WRITTEN SUMMARY OF

WASHINGTON NEWS COUNCIL

COMPLAINT HEARING

HUBERT LOCKE vs. THE SEATTLE TIMES

TOWN HALL SEATTLE ³ OCT. 13, 2001

WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS

The Hearing was called to order by WNC Chairman Robert Utter at 9:30 a.m. Utter welcomed those present and gave a brief description of the News Council. He noted that WNC brochures and other materials were available at the side table.

Utter asked WNC members present to introduce themselves. Present were:

PUBLIC MEMBERS ³ Bill Gates Sr., Margo Gordon, Walter Howe, Charles Nordhoff, Mike Poulson, Eddie Reed, and R.Y Woodhouse.

MEDIA MEMBERS ³ Larry Cali, Tom Cock Jr., Chuck Dunsire, Sue Frause, John Irby, and Herb Robinson.

(Unable to attend: Media Members ³ Susan Han, R.T. Nelson, Cliff Rowe, and Steve Silha; Public Members ³ Don Brunell, Pat Herbold, and Wes Uhlman.)

During the introductions, Council members Margo Gordon and Herb Robinson announced that they would participate in the discussion but would recuse themselves from voting because of close personal or professional relationships with Prof. Hubert Locke and/or The Seattle Times.

Utter declared that under the WNCÃs bylaws, half of the Council members constituted a quorum for a hearing. He said that more than half of the members were present, and there was a balance between Media and Public members, as the bylaws require. He declared that there was a proper quorum and the hearing could proceed.

Utter noted that the hearing was not a trial, but a serious discussion of the issues raised by the complaint. As non-voting chairman, he would preside and keep the proceedings on schedule, he said.

Utter said the purpose of the hearing was to consider a formal complaint by Prof. Hubert Locke against The Seattle Times. Prof. Locke submitted his complaint in August. The News CouncilÃs Executive/Complaints Committee reviewed it and determined that it raised addressable questions of journalistic performance ³ which Utter said was the WNCÃs only criterion at the initial review stage. The Council does not consider the merits at that stage. The Council accepted Prof. LockeÃs complaint, notified The Seattle Times and sent them copies of his complaint, Utter said.

The Council also sent The Times a copy of the Waiver of Right to Sue that Prof. Locke had signed. Utter noted that was an important part of the WNCÃs procedures: Requiring that complainants who want to use the News CouncilÃs process sign a waiver form, which is an enforceable contract, stating that they will not sue the media organization for libel. The News Council is an alternative to litigation, which is good for both sides, Utter said.

When The Seattle Times received the complaint, he noted, the News CouncilÃs 30-day ¦Resolution Period² began. Both sides were urged to try to reach a resolution of their dispute within 30 days. Under WNC procedures, the Council checked with them after 10 days, and again after 20 days, and offered its help ³ although Utter noted the Council is not a Mediation or Arbitration Service. However, the 30-day period expired on September 21 with the two sides unable to reach agreement, so the WNC confirmed this Hearing date and invited Prof. Locke and The Times to attend.

Utter noted that media participation in News Council hearings was entirely voluntary, and The Times had chosen not to participate today, which was their perfect right. Utter said the WNC was pleased that The Times had fully participated in the News CouncilÃs process up to this point by responding to Prof. LockeÃs complaint in detail. The exchange of letters between Prof. Locke and Michael Fancher, Executive Editor of The Seattle Times, was posted on the WNC website and printed copies were also available, Utter said.

Utter said the Council regretted that The Times had chosen not to participate. He said that the Hearing process, with an open, public exchange of views about the news mediaÃs professional performance, can play an important educational role in explaining how and why journalists do what they do. He said that the Hearings were an opportunity for members of the news media to educate citizens and be publicly accountable -- in much the same way that the media hold other institutions in our society publicly accountable.

However, he said The Timesà decision not to participate would not prejudice the News Council in any way.  The Timesà letters to Hubert Locke from Executive Editor Michael Fancher would be read into the record, and the newspaperÃs position might still prevail, Utter said. However, he noted that without The Timesà presence, Council members would be unable to ask specific questions that might arise about The Timesà decision-making process. Utter said that Fancher of The Times had been informed he could reconsider and decide to participate any time up to 9:30 a.m., when the hearing began, but he had obviously chosen not to do so.

