Determination
98
Minnesota
News Council
In the Matter of the Complaint of
Chief John Laux, Minneapolis Police Dept. vs.
KARE-TV
Attending the hearing was Minneapolis Police Chief
John Laux. KARE-TV declined to attend, or to respond in writing. This
hearing was televised on Minneapolis Telecommunications Network. Chairman
John Simonett did not attend or participate in the hearing because
two complaints relating to the homicide case could lead to appeals
before the Minnesota Supreme Court, of which he is a member. Vice
Chairman Ron Graham chaired the hearing.
Chief Laux brought three complaints before the Council:
- KARE-TV did not observe acceptable journalistic
standards when it transported a murder suspect from Chicago to Minneapolis
without informing the police in either city, the pilot of the plane,
or the driver of the hired van.
- KARE-TV did not observe acceptable journalistic
standards, nor did it show appropriate regard for the safety of
a witness under police protection, when it located and attempted
to contact a witness.
- KARE-TV contributed to a "circus" atmosphere
in a different case when it arrived at the scene of a suspect's
surrender at police headquarters with the suspect's girlfriend,
who was then under police surveillance.
Response of the news organization: KARE-TV
declined to attend or participate in the hearing, but had responded
to Laux and others. Rick Kupchella, the reporter, said the TV crew
tried to get McKenzie (the murder suspect) to turn himself in in Chicago
but he refused. Tom Lindner, station manager, pointed out that the
news media often bring in suspects in Chicago, Los Angeles and New
York. Lindner told Star Tribune reporters that the deciding factor
in KARE's decision was "the persuasive argument from the United
for Peace people that McKenzie would not turn himself in without,
as they called it, the protection of a camera."
Background: On September 25, 1992, police officer
Jerry Haaf was shot to death. Several suspects were arrested and another,
Mwati McKenzie, was being sought. Rev. Jerry McAfee and members of
United for Peace, a gang coalition, urged McKenzie to turn himself
in and orchestrated his return to Minneapolis from Chicago. They offered
KARE-TV a deal: KARE would provide transportation and the presence
of a camera (to ensure safety for the suspect) in exchange for exclusive
coverage.
On November 23, 1992, KARE-TV, without notifying police
in Minneapolis or Chicago, chartered a private plane and a van to
pick up McKenzie on Chicago's South Side and return him to Minneapolis.
They did not notify the airplane pilot of the identity of his passenger.
At this same time, police were looking for the suspect. In a different
case occurring a short time later, a suspected serial rapist's surrender
at City Hall became what Chief Laux called a "media circus"
when KARE-TV rode in a van with the suspect's girlfriend and police
believed the suspect was in the van. Laux spoke with KARE-TV management
about these events and said the station assured him it would henceforth
cooperate with the police. As a result, he chose not to complain to
the News Council.
In April of 1993, KARE's attempts to locate and interview
a protected witness in the Haaf murder forced police to relocate the
witness. The witness was living in a duplex that was the site of an
arson fire. KARE reported that it might have been set in connection
with the witness, although police say they informed the station at
least an hour prior to broadcast that the fire was related to the
other tenant in the building.
After this incident, Laux decided to pursue a complaint
with the News Council, feeling that KARE's actions had violated the
spirit of their earlier agreement.
Supplemental Background Information was provided
to Council members to assist them in considering the issues this case
presented. The hand-out is excerpted here.
What should be the nature of the relationship between
a news organization and the law-enforcement arm of government? The
fact is, news organizations and police departments cooperate on many
levels:
- News outlets publish descriptions of suspects to
help police apprehend them.
- Police make suspects available to be photographed;
this helps the media illustrate stories and helps police influence
public opinion.
- News outlets sometimes agree to hold stories until
police have made arrests; thus, suspects will not be forewarned,
and officers will not be endangered. Police sometimes guarantee
exclusivity to reward media restraint.
- News outlets rely heavily on public records of
police work to generate a significant percentage of stories.
- Some news outlets have agreed to turn over the
product of their reporting, including notes and out-takes and to
testify for the prosecution in return for special consideration
from the police on stories.
On the other hand, journalists and police often find
themselves in adversarial positions. Sometimes the police won't provide
information; sometimes the media won't shape their digging and reporting
to police preferences.
In 1981, the National News Council surveyed news managers
in print and broadcasting and produced a booklet entitled, "Covering
Crime: How Much Press-Police Cooperation? How Little?" Even if
events cited in the complaints under discussion here don't match those
discussed in the booklet, the questions seem universal. The booklet
- by A.H. Raskin, former reporter and editor at The New York Times
- begins with a note of caution:
"In few areas of journalism are the boundary
lines of appropriate cooperation more difficult to define - or more
elastic in practice - than those that editors, news directors, and
reporters apply in their relations with the police and other law-enforcement
agencies....
