Determination
96
Minnesota
News Council
In the Matter of the Complaint of
Pam Coyle against the Austin Daily Herald
Present at the hearing were Pam Coyle, a police dispatcher
in Austin, Minn., and newspaper representatives Larry Antony, publisher,
and Jim Negen, managing editor.
Coyle complains on two issues:
- That an item under the headline "Police Report"
inaccurately stated that her job status had been discussed at a
city/county Law Enforcement Commission meeting, when it had not.
- That the paper treated her unfairly by running
10 items in its editorial-page feature "Anonymous Comments,"
criticizing her and calling for her dismissal from her job.
Background: In the fall of 1991, Pam Coyle
turned herself in and was convicted of misdemeanor shoplifting in
Rochester, Minn. When she voluntarily reported that fact to her supervisors
during a Law Enforcement Committee meeting, the newspaper, acting
on a tip, reported that her job status had come up for discussion
at a public meeting in a December 5 Police Report column, which read
in part:
"The status of a Law Enforcement Center dispatcher's
job was discussed Tuesday afternoon at a joint city/county Law Enforcement
Commission meeting.
"Pam Coyle, the supervisor of dispatchers,
was recently charged with a petty misdemeanor for shoplifting in
Olmsted County District Court."
No reporter was present at the meeting. That column
generally includes items picked up from the police department: accidents,
break-ins, anything found on a crime report.
Over a period of six days, a spate of anonymous phoned-in
comments appeared in the paper criticizing her and calling for her
dismissal. Coyle believes they were all the work of one disgruntled
former employee, but has no evidence of that. There is no mechanism
at the paper to determine if all the comments came from one person.
Coyle says that friends and coworkers called and wrote in support
of her but that those comments were not published.
Coyle contends that Herald policy on anonymous comments
at the time of her complaint could allow an individual to carry on
a personal vendetta. She contacted the publisher, Larry Antony, and
he assured her that no more comments would appear unless a new issue
was raised, but on September 25, 1992, another anonymous comment appeared
in the paper. She then contacted the Minnesota News Council.
Media outlet response: The newspaper contends
that it checked the veracity of the anonymous tip on the news item
and found that Coyle had indeed been convicted of misdemeanor shoplifting.
Further, the editor believed that, given her position as a government
employee, it was newsworthy.
NOTE: the newspaper has now changed its policy
on the number of comments that may appear about one particular item
or issue, in part in response to Coyle's complaint. The paper encourages
people to leave their name and phone number so it can verify authenticity,
but most do not and the paper will publish the comments regardless.
Negen said they received no letters or calls supporting Coyle that
it did not published.
Discussion and Determination Complaint 1:
Police Report - While the information about Coyle's misdemeanor
charge was true, some Council members felt it was unfair to include
it in a local crime report when it was not a local crime. While the
newspaper justified its coverage by saying she was a government employee
and should be held accountable, Council member Kostouros pointed out
that she is a low-level supervisor, not an elected official. The lead
paragraph was judged by the Council, on a 7-6 vote, to be inaccurate
and misleading and the grievance is upheld.
Concurring: Hilger, Orwoll, Parrish, Dornfeld,
Kostouros, Hoben, Peterson
Dissenting: Larson, Parker, Smith, Simonett,
Handberg, Pennock
Complaint 2: Anonymous Comments - Anonymous
comment columns are one of the fastest-growing features in American
newspapers. Council member Donald Smith, editor and publisher of the
Monticello Times, said that some editors think the feature is the
best thing that has happened to papers, increasing reader interest
and community activism, and drawing out opinions from those who normally
would not speak out.
Others, Smith said, believe it amounts to yellow journalism
when editors fail to verify allegations made in comments. If newspapers
refuse to run unsigned letters in their Letters to the Editor column,
why would they run anonymous phoned-in comments? He said that newspapers
that do not verify facts run the risk of losing credibility. Negen
said that most comments regarded not fact, but opinion.
Andy Hilger, radio station owner in St. Cloud, said
that while his station does take anonymous calls, it realizes that
it has an obligation to get responses from parties who are attacked.
He asked if Coyle was invited to respond and Negen said she was not.
Council members noted that there appeared to be few or no criteria
for publishing anonymous comments and that this feature could easily
be used to manipulate and damage others. Council member Ron Handberg,
a former TV news director and general manger, suggested that rules
needed to be applied: in particular, the newspaper should consider
not allowing personal comments about private citizens. While the newspaper
reports that it has instituted a policy of not allowing more than
one comment on an issue, which would avoid repeating this type of
complaint, Council members do not see this as a useful rule. How do
you show a groundswell of opinion if you limit comments to only one?
The Council voted 9 to 4 to uphold the complaint that
Coyle was treated unfairly in the Anonymous Comments column.
Concurring: Peterson, Hoben, Smith, Handberg,
Pennock, Parrish, Dornfeld, Kostouros, Simonett
Dissenting: Parker, Hilger, Larson, Orwoll
December 10, 1992
Read
Determination 97
Back
to Main Determination Index
Want
to comment? Send a message
to the News Council.