Utter said that the Questions for Council consideration were:

            Did The Seattle Times inaccurately represent the work of the Youth Safety Task Force regarding the issue of race in:

a.      July 22 news story (¦Youth-oriented Mardi Gras task force passes on race issue²)

b.      July 24 editorial (¦Youth task force fails at its task²)

c.      July 29 ¦Inside The Times² column (¦Red lines on a map spur thoughtful talk about race²)

Utter noted that Council members had all read and reviewed the Complaint, and the exchange of letters between Prof. Locke and Michael Fancher, and they were ready to consider the matter.

Utter noted that under Council  guidelines, Media Members of the Council must recuse themselves in any cases involving media organizations where they are currently employed. Public Members of the Council must recuse themselves in any cases involving their own company or organization. Council members also could recuse themselves, or abstain from voting, if they believe they have a conflict of interest. Council members had been asked to discuss any potential conflicts of interest with him and with the Executive/Complaints Committee before the hearing. They also could choose to participate in the discussion but abstain from voting.

Utter asked if any other Council members planned to recuse themselves or to abstain from voting besides Margo Gordon and Herb Robinson. There were none.

Utter said the Hearing would then proceed. He said it would begin by having the Complainant, Prof. Locke, state his position in 15 minutes or less. Then Michael FancherÃs letters would be read into the record. Then Prof. Locke would have  time to rebut Mr. FancherÃs position. Then Utter would read a final letter from Mr. Fancher of The Times into the record.

After that, he said, the News Council would ask questions and deliberate among themselves. That would be followed by a closing statement from Prof. Locke in which any significant errors that had been introduced into the discussion during the deliberations could be addressed.

COMPLAINANTÃS CASE

Chairman Utter asked Prof. Locke to state his case in 15 minutes or less.

Locke said that his communication with The Seattle Times and the WNC had been hampered by the fact that he was living on the East Coast this fall. Consequently, he said that several important communications had been delayed or not received. He noted that he had not seen the October 4 letter from Michael Fancher until he returned to Seattle on October 11, because it apparently had been mailed only to his Seattle address. ThatÃs also when he first saw the October 10 letters from the WNC. However, Locke added that if the communications between himself and The Times had been in perfect order, it would not have changed the substance of his complaint.

He reiterated that his complaint concerned the wording of three Times stories on the work of the MayorÃs Youth Safety Task Force that he co-chaired. He said that to describe the Task ForceÃs treatment of the issue of race, the news story used the term ¦passed on,² the editorial used ¦left out,² and Michael FancherÃs column used the word ¦ignored.² Locke said that was in spite of the fact that the Task ForceÃs final report contained an entire section entitled: ¦Mardi Gras, the Media, and Race.²

Locke said that for the newspaper to state that the Task Force had not had an extended discussion of race was wrong. He called the stories ¦blatantly inaccurate.²

He noted that he had told The Times that he would be willing to meet with them to discuss their different views on the issue of race and Mardi Gras, but that was not the substance of his complaint. He referenced Michael FancherÃs letter of October 14, which stated that only the July 22 news story should be of concern to the News Council, because the editorial and column were expressions of opinion and thus beyond the CouncilÃs purview. He said he disagreed with that distinction, again stating that he believed the editorial and column had inaccurately described the Task ForceÃs work. Locke noted that he was acting alone in his complaint to the WNC, and had not sought to involve any other members of the Task Force.

He also noted that it was critically important to have an accurately informed citizenry for the proper functioning of a free and democratic society. He said this and other city governments, in times of crisis, often asked panels of citizens to sort out the complexities of controversial issues and events. If citizens are to be asked to do that, he said, and give time and attention to difficult and often-volatile issues of public concern, they should expect their work to be reported accurately by the media. He contended that The Seattle Times had not reported the Task ForceÃs work accurately in this case, and that was the substance of his complaint.

RESPONDENTÃS CASE

The Seattle Times chose not to participate in the Hearing, so WNC Chairman Bob Utter, in an effort to be ¦scrupulously fair² to The Times, read into the record Times Executive Editor Michael R. FancherÃs letter of August 28 to Prof. Locke, a copy of which was sent to the Washington News Council.

COMPLAINANTÃS REBUTTAL

WNC Chairman Utter then offered Prof. Locke a chance to rebut FancherÃs letter. Locke read part of his September 17 letter to Fancher: ¦The substance of your response is that both the news and editorial staffs of The Times take issue with the way in which the Task Force dealt with the question of race and the Mardi Gras event, as well as with the conclusions the Task Force reached—.The burden of my complaint, however, is that The Times used appallingly misleading language to express its sentiments.²

Locke stated he had no quarrel with the fact that The Times disagreed with what the Task Force did. He said his objection was that he believed The Times had used words to describe the Task ForceÃs work that, according to ¦common dictionary usage,² were inaccurate.

