Determination
94
Minnesota
News Council
In the Matter of the Complaint of
Dr. Paul Matson against the Mankato Free Press
A Mankato orthopedist complained that the newspaper ran
a story, with a display headline and photograph on the front page of
the local section, in which a woman who had picketed his office called
him a liar, but in which he did not receive an opportunity to reply.
He said the Free Press's display made it a big story in a small town
and did not adhere to the least standard of ethical fair play: "It can
take years to build up a reputation that can be destroyed (by the press)
in seconds."
Background: The woman, Mary Rosival, had had
foot surgery performed by a doctor in St. Paul and, feeling dissatisfied
with the result, asked some doctors in southern Minnesota, including
Dr. Paul Matson (the complainant) to testify on her behalf in a malpractice
suit. When Dr. Matson refused to do so, Rosival picketed his office,
holding up a sign calling him a liar.
Response of the News Organization: The Mankato
Free Press was represented at the hearing by its editor, Mike Larson,
by its night news editor, and by the reporter who covered the story.
The newspaper offered this defense:
The reporter tried to reach Dr. Matson for
comment at 4:48 p.m. on the day Rosival was photographed outside his
clinic, but a clerk told the paper Dr. Matson was away and was not
expected back in town until the evening, and that no further comment
from the office would be forthcoming.
The paper should not be held to as high a standard
as usual in this instance because the story was "spot news," meaning
that someone had seen the picketing - an unusual activity in Mankato
- and the paper had dispatched a reporter and photographer to find
out what was going on.The reporter volunteered, however, that she
had spoken by phone with Rosival a few days before this incident and
had photographed her picketing another doctor's office in Faribault
a week earlier.
Discussion: A News Council member, a former
news executive, asked the reporter if she had told the doctor's office
that the paper was planning to run a story the next day containing
a serious charge against him and that it was important for the paper
to reach him for comment. She said she had not.
The doctor said that if he had been given the opportunity
to respond to the charge that he had lied to Rosival he would have
said he had never promised to back her claim against her surgeon.
"I gave her an honest opinion (that her surgeon was not negligent)
and referred her to two noted foot surgeons for their opinions because
she didn't like mine." Dr. Matson also contends that the headline
and the photo caption might have led readers to believe that he was
the surgeon who had operated on the woman. The editor acknowledged
that possibility and said he is troubled by such lapses: "All of us
in the (news) business would hope this wouldn't happen. You've hit
a nerve."
Determination of the News Council: The complaint
is unanimously upheld. The "spot news" defense is invalid. Further,
even in "spot news" coverage, a story based on a serious charge should
have sounded an alarm for the reporter and editor, leading them to
try as hard as possible to reach Dr. Matson before the midnight deadline.
One News Council member, an experienced journalist, told the night
news editor that in the news business, seven hours (the time between
4:48 p.m., when the reporter called the doctor's office, and the deadline)
is "an eternity." The newspaper should have pursued the doctor aggressively
or, still lacking a response from him, should have held the story
until the doctor's response could have been included. There was no
significant pressure to generate a scoop on the story.
Concurring: Cytron, Graham, Handberg, Hilger,
Hoben, Huynh, Kostouros, LeGrand, Orwoll, Parker, Pennock, Peterson,
Pine, Smith, Stanley, Swain, Tanick
October 8, 1992
Read
Determination 95
Back
to Main Determination Index
Want
to comment? Send a message
to the News Council.
