Teaching Notes: Minnesotas Basketball Cheating Scanda Synopsis The St. Paul Pioneer Press, in a three-month investigation in 1999, uncovered widespread academ ic cheating among University of Minnesota basketball players. When the paper published its findings the day before the Gophers were to play an Ncaa tournament game the public reacted with anger against the Pioneer Press. The university ' s own investigation subsequently found that the cheating and m conduct had sullied Minnesota's athletic program. Three top university officials lost their jobs as a result of the scanda Objectives This case may be used to teach the issues involved in the public's right to know inform ation once a journalist has it. It goes to the heart of the question, how much re porting is enough? When is a story ready to publish? And what factors determ ine the answer to those questions? The case also deals with the ethics of investigative reporting the cultivation of sources and com petition between news organizations. Discussion Questions Publics Right to Know 1. The St. Paul Pioneer Press knew that a scandal was brewing in the minnesota bas ke tball program that the unive rsity had self-re ported itse lf to the NCAA, and was conducting an investigation and compliance review. Still, the paper withheld this inform ation from the public from November until March Should the Pioneer Press have run the story earlier? 2. The paper actively withheld inform ation -and it was public information-from the public for a protracted period How would you justify withholding the information from a citizen who asked,"Why didn 't you tell me about this earlier? When does the public's right to know kick in? 3. Once the paper did decide to hold off, should it have waited until the end of the tournament? Should the potential impact of a story determine when it runs? 4. Who were making the decisions in this story? Did they pursue the process responsibly inside the newsroom Who should decide when the story is ready? should the managing editor have been informed of the possible story earlier?
Teaching Notes: Minnesota's Basketball Cheating Scandal Synopsis The St. Paul Pioneer Press, in a three-month investigation in 1999, uncovered widespread academic cheating among University of Minnesota basketball players. When the paper published its findings the day before the Gophers were to play an NCAA tournament game, the public reacted with anger against the Pioneer Press. The university's own investigation subsequently found that the cheating and misconduct had sullied Minnesota's athletic program . Three top university officials lost their jobs as a result of the scandal. Objectives This case may be used to teach the issues involved in the public's right to know information once a journalist has it. It goes to the heart of the question, how much reporting is enough? When is a story ready to publish? And what factors determine the answer to those questions? The case also deals with the ethics of investigative reporting, the cultivation of sources and competition between news organizations. Discussion Questions Public's Right to Know 1. The St. Paul Pioneer Press knew that a scandal was brewing in the Minnesota basketball program , that the university had self-reported itself to the NCAA, and was conducting an investigation and compliance review. Still, the paper withheld this information from the public from November until March. Should the Pioneer Press have run the story earlier? 2. The paper actively withheld information—and it was public information—from the public for a protracted period. How would you justify withholding the information from a citizen who asked, "Why didn't you tell me about this earlier?" When does the public's right to know kick in? 3. Once the paper did decide to hold off, should it have waited until the end of the tournament? Should the potential impact of a story determine when it runs? 4. Who were making the decisions in this story? Did they pursue the process responsibly inside the newsroom? Who should decide when the story is ready? Should the managing editor have been informed of the possible story earlier?