Locke said that The Times had chosen, he believed, to treat this matter as though it ¦involves only differences of opinion² regarding the treatment of race during the Mardi Gras events. Locke said: ¦I respectfully decline to be drawn into that argument,² reiterating his view that The Times ¦inaccurately² described the work of the Task Force by saying it did not deal with the issue of race.

RESPONDENTÃS REBUTTAL

WNC Chairman Utter then read into the record excerpts from FancherÃs letter of October 4.
 

QUESTIONS FROM WNC MEMBERS

Utter than opened the Hearing to questions from WNC members.

Sue Frause, Media Member, noted that The Seattle Times had offered Locke an opportunity to write an op-ed piece but he had declined.  She asked: ¦Can you give your reasons for that?²

Locke responded that he did not wish to, in effect, ¦accede² to The Timesà position that this dispute was a ¦matter of difference of opinion² between the two parties. He said that if The Timesà reporting was inaccurate, they should ¦say as much² and not ask him to do it in a guest column or a letter to the editor.

Tom Cock, Media Member, said his question concerned the use of words, such as  ¦punted,² ¦ignored² and ¦left out.² He asked Locke: ¦If you were a reporter—how would you characterize how race was covered as an issue?²

Locke replied that he ¦certainly would not² have said ¦left out² or ¦passed² on the issue.² He suggested that The Times stories could have reported what the Task Force report said, and could have discussed its section on race. He repeated his contention that the ¦ordinary dictionary definition² of the words ¦passed on,² ¦left out² and ¦ignored² wrongly left the impression that the Task Force ¦deliberately omitted² dealing with the topic of race in its report. ¦That I submit is not the case.²

Walt Howe, Public Member, expressed his thanks to Locke for chairing the Task Force, which represented ¦a strong sense of community responsibility and a lot of courage.² He asked two questions: Did Locke ¦respond in any way² to the P-IÃs characterization of the Task Force? And would Locke ¦go through the chronology² of how the section on race was written into the Task ForceÃs final report and what their discussion included?

Locke said he never saw the P-IÃs editorial and didnÃt know about it until he read the reference in FancherÃs October 4 letter, so he did not respond in any way. As for the chronology, he said that he and his Task Force Co-Chair, Matt Griffin, ¦from the very outset² agreed that they would ¦have to deal with this question of race.² They agreed that ¦The report would have no credibility whatsoever if we did not deal with the racial dimensions of the Mardi Gras tumult² ³ precisely because the press had made that ¦such a prominent feature of its discussion.² He said they were indeed ¦quite prepared² to have such a discussion, and that many members of the Task Force expressed ¦not only a willingness but an urgent desire² to do so.

But Locke said he was concerned over two points:

First, to do that in an open meeting ran two risks: First, people might not ¦feel free² to express their views, concerns and anxieties. He said ¦parenthetically² that while he had respect for the stateÃs Open Meetings law, ¦the quality of discussion that one gets in  open meetings leaves a lot to be desired ³ and thatÃs the most generous way I can put it.² He added: ¦I did not think therefore that we could get a qualitative discussion (of race) in an open meeting.²

Second, he said: ¦There is no way of controlling what indeed the media will choose to report² about those discussions. For example, he said that the Task Force, at its first meeting, was given by the Seattle Police Department about 40 minutes of both police and amateur videotapes of the violence at Pioneer Square, including footage of the Friday night activities that preceded the Fat Tuesday violence. He said it was ¦quite clear² that on Friday night the ¦overwhelming amount of vandalism² was committed by ¦young white youths.² He said the police made very few arrests that night, partly because they were pelted with bottles and other debris. ¦If the police had made arrests as aggressively on Friday night, as they did the following Tuesday night,² there would have been a ¦much more balanced set of arrestees.² Locke noted that of the 79 arrests after Fat Tuesday, 80% of them were ¦black youngsters.² He noted that the media had focused on that violence. He that the death on Tuesday night led to a perception that the violence was primarily racially motivated. He said that to discuss that in a public meeting would immediately involve a discussion of criticism of how the media dealt with the situation in the first place. He said that once it was clear that the Task Force would not do this in an open meeting, he drafted some language for the final report dealing with that fact. He said that the committee reviewed and discussed it at some length, but took out one relevant paragraph after some members of the Task Force objected.

