NewsNight Minnesota; 3142; NewsNight Minnesota Episode from 05/08/1996; SD-Base

That was it. Tonight on NEWSNIGHT the states anglers prepare to do battle with Minnesota's fish

and Minnesota's fishing opponents. Just another fish story. We'll take a look. Also tonight the Supreme Court considers whether News reporters are getting a story or gathering evidence gathering crime and fluff is what one state lawmaker says most TV reporters are up to was cost conscious. Yes and residents say the tower might have to go. But others say that argument doesn't hold water. That's all tonight on NEWSNIGHT. Tonight's broadcast of NEWSNIGHT Minnesota's presented in part by Norwest banks contributing to the growth of the Twin Cities to support and community service. Thanks for tuning in we've got all those stories commentary and headlines and that's where we'll start. Harvard is sitting in for Ken St. IN THE NEWS ROOM Lou. Thanks Kathy got a lot to cover today DFL State Representative Jeff Bertram says he will not seek re-election this year. The House censured Bertram earlier this year after finding he harassed and intimidated some constituents.

But Bertram says he is leaving his politics now because he wants to spend more time with his family. He says he plans to return to the family farm and finish his bachelor's degree but he's not ruling out a future run for political office. Bertram was elected to the house in one thousand eighty six earlier this year his brother Joe resigned from the state senate after being convicted of shoplifting. It is a story we talked about last night on NEWSNIGHT Senator Rod Grams today introduced his bill to straighten out the Boundary Waters Canoe Area dispute. His proposal would set up a local advisory councils for the BW CA and reopened three motorized airports just broken promises increasing encroachment by the federal government has led to a region of our state being overtaken by Washington bureaucrats their rules and regulations and the restrictions on public access and input. It is time the original boundary waters law on its head and it's prevented many of us from enjoying the same natural resources that our mothers and fathers cared for over the years well enough is enough. It's time to return to the original intent of the Boundary Waters legislation to give the public

access to the natural resources which surround them and to give Minnesotans a say in how their land is managed. And my legislation will do just that. Grams is the third proposal to make it to the legislation stage along with representatives Jim Oberstar and Bruce vent hose. Yesterday Senator Paul Wellstone asked federal mediators to step into the dispute. Two years of probation 200 hours of community service and a $50000 fine. That was the sentence today for Richard Condie. Now County was the man in charge of the University of Minnesota's unregulated drug program. He had pleaded guilty to conspiracy tax evasion and misappropriation of university property. Then he turned state's evidence against his former coworker Dr. John and Jerry and ironically Najarian was acquitted found not guilty of those charges despite Candy's lengthy testimony. But Judge Richard Kyle took county's help into consideration today when he decided against jail time. Inside the courtroom Candy said I am sorry that my conduct

contributed to the loss of this lifesaving drug and I apologize to my wife and family for putting them through this ordeal. On the sidewalk outside the courtroom kindy was a man of few words. Well I'm relieved. It's been a very very long ordeal. I was satisfied if it was the right thing to do. It was all we're hoping we're hoping the judge would do and that's what he did. Candy had already paid a one hundred eleven thousand dollars in back taxes and money owed to the U of M.. But now it lay is the other figure in the AIG fiasco to plead guilty and turn state's evidence in the failed case against Najarian has yet to be sentenced. Most lawmakers spend their time dealing with the nuts and bolts of politics a new project here and there an adjustment. Education taxes transportation. But Minneapolis DFL are Myron Orfield has always done things. How can we say it a bit differently. His legislative interests read more like a college syllabus rather than a legislative agenda things such as tax revenue sharing and redistribution of wealth.

