Determination
79
Minnesota
News Council
In the Matter of the Complaint of
Raymond Ploetz against Circulating Pines
Raymond Ploetz, the complainant, appeared on his own
behalf; Andrew and Grace Gibas, co-publishers and editors, appeared
for the Circulating Pines.
Background: In the fall of 1988 Ploetz was
a candidate for Congress. In his campaign literature, Ploetz listed
his military service, stating he had taught "disarmament and counterintelligence"
while in the Army, and had served in the State Department "working
on projects to secure our embassies in Africa" and "as an expert consultant
on counter-terrorism." In an editorial on November 3, 1988, the Circulating
Pines endorsed Ploetz's opponent. Among other things, the editorial
commented, "We are not reassured by Ploetz's background of counter-terrorism
work in Africa with the Department of State. Spies, used to subterfuge
and plotting, don't make good office holders in a democratic society."
Ploetz understands that the newspaper is entitled to its editorial
opinion. He objects, however, to being identified as a "spy," which
he never was. Does the editorial's reference to complainant as a "spy"
offend standards of fairness and accuracy?
Discussion: At the hearing, Ploetz explained
that his work in counterterrorism and counter-intelligence had nothing
to do with spying. He explained a spy is one who engages in clandestine
activities, posing often under a false identity or under false pretenses.
Counter-intelligence, on the other hand, said Ploetz, involves blocking
an enemy's intelligence efforts; it may involve overt as well as covert
activities. Ploetz cited pertinent dictionary definitions in support
of his position.
On the other hand, editor Grace Gibas testified that
in her opinion "counter-intelligence" was a euphemism for espionage
and spying. She claimed the gathering of military intelligence or
the obstructing of the enemy's gathering of intelligence is often
done by "spying," the secret gathering of information. Gibas also
cited two dictionary definitions.
This dispute cannot, of course, be resolved by dictionary
quotes. The test, really, is what people reading Ploetz's campaign
literature understood the terms "counter-intelligence" and "counter-terrorism"
to mean. People will tend to evaluate these terms in the context of
today's culture, which includes movie films, novels, and the news
media, all of which describe or report on acts of terrorism, espionage,
and intrigue.
The language complained of in this case appeared
in an editorial, not a news story. In editorials, the writer is expressing
an opinion and is free to do so vigorously. Editorials, particularly,
are a way in which a newspaper is able to express its own unique personality.
The reader understands the editorial is not reporting facts but offering
a personal comment on the facts. To the extent, however, that an editorial
opinion depends on facts, the facts should be accurate and fairly
reported.
In this case the Council believes that many readers
commonly perceive the terms "counter-intelligence" and "counter-terrorism"
to be associated with spying. We conclude, therefore, that the newspaper's
use of the word "spies" (along with the negative references to subterfuge
and plotting) was within the bounds of editorial comment. Consequently,
we deny the grievance.
Whatever one might think of spies and spying is,
we suppose, a matter of opinion. Many will hold a view contrary to
that expressed in the editorial, arguing that terrorism must be countered
and that intelligence gathering is necessary and honorable. The problem
here, however, is with the editorial's assumption that, in fact, Ploetz
had engaged in clandestine, secret spying, when in fact he had not.
A more careful checking of the facts might have avoided the misunderstanding
that occurred. On the other hand, Ploetz chose to use campaign literature
that invited conflicting interpretations, and it was on the basis
of this literature that the editorial was written.
Grievance denied.
Concurring: Casey, Dornfeld, Falkman, Graham,
Hanley, Parrish, Persons, Sundin, Warder
Dissenting: Givens
Dissenting opinion: Orwoll - I dissent from
the opinion that the newspaper's use of the word "spies" was within
the bounds of editorial comment. Even if "many readers commonly perceive
the terms 'counter-intelligence' and 'counter-terrorism' to be associated
with spying" (emphasis mine), I don't believe readers equate terrorism
with counter-terrorism or counter-espionage with espionage. If the
print media are to be the guardians and indeed the promoters of the
correct use of the English language, then it behooves them to be such
guardians, and it is right to chastise them when they are not.
I agree with the Council opinion that the facts upon
which an editorial depends "should be accurate and fairly reported."
The Council agrees that Ploetz had not engaged in "clandestine, secret
spying." That was Ploetz's statement and reason for bringing the case
to the Council. If one agrees with these two statements, then one
must hold for Ploetz.
September 28, 1989
Read
Determination 80
Back
to Main Determination Index
Want
to comment? Send a message
to the News Council.
