About Us How to file a complaint Outcomes of past hearings Speaker Services Education Program Newsworthy Magazine Newsworthy TV Series Events Ethics Resources Sponsor Lists

HEARING INDEX: REPUTATION
Complaint Hearing #
Year
Decision Media Description
Misrepresentation, reputation

#21

1976

N Apple Valley Free Press Candidate thinks editorial analyzing an interview he gave for a news story maligned his character.
Sensationalized, inflammatory

#39

1979

U Minneapolis Tribune Professional boxing promoter complains that paper implied he was racist and affiliated with organized crime.
Reputation, inaccurate

#43

1981

N* St. Paul Dispatch Falsely implied that U of M professor knowingly conducted secret biological warfare research despite U ban on such research.
Inaccurate, damaged reputation

#53

1984

N Fargo Forum Story falsely charged Mahnomen police with harassment, damaging reputation of city.
Inflammatory endorsement

#79

1989

N* Circulating Pines Candidate for Congress characterized as a spy for his work in counter-intelligence for military.
Defamatory cartoon

#87

1990

N Snoose News Urban redeveloper finds cartoon to be unfair and defamatory.
Editorial impugning integrity of individual

#88

1991

N* St. Cloud Times Editorial questions athletic director's motives for citing violation of NCAA rules by a student athlete.
Unfair, damaging to reputation

#94

1992

U Mankato Free Press An article quoted a woman accusing a doctor of lying without getting doctor's side of story.
Failure to contact, damage to reputation

#102

1994

N Winona Daily News An article quoted a county commissioner quoting a constituent who asked if another commissioner was "on the take," without giving him an opportunity to respond.
Defamatory

103

1995

U Twin Cities Reader - Spouse of political candidate complains that paper defamed him by reporting that he had once had a financial interest in a "whorehouse."
TV series painted an untruthful, distorted image that damaged the reputation of airline and its employees

#105

1995

U WCCO-TV Northwest Airlines charged that WCCO-TV's two-part series on airline safety: 1) used poor sources, 2) lacked context, 3) mischaracterized documents, 4) presented information in a sensational manner, 5) contained numerous factual errors.
Bias, damage to reputation

#112

1995

N Star Tribune The University of Minnesota Women's Studies Department complains that a two-part article called the department's academic integrity into question unfairly.
School board official says story and editorial unfairly impugned the integrity of the school board

#113

1995

U Mankato Free Press A school board official charges that the paper misled the public and unfairly impugned the integrity of school board members by inaccurately reporting a vote as illegal and implying secretiveness.
Story on city tax burden unfairly damaged reputation of city administrator

#114

1995

U Sherburne County Citizen City administrator charges that article about city's bonded indebtedness contained numerous inaccuracies and unfairly called his motives and experience into question.
 Unfair characterization of reputation

#118

1998

U Star Tribune Two climatologists complained that an editorial unfairly characterized their scientific reputations.
 Column inpugned Athletic Director's integrity

123

1999

N St. Cloud Times College Athletic Director charged that columnist inpugned his integrity in inaccurate column that didn't give him a chance to tell his side of the story.
 Damaged reputation of nursing home

126

1999

N WCCO-TV Nursing home administrator complained that inaccurate and misleading impression of nursing home.
 Unfair characterization

127

2000

U Roseau Times-Region Dr. Philip Sallberg complained that a column unfairly characterized him as anti-elderly.
Unfair scapegoating

132

2000

U WCCO-TV Son of deceased architect charged that focusing only on his father's work using a widely-accepted technique in the 1970s unfairly scapegoated a man who could not defend himself.
Sensationalized 135

2004

U WCCO-TV Gold'N Plump complained a story on food safety misled viewers for ratings
Unfair characterization

136

2003

N Star Tribune Politician complained that he was unfairly characterized as homophobic and anti-Semitic by multiple media sources
Unbalanced

137

2004

U Law & Politics Politician complained that a story reported ethical charges without calling him for comment
Unbalanced

138

2004

U Wright County Journal Press Suspect in a criminal case complained that tone of media coverage before trial characterized him as guilty
Inflammatory. inaccurate

139

2005

U KMSP-TV Lions Club complained that a story attributed the actions of two members to the Club itself
Misrepresentation

142

2005

U WCCO-TV MN State Fair-goer complained that story made it appear as if he were too poor to attend
Inaccurate

144

2006

U KSTP-TV Maplewood City Council complained that story wrongly portrayed a project as "stalled"
Inaccurate, Sensationalized

145

2006

U KSTP-TV Mpls. City Council complained that story characterized a routine demolition as a malicious choice by the city
Unbalanced

146

2006

N Star Tribune Politician complained that paper did not call him for comment and used the word "antics" to describe his time in office
Defamation

147

2007

U Winona Post Professors complained that paper did not consult them in story accusing them of plagiarism
Misrepresentation

150

2007

U WCCO-TV Attendees of a tax cut rally complained that a footage mistake made it look as though they were at a Sierra Club rally
Unfair characterization

151

2007

U, U, N MN Daily A local artist complained that the student newspaper portrayed her unfairly
Misrepresentation

152

2008

U, N Woodbury Bulletin A councilman complained that an editorial about his behavior at a city meeting was inaccurate
Biased, Last-Minute Criticism

153

2008

N, N, N Duluth Budgeteer News A school board candidate complained that it was not fair to publish an editorial criticizing his campaign right before the election

 

 

 

 

KEY

U: Upheld

N: Not upheld

U/N: Aspects upheld, others not upheld

--: Unable to rule on an issue

*: written dissenting opinion on file