Determination
74
Minnesota
News Council
In the Matter of the Complaint of
Burlington Northern Railroad
vs. WCCO-TV
On June 15, 1987, on its late afternoon television
program, "Newsday," WCCO-TV presented the story of a local
business executive who spends his recreational time riding freight
trains. Burlington Northern (BN) filed a grievance with the Council
claiming the presentation was irresponsible journalism because it
glamorized an illegal, highly dangerous activity. The Council viewed
a video replay of the report and had available a written transcript
of the accompanying dialogue.
Background: In the presentation, Dave Nimmer
and Marcia Fluer interviewed Tom Steward, the freelance reporter who
accompanied the business executive in riding a Burlington Northern
freight train from the Twin Cities to LaCrosse and back. The trip
was televised. Steward began by noting, "Now, what he does is
illegal and dangerous, and to us - absolutely fascinating." The
business executive spoke of "the open-ended freedom and the adventures
and the thrill sport of really kind of living life on the edge for
a time." The camera showed the man hiding in the railroad yard,
then jumping aboard two empty grain cars. The camera caught the passing
scene, the St. Croix River, the "backs of the towns," where
we "can feel the sense of history." Steward spoke of "seductive
speeds, sounds, cutting loose and shipping out can be mesmerizing."
For the return trip, the camera showed the men hiding by some bushes,
then hopping a flatcar back to the Twin Cities, accompanied by a sunset
over the Mississippi. At one point on the trip, the business executive
was shown drinking champagne in celebration.
BN strongly objects to the report. It claims that
any entertainment value is vastly outweighed by the danger involved
in riding the rails. Because of the danger and the fatalities that
occur, BN engages in a concerted, conscientious effort to police its
railroad yards and to enforce the trespass laws. The railroad conducts
numerous safety lectures for students, warning of the dangers of playing
on and around trains. The railroad says that WCCO-TV's story tends
to frustrate its efforts to promote safety. Indeed, says BN, the atmosphere
and tenor of the televised report, both in its dialogue and in the
scenes pictured, sought to portray a dangerous, illegal activity as
"fascinating," an "unforgettable ride," and a
"thrill sport."
WCCO-TV, on the other hand, says the focus of its
presentation was not the illegal riding of railroad freight trains,
but rather a human-interest feature story about an unusual person
who engages in an unusual adventurous activity, much the same as television
reports on persons who skydive and climb mountains, or even tall buildings.
Moreover, the television station points out that the presentation
did specifically call attention to the dangers involved and the illegality
of the activity. Steward stated that riding the rails is illegal and
dangerous at the beginning of the segment. The business executive
was shown saying, "I think it's really too dangerous for most
people . . . . I really know what I'm doing and it's still dangerous,
and it's a survival sport . . . . I don't recommend it to anybody,
no." When asked why he had recommended that his trip be televised,
he replied, "[I]t would be wonderful if some people could live
it vicariously."
The night following the show, WCCO-TV reported on
viewer reaction. Two people called in who were highly critical of
the story as "advocating law-breaking" and glamorizing dangerous
and illegal activity. A third viewer, apparently a former hobo, enjoyed
the story. Marcia Fluer announced that Burlington Northern had called
"to tell us just how dangerous it is and BN officials said 55
people died hopping trains last year on BN property alone."
Decision of the News Council: The full impact
of the television report cannot, of course, be captured in this written
decision, but the foregoing description gives some picture of what
is involved.
The Burlington Northern, better than most, knows how
foolhardy trespassing on its premises and the rolling stock can be,
and the Council appreciates the railroad's concerns for the safety
of its own people and of the public. These are serious matters. If
the television story had been about "riding the rails" as
a general subject, we believe that a proper balance would have required
showing the actual dangers and hazards involved. Proper balance would
have required giving adequate time to the railroad's perspective,
explaining the safety problems presented by trespassers. But this
was not the kind of story involved here. WCCO-TV's presentation clearly
was intended to be an entertaining, human interest, adventure story
focusing on a particular individual who was leading a double life,
a staid businessman during the work week, and a free-spirited hobo
on weekends. As so presented, the Council finds the presentation was
appropriate and responsible video journalism. We think the viewing
audience (mostly older adults at the time slot shown) would find the
story interesting and entertaining.
While the report may have glamorized the business
executive, we do not think it tended to glamorize riding the rails
as such. The program did warn about the dangers from the heavy equipment
and "the characters lurking here," and did warn the activity
was illegal and that one could get arrested. The following night the
station reported the adverse comments of two viewers as well as Burlington
Northern's warning and the sober statistics on fatalities. Considering
the clearly announced focus of the television segment and viewing
the story as a whole and in context, we find that the presentation
was an entertaining adventure story responsibly reported.
The Council discussed the question of journalists'
breaking the law to get a story, and the consensus was that it occurs
more often that most people probably imagine and that the press faces
the same risk of arrest and charges as any member of the public when
breaking the law. The Council believes that taking that risk is an
editorial decision. Ron Handberg stated at the hearing that the station
understood this risk and, if the station's reporter or crew had been
caught and arrested while doing this story, the station would not
have presented a "First Amendment" defense. WCCO-TV acknowledges
that the video tapes make it obvious that WCCO personnel did trespass
on BN property. BN did not bring charges but elected instead to bring
a complaint to the News Council, alleging that the report was socially
irresponsible. We elect not to consider the question of the journalistic
integrity of the story.
Grievance denied.
Concurring: Ashmore, Casey, Dornfeld, Igoe,
Mundale, Parrish, Pennock, Simonett, Sundin, Swain, Tanick, Warder
Dissenting: McDowell, Orwoll
April 29, 1988
Read
Determination 75
Back
to Main Determination Index
Want
to comment? Send a message
to the News Council.