Charles Dunsire, Media Member, noted that the Task ForceÃs final report said that significant factors in the Pioneer Square violence included age, gender, and economic status. He quoted the reportÃs statement that ¦Race is the easiest and least useful of such characteristics ³ least useful because it permits stereotypes to surface while telling us nothing of value for preventing reoccurrences.² Dunsire asked: ¦Why isnÃt it fair therefore to conclude² that the Task Force had decided to ignore race in seeking to determine the causes of violence?

Locke responded that the Task Force was quite clear on the numbers on arrests by race. But he added: ¦Having said that, what else are we expected to say by way of either conclusion or recommendation?² He asked: ¦Are we then to conclude that the bulk of black youths are criminally prone or should be put under some sort of criminal observation?² He said that about half of the arrestees were either high-school dropouts or had been expelled by the school system. Are we to ¦round up all black youths between the ages of 17 and 23² until Mardi Gras is over, he asked. He said that such an approach was ¦not useful.²

Eddie Reed, Public Member, said he thought it was fair to say that the Task Force did have a discussion around the issue of race. He asked if it was then also fair to say that the words used by The Times in its headlines and stories ¦had an influence on the readers² in perceiving the work of the panel.

Locke agreed that was a ¦fair characterization.² He said if he had read those stories as an average citizen, he would ¦assume² that the Task Force ¦simply did not discuss the matter of race at all.²

John Irby, Media Member, said there appeared to be ¦some agreement that the issue of race was not discussed in public² by the Task Force, and was included only in discussion of the draft of one section of the final report. He asked Locke how much time was actually spent discussing race.

Locke replied that during one two-hour meeting, about ¦a quarter² of the time was devoted to that discussion. He noted that one member of the Task Force, Seattle City Councilman Peter Steinbrueck, was ¦quite vocal² that he did not want the section on race included at all in the final report. Locke said the group spent ¦at least a half hour² discussing that section of the draft report. He said he agreed with The Timesà characterization that the Task Force ¦did not have an open, two-hour² meeting on race. ¦That, admittedly, did not occur,² he said, adding that the discussion of the draft language of the final report did occur at the last meeting.

Chuck Nordhoff, Public Member, said he was ¦somewhat handicapped² because most of what he knew about the Mardi Gras incidents and the Task ForceÃs work came from The Seattle Times. He said he was trying to make a distinction between the written report of the Task Force and its verbal deliberations. He asked Locke to what extent, during the Task ForceÃs first seven meetings, did they ¦consider race as a contributing factor to the violence and the disruptions and the death² that occurred during Mardi Gras. And, as a corollary, referring back to Tom CockÃs previous question, he asked how Locke ¦in an affirmative sense² would have written a news story about the first seven meetings.

Locke responded that the first two meetings were closed, since they occurred before the judgeÃs ruling that the meetings must be open. He said the subsequent meetings reviewed the videotapes and went over background information about the incidents and the arrestees. He noted there were several brief discussions of race in those meetings. He said that some of the violence on Fat Tuesday was by ¦black youths against other black youths,² particularly black women on other black women. He said he found it ¦quite surprising² that had not been dealt with by the media.  He said the Task Force had occasion several times to discuss race.

Nordhoff asked again how Locke would have written the stories characterizing the Task ForceÃs work.

Locke said he was ¦very happy² that the press was not there in the first two meetings, because the Task Force had material from the Seattle Police, who were still trying to identify violent perpetrators from the videotapes. He said openness could have compromised those efforts. He said he thought The Timesà editorial and Mike FancherÃs column ¦could have raked the Task Force over the coals² about its conclusions, but he still did not think The Times ¦properly used the correct language² to describe what the Task Force did. ¦ThatÃs really what the issue boils down to for me,² he said. They used ¦appallingly misleading² language.

Larry Cali, Media Member, asked if Locke thought that there was ¦fair coverage and accurate coverage² of the Task ForceÃs work by ¦other media outlets.²

Locke said that question reminded him of the paragraph that was deleted from the report. He said that he had spent ¦two gruesome days² going through every story that the print media had written about the Mardi Gras events, and had in the draft report made some critical comments about them. He said he found several stories that he found ¦reason to quarrel with,² including those in The Stranger and the Post-Intelligencer, but the panel decided not to include that paragraph.