Metro wide consolidation of services stuff there certainly keep citizen League members up late at night all this week. Myron Orfield added another big topic to his legislative agenda. Local media analysis this week or Phil released a study detailing News 10 10 for 20 cities television newscasts and the shocking findings are perhaps not to show such shocking findings is the fact that the newscasts are dominated by commercials crime and fluff. Well with all of that in mind we had to bring you out here that or feel. Tell me when you did the study in the first place. A lot of people would say and keep in mind that television stations are a business. Take your basic sugar coated cereal. It's not good for your health over a long period of time will probably make you think. So how is that different from television. Well a couple of things. The crime rates for the metro area in the state have been declining since the late 70s. And just like they are in most parts of the country. But over and over again we look at our polling data it's the public's biggest concern and it's really with the only area of the state right now where we're spending big new money is building prisons and building the

facilities for crime a lot of things there. It's an important issue. It's a very serious issue it's something that deserves lots of attention in the media but there's other things too. Is education is health care. Is access to employment. There's the changing nature of the economy there's lots of other things going on and I think that crime. I used to think that crime was affecting our politics and I think the coverage on television news is shaping it much more than I ever realized before. Now I know I'm just reading a few articles and just catching a bit of the study you've done that you are not at all proposing any sort of censorship or legislative involvement in. No I think the First Amendment is a beautiful majestic thing and it protects the press and there is we should not transgress that in any sense but I think we have a right to talk about this and I think that the television stations you know people are working harder now than they were before. It's their main conduit to politics what's happening in the society and all they're getting is a steady gos of crime and fluff and I think has a big effect on politics and I think it's something we have to talk about and discuss if nothing else so that we understand if the if the television news is going to stay that way which it probably well

we should at least realize a public hopefully can realize that there's other things happening to know you're keeping in mind and I've been in the business 24 plus years. They did try a program a few years ago Piya magazine. Nobody was running. What are the. So what are only supposed to do that you know people what do you feel. I think that's true and you see television shows like hard copy and Inside Edition and cops they have wonderful ratings Rupert Murdoch is a multimillionaire he's really figured out how to tap into what people want to see and I think that's life and that's that's American that's how things happen but maybe we should start to call the local news the local hard copy or the local cops or the local Inside Edition so that people at least realize that what they're watching is entertainment and a way to make a lot of money for the television stations but isn't necessarily representative of all the things that are happening in the society. Have you done studies in other cities to find out. Well I've read studies in other cities and it's very much the same I mean more and more crime in the coverage of crime in the last year of national surveys have shown is up almost 20 percent

across the country and as the crime rates across the country declined. And but in the public sphere is up dramatically. All right think of stations like Channel 10 because we don't subscribe to that one bit. Well thanks for coming on thank you. Myron Orfield and it could have been a music marketers nightmare but it turns out that the lot of palooza crowd won't be making a pilgrimage to the foot stomping grounds of the WI fest in Detroit Lakes after all promoters were trying to lure the alternative rock tour which came to St. Paul's hereon island in 1904 to the side of the big country music festival. But instead the Lollapalooza tour is headed to that hotbed of rock music believe it or not Rockford Illinois. Incidentally the WI Fest will go on as scheduled at the Pasa ranch August 2nd through the 4th. It is a sellout and that is it from the news from Cathy Rockford Illinois. Well you know you never can tell. I've just been a couple of days there. Thank you. Imagine if you will that you're charged with a crime.

There's only one witness and you want that person to testify but they won't. Saying that their information is protected by state and federal law. Well that's the basic scenario of a case heard by the state Supreme Court this morning. A case that could have an impact on how the media covered crime in Minnesota. You see the witness in question is a photographer for the same Paul Pioneer Press newspaper. He was doing what reporters and photographers do all the time. A ride along with police for a story about crime. His attorneys claim he doesn't have to testify about what he saw because he's a journalist and his information is protected under a state statute called a shield law as well as by the First Amendment right to freedom of the press. But the attorney for the alleged criminal argued that a witness is a witness. Journalists are not. Attorney Kelly Malone O'Neil joins us tonight. So does Paul Hanna. He's a media attorney he argued the case for the photographer in question. Welcome to both of you. Kelly first question to you explain if you would please why a journalist should not get the extra protection afforded by a shield law.

