Determination
83
Minnesota
News Council
In the Matter of the Complaint of
Lifespring, Inc. against KARE-TV, Channel 11
Charles Ingrasci, Director of Corporate Affairs for Lifespring,
and Janna Krammer, director of its Twin Cities program, appeared for
the complainant. Janet Mason, News Director, accompanied by Bernie Grace,
reporter, and Thomas Tinkham, attorney, appeared for KARE-TV. The complaint
centers around issues of accuracy and fairness, of deceptive newsgathering,
and of sensationalism in the television series reporting on complainant's
program.
Background: The week of May 7, 1990, KARE-TV
aired a four-part series about the Lifespring program which had recently
come to Minnesota. The series was entitled "Mind Games?" A brief synopsis
of the program follows.
Part I. Lifespring is described as a self-improvement
personal growth program, an "exhaustive 40-hour seminar course, with
participants on an emotional roller-coaster." There are pictures of
a local seminar session, taken with a concealed camera; the pictures
are blurred to prevent identification of the people present. Two respected
citizens, both well-known in the Twin Cities area, appear on camera
and state that the Lifespring program has been of great benefit to
them. One of them, the president of a local computer company, states
he hopes his employees will take the program. On the other hand, two
other participants, one a local person, appear on camera to state
that for them the program had been psychologically disturbing. John
Hanley, the founder of Lifespring, is quoted as saying the program
is a form of education, while other persons report that the program
uses humiliating confrontational techniques.
Part II. The announcer begins by saying, "Some people
attending the self-improvement seminars call the sessions positive
and uplifting. Others call the group a cult." There are reports on
the deaths of Artie Barnett in Portland, Oregon, of David Priddle
in Eugene, Oregon, and Gail Renick in Seattle, all prior to 1980,
all allegedly attributable to an inability to handle the Lifespring
program. Members of the families and one of the attorneys are interviewed.
It is reported that lawsuits over these deaths were settled for substantial
sums. Reference is made to the secrecy of the training exercises.
A University of Minnesota psychologist, who had taken
the course and liked it, also appears on camera stating, "I don't
know what happened in the past, but from what I've seen, this is a
very conscientious, careful, ethical group. It's not a free-for-all,
it's not a cult, and they are not experimenting with people's lives."
The TV reporter closes with the comment that "a variety of controversial
exercises continue."
Part III. Appearing on camera are psychologists from
Oregon and California, plus several other persons who claim Lifespring
is a cult in the sense it is "something magical" and "surrounded by
mystery." Two officers of Lifespring are interviewed, strongly denying
any cult-like implications, pointing out there is no odd philosophy
involved and no charismatic leader. A satisfied graduate explains
that participants did not talk about what went on in the sessions
simply to preserve "the spontaneity of the experience." The television
reporter closes by saying, "While some say it is a rip-off, there
are many who defend it." Next evening, says the reporter, there will
be a report on how Lifespring is "raking in millions of dollars."
Part IV. Some controversial history of founder, John
Hanley, is related. A 1980 excerpt from ABC-TV News is shown describing
Lifespring as "One of the most controversial self-improvement groups
in the U.S." A business magazine is quoted as saying Lifespring annually
grosses millions of dollars. Hanley is reported as owning a "plush"
California estate, and a person who had attended a "guest event" complains
of the hard-sell. Various testimonials about the worth of Lifespring
are given, and the reporter notes that the program is promoted by
word of mouth, not by advertising. A satisfied Minnesota customer
states his brother and mother are taking the course, and says the
excitement and enthusiasm generated can look like a hard sell. A psychologist
states, "There's some people who can withstand this kind of emotional
intensity and there are others who cannot." The announcer says dissatisfied
customers receive refunds, less their initial registration fee.
