Newspaper wronged West, judges

by Ruth E. Stanoch

The Star Tribune pulled quotes out of context and employed provocative tabloid language	What could explain the character assassination the Star Tribune performed at the expense of the reputations of several U.S. Supreme Court justices, other distinguished federal jurists and the 6,000 employees of West Publishing Co.? This is a question many people are asking after the Star Tribune wasted over eight pages of copy to prove a faulty premise, and then ran an editorial condemning allegations that the excruciatingly long articles never substantiated. Cleverly linking unrelated events, the Star Tribune pulled quotes out of context and employed provocative tabloid language in lead headlines and paragraphs, only to suggest wrongdoing that its own handpicked panel of experts could not find. The Star Tribune suggests as much in its own editorial. "All this might be just a minor eyebrow-raiser," state the editors, "if not for a question of timing."
The Star Tribune and Cowles Business Media will compete directly with WESTLAW	Timing indeed. How is it that some 13 years after the creation of the Devitt Award -- and after receiving press releases from West explaining every detail and identifying every recipient of this most distinguished award -- that the Star Tribune finally woke up and destroyed half a forest in an effort to trash West and some highly respected federal judges? As the newspaper would have found from its own clips, the Devitt Award was started long before the West cases cited by the paper came before the U.S. Supreme Court, and it continues today, long after the cases have been resolved. If the issue is timing, it is the Star Tribune's timing that ought to be questioned. The answer won't sell many newspapers, for there is no murky conspiracy or unfounded allegation of improper influence. In fact, the Star Tribune's effort to out-intrigue Oliver Stone is merely the latest example of the bare-knuckled tussling that has become the norm in the fiercely competitive online information service sector. According to a February news release from the Star Tribune's partner, AT&T, the Star Tribune's parent company, Cowles Media, has formed Cowles Business Media for the sole purpose of creating an online news and information service for business professionals. Furthermore, in a March 3 letter to West, the Star Tribune admitted that "if there is a major court decision we will obviously report it on the online service, and we might publish the decision if we had access to it." WESTLAW, West Publishing's flagship online service, is already the nation's leading source of legal and nonlegal business and professional information. Make no mistake. The Star Tribune and Cowles Business Media will compete directly with WESTLAW. West welcomes competition. In fact, since 1992, the number of competing providers of caselaw has increased from 65 to more than 190. West's two largest competitors are multibillion dollar, multinational conglomerates headquartered in foreign countries. The Star Tribune lamely states it has no intention of entering the legal publishing business, hoping its readers don't know and will not find out that West isn't just a caselaw publisher, but one of America's leading online business and professional information providers.
Among major legal publishing companies, only West is American-owned	The Star Tribune must not forget that aside from its competitive business ventures it remains a newspaper. It could have added a dose of journalistic integrity to the story by merely mentioning the AT&T venture somewhere in that enormous story -- just as it did whenever notions of accuracy forced it to admit, however cryptically, that neither West nor the judges had done anything wrong at all. The Star Tribune also has a duty to pursue its tasks in good faith. In correspondence with Star Tribune editors and feature writers, West was told that the newspaper was undertaking a broad examination of the entire legal publishing industry. West was asked to cooperate with work on an article that involved "major contractors such as Mead Data Central, West Publishing Co. and Lawyers' Cooperative Publishing." West cooperated initially because any story entitled "Who Owns the Law" ought to say -- and we did -- that among major legal publishing companies, only West is American-owned. West thought that in the wake of Dutch-owned Reed Elsevier's $1.5 billion purchase of West's primary American competitor, Mead Data Central, the Star Tribune would do a story on how a relatively small Minnesota company was holding its own against massive foreign competitors. Wrong. While the Star Tribune's editors sent West placating letters declaring their intention to write a balanced story, the writers relentlessly focused on West. And now, given the appearance of West's name in the sensational headline of the story, and its single-minded focus on West and the conduct of West executives, how can the Star Tribune state publicly, as it has, that West was not even a focus in the report? West was purposefully misled.
The newspaper cynically plays upon the public's mistrust of government institutions	The Star Tribune story also did an enormous disservice to the honorable people serving in America's federal judiciary. The Devitt Award, according to the Star Tribune, was intended to be the "Nobel Prize for the federal judiciary." Indeed, as the Star Tribune acknowledges, the Devitt Award has become a "prestigious" award whose "recipients chosen over the years have been worthy of honor." Judges who have received the award "have shown courage in handling civil rights matters and creativity in improving the administration of justice." So how can the Star Tribune blithely infer that the same distinguished judges who, through their integrity and courage, are deserving of such a respected award, would engage in misconduct to benefit West? Clearly the Star Tribune cynically plays upon the public's mistrust of government institutions, leaving the casual reader with the impression that another great institution has fallen victim to misplaced ethics. Such allegations are doubly outrageous given the article's unequivocal statements that "West broke no laws in making the gifts," and that "the award complies with all laws and ethics codes." Is the Star Tribune the brave new arbiter of illusory judicial standards? Why, even the Star Tribune's own handpicked ethics expert had to admit that "it is perfectly legitimate for a law book publisher to sponsor such an award -- I've nominated someone myself -- and to enlist the aid of judges in selecting the recipients and to pay their reasonable expenses in fulfilling that selection obligation."
Petitions involving West were rejected by the Supreme Court because they were simply without merit	Finally, the Star Tribune established no link between the Devitt Award and court cases resolved in West's favor because no such link exists. With regard to the U.S. Supreme Court cases cited by the Star Tribune, the court did not hear the cases. Rather, the justices declined to review the rulings of lower courts - something they do with 96 percent of the cases that come their way. In the face of this overwhelming percentage, what evidence did the Star Tribune uncover to support its lurid reference that, but for West's influence, any one of those cases were special enough to warrant review? Absolutely none. In fact, the petitions involving West were rejected by the Supreme Court because they were simply without merit. Yet the Star Tribune, finding no evidence to suggest otherwise, turns instead to the predictable sour grapes of losing attorneys for accusations of misdeeds. The article also quoted out of context an unnamed federal appeals court judge who asks an attorney challenging West, "Did West do something to make you mad?" Placed in the proper context, the judge was asking precisely the right question, since the issue before the court was whether there was an actual controversy in the first place. The quoted judge was frustrated over the other party's failure to identify a dispute that the court could resolve. It's all there in the transcripts and pleadings, but the Star Tribune chose to ignore it. In short, the Star Tribune expended enormous resources to concoct a self-serving, long-winded and repetitive story that trashed a fine, old Minnesota company, reached no constructive conclusion, found no improper behavior and left readers asking, "So what?" But most importantly, the story took several poorly aimed and ill-advised shots at the pinnacle of the American judiciary. It was all unnecessary and unfortunate. The people of Minnesota and the readers of the Star Tribune deserve better.

Ruth E. Stanoch is manager of government and media relations for West Publishing Co.