"There is virtual unanimity within journalism,
print and electronic alike, that the primary obligation of the press
in reporting about criminal activity is to serve, both in fact and
in public perception, as an instrument of public information, not
as an arm of law-enforcement. But the consensus on keeping this
precept paramount leaves latitude for wide differences on where,
if at all, to fix the boundary of exchange of information or other
forms of cooperation by news personnel with police authorities.
"So profound are such differences in the approach
of individual news organizations, and so frequent the switches of
stance within any single organization, that spot judgment seems
much more likely than any hard-and-fast rule to govern the response
of editors. In each new situation, effective crime coverage may
require a decision blurring the lines of separation these same editors
normally seek to maintain as essential to public confidence in their
integrity as gatherers and communicators of news."
A common outgrowth of the press-police relationship
is the ride-along story, in which a reporter accompanies the police
on a patrol or arrest assignment. Sometimes the police want the reporter
to testify in court to help their case. The booklet quotes Claude
Sitton, then editor of the Raleigh (NC) News & Observer, who was chairman
of the ethics committee of the American Society of Newspaper Editors.
He spoke for the majority of editors when he said that a news outlet's
acceptance of such an invitation should never carry with it an abridgment
of the media's right to challenge police demands upon the media for
information or testimony: "One of the most important functions
of the press," Sitton said, "is the observation of governmental
agencies in the performance of their duties."
Another editor, Eugene Patterson of the St. Petersburg
(Fla) Times, said, "Our obligation is to report to the public,
not to the police. When the press and the police become partners,
the public had better start worrying. Under exceptional circumstances,
such as the impending escape of a criminal, the press has a citizen's
obligation to call the police."
Here is a sample of editors' opinions on the press-police
relationship:
Frank Wetzel, Daily Journal-American, Bellevue, Wash.:
"The press must publicly acknowledge from time to time that its
members are members of the human race, citizens of the United States,
and covered by other amendments than the First. At the same time,
the press must make it clear that it is above suspicion insofar as
being an agent of the law enforcers. This is best accom-plished by
discussion in print at times the press is not under duress. These
are not matters that permit distinct line-drawing. They are blurry;
they are grada-tions of gray; they must be worked out situationally,
on a story-by-story basis." Michael Davies, Kansas City Star
and The Times, Mo.: "We probably should worry more about being
seen as an instrument of the police than as being arrogant or hostile
(although that is a problem). (There is) public good in having sources
who speak freely because they do not look upon reporters as government
agents. In the long run, the latter is more important than the former.
Law enforcement usually has other alternatives to our cooperation,
but we have no means of compensating for a loss of credibility or
sources. We have our job and law enforcement has its job. The two
should remain distinct." What we have here, to a large extent,
is a conflict of values:
- The police, deputized to control misbehavior, also
try to control the flow of information.
- The media, self-appointed but expected by the public
to find out what's going on, are not satisfied to wait for news
conference with official pronouncements.
Chief Laux contends that KARE's behavior endangered
TV crews, innocent people and police officers. A question journalists
ask themselves is whether the value of the story they are trying to
get and tell outweighs the harm its pursuit and telling may cause.
Discussion and Determination: Council members
asked Laux what he felt would have been responsible actions and Laux
responded that at the point of meeting in Chicago, the video crew
should have notified the Chicago police. He asked, "Does a 19-year-old
murder suspect run the system? He's calling the shots!"
It was pointed out that KARE-TV had kept its minimum
obligation, that of bringing the suspect to the authorities. Laux
said they had become obligated to a promise they should not have made
- transporting a suspect across state lines. He pointed out that police
have worked with reporters in unusual ways in the past and that cameras
have been invited along, but that is a process of negotiation.
When asked if he would rather the station had left
it alone or been involved in the turn-in, Laux said he would rather
see the suspect turned in, but that it needn't have been an absolute
- only police or only media - case.
Council member John Kostouros asked if this kind of
thing didn't happen all the time, as when attorneys bring in their
clients. Laux pointed out that that situation is different. In the
case of the media, there is a clear responsibility to report and not
make the news.
Council members asked Laux what he felt would have
been responsible action on the part of KARE-TV: to notify police?
