[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.
     

                          ____________________