Ethics of Investigative Journalism 1. Journalism arose as a protest against the conduct of public affairs in secret. Journalism should have as a motto"make the world transparent Therefore whenever journalists violate openness, whenever they engage in secrecy, maintain a veil over the conduct of affairs, they contradict their own first principles For such reasons, citizens are often far more disturbed than journalists over such practices as the use of hidden cameras, bogus identities de liberate lying and deception o part of reporters, and failure to prom ptly report known information In this case the Pioneer Press investigative journalists went to great lengths to keep the investigation secret and to keep the star witness, Jan Gange Hoff, out of public view. They even kept other staff members on the paper in the dark. Were they justified? What principles can guide journalists in deciding when to use secrecy to promote a more open society? 2. One citizen proclaimed that it's high time the media ceased being the se If-appointed watchdogs of society. Editor Lundy replied: In fact thats our job, a role that i set forth and protected in the Constitution Does the citizen have a ca se? By what constitutional interpretation does one read the word watch-dog' into the First Amendment? Are there dangers, as the citizen implied, in the press assuming the powers of the watchdog? 3. Did the paper present its findings in the proper way? should it have explained its methods and purposes up front? Why didn t its editors correctly anticipate and understand the reaction of the university and the community? What is your reaction to doing a follow-up article the next day to explain the motives of the newspaper? Should the motto of journalistic organizations be: Never explain, never apologize? Competition There is a nagging suspicion that this story was ke pt secret largely to enable the Pioneer Press to scoop the competition How much did the desire to make the story " Sid Proof contribute to the investigative and reportorial methods used Is this case did competition promote the public good? Teaching Plan The professor m ay wish to divide the lesson plan into two parts: A. Questions of the publics right to know and the question of timing regarding both the development of the story and the story's im plications B. Other influences on professional judgment. These would include:
Ethics of Investigative Journalism 1. Journalism arose as a protest against the conduct of public affairs in secret. Journalism should have as a motto "make the world transparent." Therefore, whenever journalists violate openness, whenever they engage in secrecy, maintain a veil over the conduct of affairs, they contradict their own first principles. For such reasons, citizens are often far more disturbed than journalists over such practices as the use of hidden cameras, bogus identities, deliberate lying and deception on the part of reporters, and failure to promptly report known information. In this case the Pioneer Press investigative journalists went to great lengths to keep the investigation secret and to keep the star witness, Jan Gangelhoff, out of public view. They even kept other staff members on the paper in the dark. Were they justified? What principles can guide journalists in deciding when to use secrecy to promote a more open society? 2. One citizen proclaimed that it's high time the media ceased being "the self-appointed watchdogs of society." Editor Lundy replied: "In fact, that's our job," a role that is set forth and protected in the Constitution. Does the citizen have a case? By what constitutional interpretation does one read the word 'watch-dog' into the First Amendment? Are there dangers, as the citizen implied, in the press assuming the powers of the watchdog? 3. Did the paper present its findings in the proper way? Should it have explained its methods and purposes up front? Why didn't its editors correctly anticipate and understand the reaction of the university and the community? What is your reaction to doing a follow-up article the next day to explain the motives of the newspaper? Should the motto of journalistic organizations be: Never explain, never apologize? Competition There is a nagging suspicion that this story was kept secret largely to enable the Pioneer Press to scoop the competition. How much did the desire to make the story "Sid Proof" contribute to the investigative and reportorial methods used? Is this case did competition promote the public good? Teaching Plan The professor may wish to divide the lesson plan into two parts: A. Questions of the public's right to know and the question of timing, regarding both the development of the story and the story's implications. B. Other influences on professional judgment. These would include:
the im pact of com petition, the im pact of journalists previous experience, the im pact of the application of standards on sourcing Many professors choose to teach these cases in the Socratic style. In this case, the professor could open the class with the major principle, asking the following Was the Pioneer Press acting to advance or retard the public's right to know? Was the newspaper justified in treating this as an in vestigative story or should it have treated it as breaking news and reported the NCaa investigation right away? You could proceed by questioning students who have taken alternative sides. Perhaps play one role yourse lf, maybe the president of the university or the publisher of the paper. Thus, you could have the student who favored the investigation call the president after the story was printed. As president you would force the student to justify what he or she had done by asking questions and making accusations: You sandbagged me! You didn t think I-or the adm inistration generally-was honest enough to conduct our own investigation. You felt your own honesty and inte grity were superior to ours. why didnt you call me at the outset and tell me you had gotten wind of the story? Why did you assume I knew the details when I didnt? Why did you withhold information? Then lay out a similar series of questions for the students who take the other side trying to force them to clarify and justify the moral and professional grounds for their opinions. Try to get the students to discuss each point and cite evidence and principle behind their decisions Ask factual questions as well as moral ones: Where did you get this watchdog notion of the press? Who enunciated it? In what Supreme Court decision? What kind of case Does the role apply here? Is there a moral arrogance im plied in the judgment that the press should withhold information until it thinks the public is ready to hear it? Do any of the criticisms of the public have moral force or com pelling evidence Try not to give your own opinion -at least until the end of class A. Some questions about the public's right to know might include these: What constraints did the paper face in devoting its resources to this story? Who determined how fast the story would advance? How was the pacing of the story affected by the sports editors detem ination to make it Sid-proof? By the reporters quest to handle his source effectively? What about the decision to publish? Were the right questions asked about tim ing? Did the editors draw well-founded conclusions to support their decision to run the story hen they did? What was the effect of their decision on the publics view of the story? On the univers ity's view? On the news paper itseIf?