Mike Poulson, Public Member, asked Locke if he had called Mike Fancher to try to schedule a meeting to talk about a possible resolution of the complaint, as the News Council had requested in its October 10 letter to Locke.

Locke said that he was ¦sorry² he had not made an effort to contact Fancher, as the WNC had requested. He noted that he was ¦just passing through² Seattle on this trip, and was on his way to Berkeley to chair a board meeting, and ¦just didnÃt have time² to make an attempt to reach Fancher or anyone else at The Times.

COUNCIL DELIBERATIONS

Utter said that the Council would now make comments on the case, followed by a  vote on whether or not to uphold the complaint ³ first by written ballots, then a show of hands.  He said the Council would vote on each of the three questions ³ relating to the news story, the editorial and the ¦Inside The Times² column ³ separately. Members could vote yes, no or abstain. A tie vote would mean that the complaint (or portion of the complaint) had NOT been upheld. Each memberÃs vote was public information and would be included in the written summary, Utter said.

Larry Cali, Media Member, said that it was unclear whether Michael FancherÃs column had been based on the news stories or on the report itself, and he thought that made a difference.

Bill Gates Sr., Public Member, said he was sympathetic to the notion that an ¦enormous degree of sensitivity² should be assigned to the treatment of the work of citizen Task Forces, which are ¦valuable engines of society.² He said they should not be unduly criticized because it would make people hesitant to participate. But he said he was unable to see ¦anything inaccurate² in The Timesà coverage. He said he thought the Task Force did ¦pass on² the issue of race, as the news story had reported. He said the editorialÃs statement that the group ¦fails at its task² was ¦the harshest thing² and ¦heavy stuff.² But he said that was an expression of opinion, not a statement of fact.

He noted that the News Council had discussed a similar issue in its Hearing in Olympia (Bernard Friedman vs. The Olympian), which concerned an editorial.

¦That headline (in The Times) is clearly opinion,² he said, when they say the group ¦failed at its task.² He added: ¦I yield to the proposition that the media is entitled to enormous latitude² in expressing opinion. He said it seemed to him that all the words used in The Timesà stories ¦fairly describe² what the Task Force report did. He said: ¦The harshest factual word is the word ‘ignored.ò That ¦gives me the most trouble² because it goes ¦a bit beyond what actually happened here.²

He then read the full quote from Michael FancherÃs column: ¦Most disappointing was the decision by a mayoral task force on youth safety to ignore race in exploring last springÃs Mardi Gras riots.²

Gates said: ¦When I read it in that sense, it seems to me the word loses quite a bit of its mustard.² He said that word ¦ignore² may be a bit strong, but ¦IÃm unable to get to the point of finding it inaccurate.²

As for The Timesà offer to publish an op-ed piece by Locke, Gates said he didnÃt think that had much to do with the News CouncilÃs hearings. If offering space to complainants was all the media had to do, he noted, the News Council ¦would not need to have any more of these hearings because thatÃs such a simple way out.²

Roz Woodhouse, Public Member, asked a procedural question of Chairman Utter: Should WNC members comment without expressing conclusions during this phase, or was it appropriate to express opinions? Utter said members ¦may do either.² He added that Council members could also question other members during this phase.

Woodhouse said she was moved to look at the original mission or ¦charge² of the Task Force.  She said she saw nothing ¦that they must identify race as one of the broader social issues of youth violence² on Fat Tuesday. She said ¦at no point² did it refer even to ¦broader social issues such as race.² So when she read the words ¦failed,² ¦passed on² or ¦ignored,² that suggested that the Task Force had specifically been ¦charged with doing those things.² But ¦I donÃt see that in the charge to the Task Force,² she said.

Chuck Dunsire, Media Member, said he thought there was a ¦clear distinction² between the Timesà editorial, the Fancher column, and news stories. He said the first two were clearly expressions of opinion and fair comment. So he said the question thus came down to the ¦accuracy of the news story² as to whether or not the Task Force decided to ¦pass² on the issue of race.

Walt Howe, Public Member, said: ¦First of all, I think The Seattle Times ought to be ashamed of itself² for not participating in the Hearing. ¦They have been a distinguished part of this community since the turn of the century² and ¦they hope and expect² strong community support. He said they ¦very strongly support an open dialogue of the most sensitive issues ³apparently except when they are involved,² he said.  He said this was not a de minimus issue that Prof. Locke had raised, but a concern raised by a distinguished citizen who had volunteered to take on a challenging task of great importance to the community, and of great sensitivity.

