[Congressional Record Volume 141, Number 125 (Monday, July 31, 1995)]
[Senate]
[Pages S10923-S10924]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
THE FEDERAL JUDICIARY
Mr. GRAMS. Mr. President, in addition to the Minneapolis Star Tribune
articles regarding the Federal judiciary circulated to Senators on
Friday, July 28, I would like to share with my colleagues the following
article, which was published on the op-ed page of the Star Tribune on
Sunday, March 12, 1995.
I ask unanimous consent that the article be printed in the Record.
There being no objection, the article was ordered to be printed in
the Record as follows:
Series Wronged West and Judges
(By Ruth E. Stanoch)
What could explain the character assassination the Star
Tribune performed at the expense of the reputation of several
U.S. Supreme Court justices, other distinguished federal
jurists and the 6,000 employees of the 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.''
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.
[[Page S 10924]]
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.
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 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.''
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.
____________________