Determination
85
Minnesota
News Council
In the Matter of the Complaint of
WAMM and WWW against KARE-TV, Channel 11
In February 1990, KARE-TV, Channel 11 ran a three-part
series depicting abuses in the state welfare system by welfare recipients.
At the time, certain remedial legislation was being proposed in the
legislature. The general thrust of the series was that large sums of
welfare funds were being lost because of fraudulent claims by recipients
and that the public authorities were devoting insufficient resources
and personnel to investigate the fraud. Women Against Military Madness
(WAMM) filed a complaint with the Council, claiming that the program
contained factual inaccuracies. As the basis for its complaint, WAMM
relied on a two-page fact sheet prepared by the Department of Human
Services entitled "Corrections to False or Misleading Statements in
KARE 11 Welfare Fraud Series."
A Question of Standing: On occasion, the Council
may sponsor a forum to discuss a media topic; in this setting, the
question of standing does not arise. When, however, the Council hears
a particular charge against a particular newspaper or television station,
the Council generally requires that the complaining party have standing,
i.e., some immediate, direct personal interest which is adversely
affected by the news story. The requirement of standing gives some
assurance that both sides of the dispute will be adequately presented
and represented; that the issues will be well-defined; and that due
process is accorded the party against whom the complaint is made.
WAMM is primarily devoted to peace issues, although
it points out that it considers this to include a concern for governmental
programs, especially those affecting women and including the administration
of the AFDC and food stamp programs. On the other hand, the real party
of interest would seem to be the Department of Human Services. The
Department administers and supervises the welfare system discussed
in the televised series, and the Department, in this case, prepared
a "fact sheet" disputing matters shown in the television program.
The Department, however, has declined to file a grievance.
The chairperson of a group known as the Women, Work
and Welfare Committee (WWW) was also interviewed in the KARE series.
The chairperson attended the hearing and stated her group wished to
join in the grievance. Being so advised, the Council, by a divided
vote (6 to 4), decided to entertain the grievance.
By letter, KARE stated it did not believe the (original)
grievant had proper standing to bring the complaint. The August 29
hearing (which considered the matter of standing) was adjourned until
October 18, 1990, at which time KARE representatives appeared. The
Women, Work, and Welfare Committee filed its written joinder in the
grievance, and its chairperson was also in attendance. The issues
were limited to those raised in WAMM's letter of August 7, 1990.
Background: WAMM does not object to KARE's
decision to focus its series on welfare fraud abuse. It claims, however,
that there were distorting, factual inaccuracies:
- The program stated that 1,500 to 2,000 persons
on general assistance in Minneapolis often receive their money at
the post office as general delivery. The Department of Human Services
says no general assistance checks are ever sent to a general delivery
address. While aware of Hennepin County's policy, KARE interviewed
on camera a postal employee who stated he had been handing out checks
at his window, and the reporter obtained confirmation of this from
some recipients who came to the window.
- The reporter stated that "the opportunity for
free cash and extraordinary medical benefits is a great draw" for
people to come to Minnesota from other states. The Department cites
two surveys indicating that most recipients who come to Minnesota
do so to look for work or to be near relatives or for other reasons
unrelated to welfare benefits. KARE counters that its statement
is supported by its own interviewing and research.
- KARE reported that the welfare program was "operating
in the red." Actually, it appears that the public assistance program's
expenditures exceeded estimated budgets, which is not the same as
operating at a deficit. (We think the term "operating in the red,"
while not precisely accurate, was being used here in a loose, colloquial
sense to convey a sense of the increasing cost of the government's
program.)
- The program incorrectly indicated that a recipient
going to school on school loans would lose AFDC benefits. In fact,
since 1988, school loans and grants do not affect the state's public
assistance grants, but it is true that food stamps are lost. The
television program's interview with the aid recipient attending
schools shows her stating correctly, "And they will take away our
food stamps when we get a school loan." In other words, KARE correctly
reported the situation and was not saying that AFDC benefits would
be lost. Incidentally, the Department advises that food stamp eligibility
is governed and controlled by federal law.
The grievant's final objection, posed as a question,
is "Why did the series emphasize fraud of AFDC mothers when their
allocations are such a small proportion of the entire public assistance
budget?" It is undisputed some welfare recipient fraud exists; indeed,
the program so documents. The question is whether the abuse is as
serious as KARE seems to suggest.
Decision of the News Council: The Council
concludes that the complaint of factual inaccuracies with respect
to the foregoing four statements should be denied.
KARE correctly reported that Minnesota's total public
assistance budget for the fiscal year of 1989 was $1.87 billion. It
appears, however, that 71.8% ($1.34 billion) of the budget goes for
medical assistance. The medical assistance program has problems with
fraud too, but with provider, not recipient fraud. KARE's program
focused on recipient fraud, which occurs in the AFDC program (Aid
to Families with Dependent Children) and general assistance. These
two programs account for 19.5% ($360 million) of the total welfare
budget. The remaining 8.7% of the budget ($170 million) is for food
stamps and state supplemental aid for the aged, blind, and disabled.
KARE's program did not give a breakdown of the total welfare budget
so that its presentation on recipient fraud was not as clear as it
might have been.
KARE did report estimates of recipient fraud as high
as 10% in the AFDC and general assistance programs. The Department
believes the incidence of fraud is much less. While the amount of
recipient fraud is difficult to determine and, relative to that total
amount of funds being administered, may not be quite as serious a
problem as the television program suggests, it cannot be said that
the actual sums involved are not significant or that the subject was
not deserving of public attention. Arguably, the television program
might have also reported on the great majority of aid recipients who
do not abuse the system and the good that is being accomplished by
the system. The focus of the series, however, was on one aspect of
the aid program, and it was within the editorial discretion of the
television station not to dilute the focus.
Concurring: Falkman, Graham, Hanley, Orwoll,
Pennock, Simonett, Swain
Abstaining: Stauffer
Dissenting: Ashmore, Tanick, Warder
Special Abstention: Dornfeld, Parrish - We
dissent from the Council's decision to accept this grievance. In accepting
this, the Council ignored its own procedures and rules requiring:
- That the grievant be a party that was involved
in the story as either a subject or a source; and
- That the grievant first lodge his or her complaint
with the news organization involved and exhaust all possible remedies
for redress.
In this case, members of WAMM were neither the subject
nor the source of the KARE-TV stories, nor did they lodge any specific
complaint with the station or seek redress.
The chairperson of Women, Work and Welfare, who later
joined in the complaint, was quoted in at least one of the stories.
But she did not allege that she was quoted inaccurately or unfairly
and did not go to the station with any complaint.
In accepting this case for hearing, the Council sets
a dangerous precedent - one that any interest group could use to lodge
a complaint against any news organization about any story. It runs
the risk of turning the Minnesota News Council into a forum for political
debate rather than a vehicle for airing legitimate complaints that
cannot be resolved between the parties.
August 29, 1990
Read
Determination 86
Back
to Main Determination Index
Want
to comment? Send a message
to the News Council.