Thank you. Are the United States Supreme Court has spoken to this issue and they have said that there is no privilege that would protect a reporter unless he's protecting a confidential source. In this case there is no confidential source. The reporter was on a ride along in the police car he witnessed the stop the search the seizure and the entire rest of Steven Turner. There is no confidential source. Our legislature did enact what's called a shield law which does also afford reporters protection if they are protecting a confidential source. Again that statute does not apply. It clearly does not apply in a court of appeals has spoken to that issue and also determined that it does not apply. Well Paul you disagree with this. I do and that's one of the reasons this is such an important case. The statute that we're talking about has been in existence for 23 years now. And this court the Supreme Court of Minnesota has never really dissected it never really analyzed it. Our position is that it's a little

broader than that. What we what we basically say is that because reporters and photographers are always at the scenes of crime very often right in the middle of what's going on that they need a little bit of protection are also going to be spending most of their time testifying in courtrooms for Kelly's clients as opposed to trying to do their job of reporting the news. And we say that's the reason for the shield law. We see it broader in scope in protecting not only confidential sources but the information that the reporters and photographers may get that they don't necessarily publish. And it's not that these people aren't going to ever testify. It's our position that the the law really requires only that someone like Kelly's client come forward and explain why they thought the information was relevant whether or not they could get it from another source and whether or not there's a real need for it so it's a qualified privilege. If she were able to prove that our photographer would be there testifying and showing everybody's photographs you know the greater good for as a defense attorney

is the search for truth. We just want to report it to testify about what he saw. I think I could damage his credibility could it not. As a as a journalist to testify. I don't believe so not in this case he has published a photograph of a hand holding pieces of crack cocaine and underneath the photograph the caption read the police officer stopped Stephen Turner because they thought they saw a drug deal go down. The police officer who arrested Stephen Turner in the complaint that was filed in district court indicated that Steven Turner was stopped because they thought he was in fact someone else who had an active warrant for his arrest. So we have two conflicting stories. That's why we need both persons to testify. Paul what is all this about. And I ask you that because the society professional journalists the minister the chapters you know had a hearing at the legislature this past session it was an informational hearing about the shield law and challenges to the shield law what's going on here what are the motivations behind many of these challenges. Well you know the problem is is in any one particular case it's not going to be a real burden

for the for the photographer here to come forward and spend a couple hours in the courtroom. Developed his photographs bring them to the judge let the judge see them. But if you multiply that by the number of times that this photographer may be taking pictures that might be of interest to people who are going to be involved in lawsuits. There really is a burden placed on his ability to gather the news and you know the law we're talking about the shield law is officially named the Free Flow of Information Act the legislature believes and lots of journalists believe that we all benefit. The more information is able to come to the public's view and that's usually through reporters and photographers. If those people are concerned that now they won't be considered neutral. If in every case as a matter of course they have to come forward and provide this evidence. They may start practicing their craft a little differently. Their ability to report the news may be children ultimately if that's true then everybody loses. And what we say is

not that again the reporters and photographers will never come to testify but merely that the parties who ask them to testify have to satisfy a couple conditions before that happens or else we lose our credibility we're no longer neutral and we're wasting a lot of time and money sitting around fighting with with with lawyers about subpoenas as opposed to reporting the news. Kelli is there any other way to get credible information save for your client in this particular case other than compromising journalist credibility by forcing him to testify in this case there is no other evidence there is no other person who saw what happened. And I suggest as a defense attorney that everybody does lose when a reporter will not come forward when he has personally witnessed a crime and testify as to what he saw. All of us have a right under the Sixth Amendment to compulsory process. We have a right to subpoena those persons who would give evidence favorable to their defense. What if this were a murder case Paul and the reporter was the one of the only