Discussion: While Lifespring disputes various
aspects of the television report, the dispute, at bottom, is over
the essential nature of the self-improvement program. Lifespring says
it produces an educational course designed to increase personal effectiveness,
using an experiential or participatory learning model. We understand
Lifespring to agree that its training course may not be for everyone
and that care must be taken to assure that those who are not able
to handle the training are screened out. Indeed, Lifespring says it
has established such screening guidelines. Lifespring claims that
it has made changes in its program to avoid some of the problems that
occurred during its early years. Lifespring maintains that its training
course is effective and worthwhile, and that KARE-TV's portrayal of
its program was inaccurate, unfair and misleading and was sensationalist
in tone and substance.
The basic thrust of the four-part series, it seems
to us, was simply that Lifespring is controversial and to explain
the reasons for the controversy. Consequently, the television program
presented persons, both professionals and participants, on both sides
of the controversy. Some of the information in the television series
was favorable to Lifespring. Some was not. Lifespring's defense of
its program was presented with essential accuracy and fairness. At
the same time, information was also presented to rebut Lifespring's
defenses. Obviously, Lifespring would have preferred a report weighted
more to its position, and admittedly the presentation, whether pro
or con, was at times dramatic, in large part because of the capacity
of the electronic media for the visual image. In the interests of
fairness, KARE might have placed Lifespring within the context of
motivational seminars generally, which are quite popular and which
use in varying degrees confrontational play-acting models. We conclude,
however, that the station did not exceed the bounds of accuracy and
fairness in its report on a controversial subject. We might offer
two examples to illustrate our conclusion.
One of the issues receiving considerable attention
at the News Council's hearing concerned the allegation of whether
Lifespring was a cult. We do not understand the television program,
however, to have adopted the position that Lifespring was a cult,
only that some sources thought it had these characteristics. The station
properly presented rebuttal evidence that Lifespring was not a cult.
(Some members, though not all, felt the station, in fairness, should
have stated there was no evidence that Lifespring's program was a
"cult" in the common sense of that word.)
Again, on the question of whether Lifespring used
training techniques that were too confrontational, the television
report gave both sides of this issue. Significant, we think, is that
the station gave prominence to interviews with two well-known local
personalities who spoke persuasively of how the program has benefited
them. Ultimately, the merits of Lifespring will be decided not by
KARE-TV's program but by a marketplace of informed customers.
Lifespring, after the hearing, objected to the testimony
of a witness who had been brought to the hearing by the television
station. This witness was not featured in the four-part television
series, and her testimony has been disregarded by the Council. The
Council is well aware that for every witness KARE might produce, Lifespring
could produce an opposing witness.
Complainant next contends it was improper journalism
for the television reporter to obtain entrance to a Lifespring training
session posing as a typical participant, and then, with the aid of
a concealed camera, taking pictures of the proceedings. The use of
deceptive methods in newsgathering, while quite common in investigative
reporting, has always been a troubling ethical question. Deceptive
surveillance, which might be condemned if done by the government,
is generally permitted by the news media. Nevertheless, the invasion
of people's privacy raises serious ethical concerns.
Generally speaking, there must be some serious question
of the legitimacy of a particular enterprise to justify the use of
deception in obtaining information. In this case, it seems to us that
sufficient controversy surrounded the self-improvement program to
warrant the reporter's ostensible enrollment in the training course
and to use a camera to report on the activity. The use of a concealed
camera, however, presents special concerns because the camera intrudes
in a special way on the privacy of individuals. Particularly is that
true in this case where the camera intrudes on the activities of the
third-party participants who have separate privacy interests. Here
it is significant that the intrusion was lessened by the television
station blurring the picture images so no one was identifiable. It
might be noted, incidentally, that the deceptive visit to the training
session produced nothing derogatory to the Lifespring program.
The grievance is denied.
Concurring: Bednar, Casey, Chucker, Falkman,
Graham, Larson, Orwoll, Parrish, Persons, Simonett, Sundin, Swain,
Tanick, Warder
Dissenting with regard to the station's use of
a concealed camera: Chucker, Larson
June 15, 1990
Read
Determination 84
Back
to Main Determination Index
Want
to comment? Send a message
to the News Council.
