Determination
89
Minnesota
News Council
In the Matter of the Complaint of
Minneapolis Police Officer against KARE-TV, Channel 11
Grievant says that putting unrelated information related
to an earlier event poisoned a news report and unfairly prejudiced viewers
against him.
Background: On January 22, 1990, the lead
story on the Channel 11, KARE news broadcast was that "a longtime
Minneapolis vice officer and sex crimes investigator" was under police
investigation. "The investigation was ordered," announced the station,
"after KARE 11 News obtained sworn statements alleging the officer forced a woman to have sex with him to avoid a prostitution
arrest." Further, said the station, two convicted prostitutes say
they were forced into providing false statements about a well-known
Twin Cities attorney.
Next, after stating that the police chief had ordered
an immediate investigation, the station said:
"In an unrelated case, [name omitted] is currently
serving a twenty-day suspension and demotion for his handling of an
undercover sting operation. That operation turned into a beer-drinking
party involving several officers and two female strippers. [Name omitted]
was in charge of the undercover sting in which officers' behavior
was described by police officials as immoral and disgusting. Now with
an exclusive report on the latest allegations..."
The balance of the four-minute broadcast was devoted
to the new allegations. One of the prostitutes involved was interviewed
on camera and repeated the recantation of her original statement to
the police. Also interviewed on camera were the police chief and counsel
for the well-known Minneapolis attorney. The officer was quoted by the
reporter as saying the coercion charges by the women were "bull" and
that they had given their statements freely.
The grievant's complaint concerns the quotation set
out above. He claims that putting this unrelated prior episode at
the beginning of the broadcast "poisoned" the entire report that followed,
prejudicing viewers against him so that a fair evaluation of the new
charges by the viewers would be impossible. KARE, on the other hand,
says the prior episode helped identify the police officer and was
relevant information.
Decision of the News Council: The News Council
believes the information about the officer's suspension, although
unrelated to the charges then under investigation, was not improper.
The officer suggests the suspension story should have appeared later
in the broadcast, not at the beginning, but we think this was a matter
of editorial discretion and, in any event, we doubt if a different
placement would have made any significant difference.
The Council does, however, think the manner in which
the unrelated suspension story was described went too far. The story
did more than identify the officer and give the essential facts of his
suspension; it went on to say his conduct had involved "immoral and
disgusting behavior." This had the effect of inviting viewers to pre-judge
the new charges by giving credence to the prostitutes' stories that
the officer had coerced them into making false statements. It would have
been better, we think, if this inflammatory characterization had not
been interjected into an already very messy matter. To the extent
noted, we sustain the grievance. We should add that the police investigators
subsequently cleared the officer, concluding that he was "the
victim of a pack of lies," and that KARE 11 News so reported in a
follow-up story in June 1990, with appropriate prominence.
Concurring: Flemming, Gilson, Graham, Hilger,
Larson, Oliver, Parrish, Pennock
Dissenting: Parker, Simonett, Stanley
Abstaining: Orwoll
January 22, 1990
Read
Determination 90
Back
to Main Determination Index
Want
to comment? Send a message
to the News Council.
