ordinarily is unfair. If the editor wishes to
respond, he or she should do so in a separate personal column or in
an editorial.
Here, with respect to the letters appearing in the
issues of October 19 and October 26, the editor's notes undertook
to argue with the positions taken by Barsness in her letters and were,
therefore, inappropriate. The editor's note to the letter in the August
17 issue simply set out a quotation from Barsness' earlier statement,
but it might have been construed as arguing with the writer. The third
grievance is sustained.
Sexist terminology: Finally, grievant claims
the October 1986 editorial reference to her "pecking" at a county
official was a sexist term.
The Council finds no merit to this complaint. In
an editorial, the writer has considerable liberty to express a personal
point of view. Beyond that, we do not think in the context of the
editorial that "pecking" is to be equated with "hen-pecking." The
latter term was not used, nor do we think it was implied.
The fourth grievance is denied.
A further comment might be appropriate here. From
our observations of Barsness and Stone and their testimony, we were
impressed with their good faith, professionalism, and willingness
to communicate with each other. In an editor's note to one of Barsness'
letters, Stone wrote, "While we wouldn't [be] so naive as to assume
that no discrimination exists, we would challenge the assertion that
there is a conscious conspiracy [in the community] to keep women 'in
their place' and would suggest that even unconscious discrimination
is rapidly fading." Barsness quite properly objected that she had
not said anything about a "conscious conspiracy" or keeping women
"in their place," although she would, we are sure, point out there
is much need to raise the consciousness of people about women's rights.
Thus, in her letter, Barsness argued there was evidence to "strongly
suggest that reforms are needed in both attitudes of the local power
structure ...." We mention this exchange only to illustrate that the
newspaper does publish exchanges of views on such important matters.
Any vital community needs a public forum for the expression of viewpoints
on issues affecting the community, and it also needs people willing
to use that forum. As the above quotations and the history of this
case indicate, the Pope County Tribune and Nancy Barsness both realize
this and both are committed to the well-being of the community they
both serve.
Concurring, with some exceptions: Ashmore,
Beaulieu, Bednar, Casey, Chucker, Falkman, King, Larson, Parrish,
Persons, Ryan, Simonett, Warder
Dissenting on the first claim: Chucker
Dissenting in part on the second claim: Parrish,
Larson, Beaulieu
Dissenting on the fourth claim: Beaulieu
Further concurrence: Ashmore - It is unfortunate
the Council has missed this opportunity to guide publishers whose
interest in community economic development might conflict with the
public's right to know.
March 18, 1988
Read
Determination 72
Back
to Main Determination Index
Want
to comment? Send a message
to the News Council.