witnesses to a murder. Well if that were true and that were and that was the circumstance. Those circumstances would satisfy the statute. I mean assuming that the information the reporter has is relevant to the commission of a crime and that there is no other alternative available that's the language from the statute. If you satisfy those two conditions and show that you have a need then the reporter is treated just like anybody else what we're really saying is before you put them on the stand and raise all the questions about jeopardizing their neutrality make it more difficult to get stories in the future make it more difficult to get sources in the future before you do all that. We're asking that when you get to the door you knock and you say I need some relevance here. Here's the relevance here is the reason why I can't get in any place else. And once that happens the door opens and the photographer testifies. Well it should be interesting to see what the High Court says. Thank you very much. Thanks. Shorty. That's why it's really big. But there's a shorty to beat this year

because of that I believe. So they don't track this well. Do you get. It. Yes I mean. Anglers across the state are looking forward to the opening of this year's fishing season on Saturday. But a few Minnesotans say Saturday marks the opening of another season killing season. One prominent national animal rights group is campaigning to ban sport fishing because of that effort and attempts to ban some kinds of hunting in other states. Some hunting and fishing enthusiasm are asking Minnesota to guarantee the right to hunt and fish in the future. Mike Mulcahy has more. The with many northern lakes still iced over Minnesota anglers can look forward to a chilly miserable opener. That's all right with some animal rights supporters who say it's usually the fish who suffer on opening day. They're not flopping around because they're joyful. They they have a will to live and they do feel pain. And we think they

should be left. To themselves to to live out their lives without human interference. The Washington based animal rights group PETA People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals has launched a national campaign against fishing and while disrupting the opener is not a priority here. Some local animal rights supporters agree with PETA. I can go so far as to say we would like to see hunters not be allowed to hunt anymore. Hunters are a minority of the population it's only about 7 percent it's a little higher here in Minnesota but nationally it's about 7 percent. And. The idea of making it a constitutional right to hunt and fish is just utterly ludicrous. Anglers and hunters alike feel they're under attack. Right now the biggest is hunting and it's happening all in a lot of states. California seven Arizona seven lot of states in the union where these

initiatives are. We call them nuisance suits but they are getting stronger and stronger and stronger. Remember we're getting more urbanized in population. You know those of us that just love to hunt and fish there's less and less of it. During this year's legislative session Lazard proposed a constitutional amendment guaranteeing Minnesotans the right to hunt and fish. But the amendment won't be on the ballot this year. You know we have 52 votes in the Senate. Very still in the Senate you get the few votes for anything. And we did it. It died in the house to die for some parliamentary maneuver that should have been to the floor of the house. I waited for this for 20 years as have others and I think it's an absolute tragedy that happened. Even though hunters and anglers far outnumber animal rights activists in Minnesota the leader of a coalition of sporting groups says the animal rights groups pose a real threat to a Minnesota way of life. They're smart about how they go about this. They don't come right out and go after the 400000 deer hunters in the state you know because they'd probably get crucified if they did that. But there was a very active and very strong politically and they would fight very hard.

But if they just keep chipping away at the base of this you know pretty soon you'll roll the whole program and they get every every time they win one of these things they gain a little foothold as usual in wildlife issues the State Department of Natural Resources finds itself right in the middle of the debate over the right to hunt and fish DNR officials say they were surprised at how much support the amendment had during the last legislative session. They say they're against amending the state constitution because it would cause more problems for hunters and anglers than it would solve. I guess from where we said his agency responsible for managing these things we don't feel like there's a big risk there and frankly are a little bit concerned that if we become the state in the country that is dealing with the issue of a constitutional amendment to guarantee the right to hunt and fish we may well attract the attention of a lot of these groups that we frankly don't have right now and provide a platform for a very broad debate to this issue and engage the public in a fairly divisive

argument about whether in fact this is an appropriate thing to put the Constitution says Constitutional language on hunting and fishing could turn into a legal nightmare. If this is a constitutional right do we have the ability to say yes it's a right but you can only exercise it in a certain way. And that needs to be understood fairly clearly before we have the public vote on whether they want the state's constitution amended to guarantee that kind of thing at the Pelican river tackle Company in Detroit Lakes. Fishing means dollars supporting groups estimate that anglers pumped more than a billion dollars into the state's economy. Bait shop employee Ron Ferrand has a vested interest but he sees no moral problem with making money off fishing or hunting in the Bible it says that where we have dominion over animals and fish and whatever. And so I go by that. Supporters of the right to hunt and fish they'll keep trying until the legislature approves the amendment. In the meantime the state expects to sell 1.6 million