Laux said that was not enough, there would still have been safety
and security issues. What if KARE had frisked the suspect and informed
the driver and pilot? Laux said that would be good, but the station
still doesn't have the right to participate in this kind of activity.
Council member Don Smith asked Laux if he was complaining
because he was embarrassed by a TV station delivering a suspect the
police oculdn't find. Laux said he was embarrassed but that embarrassment
was not what motivated him.
Determination 1: The News Council upheld the
grievance that KARE-TV did not observe accepted journalistic principles
when it transported the murder suspect. It noted that while the intention
was honorable, KARE-TV overlooked some important guiding principles,
specifically: neutrality, independence, (should act on one's own,
and not usurp the role of the police) "story-buying," and
minimizing harm and the potential for harm.
In defending KARE's actions, Council member Ron Handberg
noted that KARE-TV was serving the public good by assuring the safe
return of a suspect, but he was disappointed that the station made
no effort to contact the police.
Kostouros disagreed with the idea that KARE-TV "bought"
the story by its provision of transportation. "People use journalists
all the time to get what they want. That's negotiation." Kostouros
said that while it was unwise to subject employees to danger, it was
not wrong. But Council members agreed that the uninformed parties
involved in the transportation were wrongly put at risk.
Concurring: Covington, Cytron, Graham, Handberg,
Hoben, Huynh, Parker, Pennock, Peterson, Pumarlo, Reeder, Smith, Stanley,
Van Pilsum
Dissenting: Hilger, Kostouros
Abstaining: Sorensen
Dissenting Opinion: Hilger - Police Chief John
Laux complained that KARE-TV violated journalistic standards when
it chartered a plane and hired a van to transport Mwati McKenzie from
Chicago to Minneapolis to surrender.
I agree that KARE-TV took unusual risks. It became
a news player instead of reporter. It is not trained in law enforcement.
In other words, it was out of its element. It risked a huge loss of
credibility were something unforeseen to occur. It risked human life,
lawsuits and public disdain were the fugitive to incite a gang vs.
gang or gang vs. police crossfire.
KARE-TV did not appear at the hearing. I can only
assume that it took extraordinary steps to insure any of the above
did not happen. Further, despite Chief Laux's complaint, a public
good was accomplished with the return of a suspected police killer.
Whether the police could have done the job as efficiently is an unanswered
question.
In sum, there are times when mitigating circumstances
present themselves, as when a fugitive demands the media accompany
him to the police for fear of police mistreatment. This, plus a major
"scoop," justifies this KARE-TV action.
Complaint 2 Discussion: Council member asked
Laux if the story on the arson fire was accurate. Laux said that he
hadn't ruled out the possibility that the fire may have been set in
retaliation against the witness, but that he strongly suspected it
had to do with the other tenant. He said police told the stations
between 4:30 and 4:45 that they didn't' want the story to include
a Haaf angle because they wanted to protect the witness and because
they believed the fire involved to the other tenant.
Council member Hilger asked about KARE's attempts
to contact the witness. Laux said that after the story about the fire
and the location of the witness was broadcast, they moved her to another
house. The witness told police that KARE had found her at the new
location and was trying to contact her and so she was moved again.
Graham pointed out that if a good reporter could find her, then others
could too, so perhaps it was a good idea to move her again.
Determination 2: In an 8-7 vote, the Council
upheld the grievance that KARE-TV did not observe acceptable journalistic
practice when it compromised the safety of a witness under police
protection. While it is the media's responsi-bility to pursue a story,
Council members suggested that there might be ways to contact the
witness through her family. KARE-TV's absence made this a more difficult
decision, as it was unclear how the witness had been pursued.
Concurring: Cytron, Hilger, Hoben, Huynh, Kostouros,
Pennock, Peterson, Pumarlo
Dissenting: Covington, Graham, Handberg, Pine,
Smith, Stanley, Van Pilsum
Abstaining: Reeder, Sorensen
Complaint 3 Determination: The Council voted
to deny Laux's complaint that KARE-TV's ride with a serial rape suspect's
girlfriend at the time of his surrender created a "circus"
atmosphere and made an already volatile situation more dangerous.
In differentiating this complaint from the turn-in of the murder suspect,
Council members noted that they saw little potential danger and that
KARE had not initiated this event.
Concurring: Covington, Cytron, Graham, Handberg,
Hoben, Huynh, Kostouros, Peterson, Pine, Pumarlo, Smith, Stanley,
Van Pilsum
Dissenting: Hilger
Abstaining: Sorensen
June 17, 1993
Read
Determination 99
Back
to Main Determination Index
Want
to comment? Send a message
to the News Council.