He added that the citizen Task Force ¦took the best of Dr. Locke, and it seems to me that it demands the best of the media as well. And not to be here to be a part of examining whether or not they met that standard seems to me a disservice to the community.²

He also said that as for Prof. Locke accepting The Timesà offer of an op-ed piece: ¦This is the sort of issue that could have been constructively furthered by an op-ed piece,² he said. ¦I wish that the dialogue— could have been pursued through an op-ed.² He said that the words used in the three stories were ¦clearly gray areas,² and he didnÃt like any of those words in the characterization of a citizen task force. But  to call them ¦poor journalism² was ¦a hurdle for me.²

He said that the distinction between news stories and opinion pieces was a valid one, but in the ¦total context² did not seem so unfair that the Council should condemn the newspaper.  He said he was more bothered by the news story and the headline: ¦IÃm not sure that the article and headline adequately characterize² the work of the Task Force and the degree to which it did discuss the issue of race.  He said he was undecided how he would vote and would wait until he heard other Council membersà comments.

Charles Nordhoff, Public Member, expressed ¦frustration² that ¦The Seattle Times is not here to explain itself and be open to questions.² He said he was still unable to juxtapose what Prof. Locke had characterized as ¦appallingly inaccurate² reporting on the one hand and ¦wonderfully accurate² reporting on the other hand. He said: ¦I donÃt know what the right way to report this would have been.² He said the words ¦passed on² were not purely factual or purely neutral, but were not that far away from ¦did not take up or did not explore at length.² But he said the burden was on the complainant to make it ¦crystal clear to me² what the right words might have been. Referring again to Tom CockÃs earlier question, he asked what other words might have been used, how else could the story have been written, and what would Prof. Locke have said.

Tom Cock, Media Member, said he was trying to ¦get to the usage of those words² and see what other words might have been used. He said he had to agree that he didnÃt get ¦an affirmative answer² as to how it could have been written differently. He said editorial comment gave license to pick the words that the writer wants.

Sue Frause, Media Member, said she was ¦pretty much right down the middle on this journalistically.² She said if she had been the headline writer, she would have used ¦punts,² because she likes to use sports terms. ¦I think thatÃs a little softer than  ‘passes onà the issue of race.² She added: ¦I think The Seattle Times comes across as a little bit arrogant in their response to us. I think theyÃre arrogant in that they didnÃt show up.² She said that when a paper is ¦hurling criticisms² of people who volunteer their time, ¦maybe they should criticize the format instead of the people that actually gave their time on the committee.²

John Irby, Media Member, said that Fancher made an argument for making a distinction between news stories and editorials, but that was often lost on the public. ¦Many readers do look at everything the same,² he said. ¦That is a failing on the mediaÃs part.² He said that editorial writers often will use news stories as the basis for expressing their opinions, but that was not the case here. He noted that the editorial writer had interviewed several people before writing the editorial. He said the word ¦punted² to him indicated ¦there was a ball that no one wanted, and they got rid of it.² But he said that in the news article, ¦passed on,² indicated that there was never any ball. However, he said they had explained what they were talking about when they used that phrase in the article.

Eddie Reed, Public Member, said that as a citizen in general, observing the whole scene around the Mardi Gras incidents was ¦a very divisive issue.² He said  the media had a responsibility to take into account the sensibility and climate of the community. He said the mediaÃs ¦bully pulpit² was an ¦awesome responsibility.² He said that their choices of words could either ¦create more division and more argument² or help ¦calm the waters.² He said he knew what the ¦climate of the community² was at that time, and that to see those words in the newspaper, ¦the emotion that it caused and the ripple effect it had out in the community—.was tremendous. The impact, I donÃt think we can underestimate that.²

He said he did not view the complaint as ¦merely a debate of semantics,² but as ¦an issue of responsibility.² He said asking ¦why it (the media) chooses to do what it does² was a public concern and that was the benefit of these hearings. He said: ¦I think no malice was really intended,² but it ¦was an unfortunate choice of words.² He said he was still ¦learning on the fly² what the media do, and that ¦public discourse² was a ¦very valuable thing.²

Larry Cali, Media Member, said he thought that ¦this is a debate on semantics.² He said there was a difference between ¦opinion² and ¦observation.² Asked to clarify, he asked if the term ¦passed on² was an opinion or an observation. As a reporter, he said those were two separate ways of reporting something, If it was an opinion, it took away the objectivity of a reporter. If it was an observation, that was fair reporting.

