Determination
78
Minnesota
News Council
In the Matter of the Complaint of
Richard Stanek against the Minneapolis Spokesman
Presentations were made by grievant Richard W. Stanek
and Sumner Jones, assistant editor of the Spokesman.
Background: The Minneapolis Spokesman publishes
a newspaper for the Black community. A featured columnist in the newspaper
is Hobart T. Mitchell, Jr. On March 17, 1988, Mitchell wrote in his
column about an investigation conducted by Stanek as an officer of
the Minneapolis police force. Stanek was referred to as Chief Bouza's
"boy," with the further comment, "and believe me, in my opinion, he
is just that." The column stated that Stanek had not treated Black
women with respect, and if this kind of misconduct were to be tolerated,
"something will hit the fan."
Stanek denied any misconduct and objected to the
article's "one-sided view and inaccuracies" and its use of the racial
epithet. At the suggestion of the News Council's Director, Stanek
called the Spokesman and was told to call Mitchell and was given his
phone number. When Stanek called Mitchell with his complaint, Stanek
says that Mitchell was abusive. In the March 31, 1988, issue of the
Spokesman, the newspaper published an editorial in which it stated
Stanek had made a threatening phone call to Mitchell. The editorial
went on to say, "We strongly suggest that police officials look into
the conduct of Mr. Stanek in this regard. It may very well be that
the poor judgment indicated by his telephone call to Mr. Mitchell
is cause for reconsideration of his position within the Department."
Grievant's conduct was subsequently reviewed by his superiors; his
investigation report was affirmed; no adverse action was taken. Stanek
claims the newspaper article, including the "retaliatory" editorial,
was not in accordance with proper journalistic practice and caused
him great personal embarrassment and concern. In August 1988, Stanek
filed this grievance with the News Council.
On May 26, 1989, the publisher of the Spokesman responded
to Stanek's grievance. The publisher conceded that "[i]n the past
we have allowed Mr. Mitchell and others of our contributors greater
latitude than was perhaps prudent in both the content and the character
of their expression," and that the newspaper had decided to exercise
more editorial control over its contributors. At the same time, the
newspaper acknowledged the valuable contribution of Mitchell as an
important and insightful advocate for the concerns of the Black community.
The newspaper stated it was unfortunate that the article had used
"name-calling," observing that such name-calling would lose its potency
if there were a social environment in which racism was not prevalent.
The letter concluded by saying, "Both Mr. Stanek and our readers deserve
an apology for an editorial lapse which momentarily took us away from
the struggle to create such an environment."
Discussion: It is generally understood that
columnists on a newspaper write their own personal views, which are
not necessarily the view of the newspaper. Moreover, a columnist has
wide discretion in expressing his or her opinions and may do so with
vigor and pungency. To the extent a personal column relies on facts,
there is, of course, a responsibility to be accurate and fair, and
the newspaper itself must, in this regard, bear some of the responsibility.
The use of the racial epithet "boy" in the Mitchell
column was inappropriate. On this the parties agree. So does the News
Council. On this claim, the grievance is sustained.
In its "retaliatory" editorial, the Spokesman stated,
"It may very well be that the poor judgment indicated by his telephone
call to Mitchell is cause for reconsideration of his position within
the Department." In fact, however, Stanek was instructed by a person
at the Spokesman's office to call Mitchell. It was both inaccurate
and unfair to criticize Stanek for calling Mitchell and to imply that
Stanek's job should be in jeopardy for doing what the newspaper suggested
he should do. In this respect, the grievance is sustained. In its
editorial, the Spokesman did offer Stanek the opportunity to write
a letter to the editor. It is understandable, however, that Stanek
would be reluctant to accept this offer in view of the retaliatory
response his phone call to the newspaper elicited.
To the extent the grievance claims inaccuracies in
the reporting of the telephone conversation between the grievant and
the columnist or in the columnist's version of the investigation conducted
by grievant, the Council has not been provided with the facts of these
underlying disputes and is not in a position to resolve factual disputes.
Our concern, rather, is with the manner in which the dispute was handled
by the newspaper. This case illustrates the importance of a newspaper
checking out the facts upon which opinions are made. To the extent
the grievance complains of inaccuracies other than those specifically
discussed herein, the Council takes no action.
The Spokesman points out that it is ironic it should
be apologizing for a racial epithet against a police officer while
"[i]t is likely that there is not an African American above a certain
age in the Twin Cities who cannot recall being publicly insulted by
a police officer." The Spokesman claims that "[D]uring the past four
years an average of 200 complaints per year . . . have been filed
with the Minneapolis Police Department's Internal Affairs Unit" on
police use of racial epithets. There may be irony, too, in the fact
that the epithet directed against the grievant, who is white, is an
epithet particularly repugnant to African Americans.
Against this background of uneasy relations between
the Black community and the police, perhaps there is a glimmer of
hope in the fact that both Stanek and the Minneapolis Spokesman have
been willing to submit this matter to the News Council. If a social
environment free of racism is to be achieved - an environment that
the Spokesman is dedicated and to which every police department is
sworn to uphold - it is important that matters of this kind be dealt
with forthrightly.
As indicated in the above discussion, the grievance
is, in part, sustained. In part, no action is taken.
Concurring: Casey, Chucker, Falkman, Givens,
Graham, Hanley, King, Larson, Orwoll, Parrish, Pennock, Simonett,
Stauffer, Stone, Swain
June 2, 1989
Read
Determination 79
Back
to Main Determination Index
Want
to comment? Send a message
to the News Council.