fishing licenses this season for Newsnight Minnesota. It now looks as if many lakes in the northeastern corner of the state will still be covered with ice come Saturday's opener. As of this morning like MMA LAX was free of ice but even the governor's fishing opener may have to move from like that Megi to a smaller lake because of the cold weather this spring. Well there's been plenty of big education stories rumbling around public policy ranks in the past several months. One of the biggest is a change in the way the state regulates school desegregation. It's so major according to tonight's commentator that she worries it's getting lost in the mishmash of public discourse. Debra Lai Debra Lee wants us to not only pay attention to the changes but to ante up with our opinions. The Minnesota State Board of Education amended the desegregation rule on March 11 1996. It is currently open for public comment through the state register. I'd like to describe one of the key points of concern in the

current desegregation Amendment and invite you to directly call in your comments to the state register in 1900 for the State Board of Education appointed and convened a round table to amend the desegregation rule. The roundtable worked for years to develop an acceptable document to replace the current rule. However the State Board of Education's amended rule is very different from the roundtables recommendations. For instance there's a big difference in the policy statement. State Policy says the Board of Education seeks to eliminate racially identifiable schools and ensure comparable opportunities to improve student achievement. On the other hand the ROUND TABLE statement says the Board of Education will ensure access to opportunities which result in equal educational achievement for all learners. Just because a textbook is on the shelf which is an example of a comparable opportunity

does not mean the teacher has to open it and teach your child its lessons. So the question is What do you want the state to provide for your child. A guarantee of equal education achievement or a comparable education and which there is no accountability for achievement. Call and make your views known. The State Register is taking comment on the new desegregation rules until May 10th so you'll have to move quickly. And you can see it from all over any part of the town. In any direction you come into town. It's noticeable. This beautiful. Preserving history might be worth a lot to many of us but residents of Kasson get to decide just how much it's worth to them. At issue is the city's 100 year old water tower. Even though it's essentially useless for all practical purposes area residents would like to keep it standing. Why do you love me.

You love me. Like that it is oh yeah you just know you can do it. It is the city of castles water tower it's 101 years old it has a limestone base and a lot of fans. It's history. It was laid back in 1995. That's long ago. That's no longer than I have been on here but it's always and you can see it from all over any part of the town. Any direction you come into town it's noticeable. That's beautiful. Because it's just like the place. I want to the stay that's been there for so long and I'll miss it if they take it down. And the tower may have to come down because it's falling apart bringing it up to snuff will cost three hundred thousand dollars. A lot of money for a small town like Cason Woodruff is all broken and in danger of coming down that steel structures are pretty well corroded.

The latter is loose on the other side and flops around in the wind. The column has a limestone marker is bad and that metal needs to be tucked pointed So there's a lot of problems with the structure. The tower doesn't hold water anymore but it has become a symbol. It's on the city's flag. Vehicles and letterhead. But the city council has decided it can't fully fund the repairs that a lot of people don't feel that it's a good use of public funds to restore something that would not actually function. Still the city has kicked in seventy five thousand dollars to save the tower. A local business has offered another $75000 if the rest of the community can match it. How would people feel if their tower was gone. Terrible. I you know I really like her. I miss the people stopping to look at it. Well. You don't always see em but.

They're there. She was here I had to write a series that the Saturday. Morning was to live to said I'm going out. Demolishing the structure is an option but even that isn't cheap. The city would still have to scrape together forty five thousand dollars to knock it down and haul it away. The city has to make its decision before next winter. By the way our thanks to southern Minnesota correspondent Kevin Hansen for putting that story together. Well you might want to stay inside and make phone calls all day tomorrow. Outside it looks to be cloudy with a good chance of showers in the south. Light rain is possible in the northland highs from the 40s to the 60s. That's it for us. See you tomorrow night.