Mike Poulson, Public Member, said he ¦wanted to indicate my extreme disappointment that The Seattle Times did not see fit to come and participate in this process.² But he also said he was ¦disappointed that Prof. Locke didnÃt find some way to arrange to meet with them,² because this was the type of issue that ¦face to face, may have been worked out.²

COMPLAINANTÃS FINAL STATEMENT

Utter then said Prof. Locke could offer his rebuttal. Locke said he had ¦no rebuttal.² He said he wanted to ¦thank very genuinely this Council for accepting² his complaint, and for a ¦thoughtful, engaged and helpful discussion.² He added: ¦I have learned a great deal from the comments this morning.² He then noted that he had to catch a plane and would have to leave before the CouncilÃs final vote.

RESPONDENTÃS FINAL STATEMENT

Chairman Utter then read Michael FancherÃs October 8 letter into the record, ¦in an effort to be absolutely fair to The Times even though they are not here.²  He said the Council now had before it all the correspondence that the paper had submitted.

VOTE ON COMPLAINT

Utter said it was now time for the Council to vote on the complaint. He reminded WNC members that the complainant had the burden of proof and persuasion.

He distributed note cards to each member, and asked them to vote separately on each of the three questions and to sign their cards. 

Utter then asked Council members to mark their ballots (yes, no or abstain) as he read the questions:

 Question #1 ³ Did The Seattle Times inaccurately represent the work of the Youth Safety Task Force regarding the issue of race in its July 22 news story (¦Youth-oriented Mardi Gras task force passes on race issue²)?

Question #2 ³ Did The Seattle Times inaccurately represent the work of the Youth Safety Task Force regarding the issue of race in its July 24 editorial (¦Youth task force fails at its task²)?

Question #3 ³ Did The Seattle Times inaccurately represent the work of the Youth Safety Task Force regarding the issue of race in its July 29 ¦Inside The Times² column (¦Red lines on a map spur thoughtful talk about race²)?

Utter collected the ballots, counted the votes and announced that the complaint had been denied on all three questions. He asked for a show of hands of all those who voted ¦no² on all three issues. Then he asked for those who had voted ¦yes² on any of the three questions.  Utter said: ¦ItÃs clear that the complainantÃs complaint has not been sustained.²

On Question #1 (news story), the vote was 10-1 not to uphold the complaint.

Voting "NO" were: Larry Cali, Tom Cock, Chuck Dunsire, Sue Frause, Bill Gates Sr., Walt Howe, John Irby, Chuck Nordhoff, Mike Poulson, and Eddie Reed. Voting "YES" was: R.Y. Woodhouse.

On Question #2 (editorial), the vote was 11-0 not to uphold the complaint.

Voting "NO" were: Larry Cali, Tom Cock, Chuck Dunsire, Sue Frause, Bill Gates Sr., Walt Howe, John Irby, Chuck Nordhoff, Mike Poulson, Eddie Reed, and R.Y. Woodhouse.

On Question #3 (column), the vote was 10-1 not to uphold the complaint.

Voting "NO" were: Larry Cali, Tom Cock, Chuck Dunsire, Sue Frause, Bill Gates Sr., Walt Howe, John Irby, Chuck Nordhoff, Mike Poulson, and Eddie Reed. Voting "YES" was: R.Y. Woodhouse.
 

CLOSING REMARKS

Utter said the vote concluded the Washington News CouncilÃs Complaint Hearing. He said that a brief Press Release summarizing the results would go out soon. A Written Summary would be available and posted on the website next week.

Utter thanked members of the Council for their participation. He also thanked Prof. Locke for his participation.

Utter said it had been an intellectually honest process. The opportunity for people to express varying opinions was educational and helpful. He thanked members of the media and members of the public who attended. He said he hoped the media would report on todayÃs proceedings. He thanked TV Seattle for filming the hearing.

He said that members of the public need to know that if they feel damaged in some way by the media, and are unable to resolve their concerns with the media outlet, they now have somewhere to turn for a fair hearing of their complaint. And the media need to know that they have a forum to help educate the public about how they do their jobs. ThatÃs what the News Council is all about, he said.

The Hearing was adjourned at 11:30 a.m.

Return to top of page.