• the impact of competition, • the impact of journalists' previous experience, • the impact of the application of standards on sourcing. Many professors choose to teach these cases in the Socratic style. In this case, the professor could open the class with the major principle, asking the following: Was the Pioneer Press acting to advance or retard the public's right to know? Was the newspaper justified in treating this as an investigative story or should it have treated it as breaking news and reported the NCAA investigation right away? You could proceed by questioning students who have taken alternative sides. Perhaps play one role yourself, maybe the president of the university or the publisher of the paper. Thus, you could have the student who favored the investigation call the president after the story was printed. As president, you would force the student to justify what he or she had done by asking questions and making accusations: "You sandbagged me! You didn't think I—or the administration generally—was honest enough to conduct our own investigation. You felt your own honesty and integrity were superior to ours. Why didn't you call me at the outset and tell me you had gotten wind of the story? Why did you assume I knew the details when I didn't? Why did you withhold information?" Then lay out a similar series of questions for the students who take the other side, trying to force them to clarify and justify the moral and professional grounds for their opinions. Try to get the students to discuss each point and cite evidence and principle behind their decisions. Ask factual questions as well as moral ones: Where did you get this 'watchdog' notion of the press? Who enunciated it? In what Supreme Court decision? What kind of case? Does the role apply here? Is there a moral arrogance implied in the judgment that the press should withhold information until it thinks the public is ready to hear it? Do any of the criticism s of the public have moral force or compelling evidence? Try not to give your own opinion—at least until the end of class. A. Some questions about the public's right to know might include these: What constraints did the paper face in devoting its resources to this story? Who determined how fast the story would advance? How was the pacing of the story affected by the sports editor's determination to make it "Sid-proof?" By the reporter's quest to handle his source effectively? What about the decision to publish? Were the right questions asked about timing? Did the editors draw well-founded conclusions to support their decision to run the story when they did? What was the effect of their decision on the public's view of the story? On the university's view? On the newspaper itself?
B Questions about other influences on professional judgment could include: 1. Regarding professional standards, how did Dohrmann arrive at his approach to his sources? What principles did Garcia-Ruiz apply to the question of sourcing? What level of sourcing would you say is required for this story? Would the requirement differ if the subject were, say, politics, instead of sports? should public attitudes affect the level of proof required? Did public attitudes affect the level of proof required in this story? What specific skills and principles did each of the central actors-the reporter, the sports editor and the supervisory editors-bring to the story? What were the risks to the paper in running it? Would you have hand led the story the way lundy did, if you ere executive editor? 2. Regarding competition, what were some of the effects of the newspaper rivalry on the early reporting? What was the effect in the end, as to when the s tory was published? Did more good, or more harm come from journalistic competition? 3. Regarding the im pact of previous experience, how did the UCLA story affect Dohmann and Garcia-Ruiz? In what ways did it strengthen the story In what ways did it make them behave questionably Did the fact that the two of them had come recently to the Twin Cities make them better equipped to do this story? Did the ir lack of connection hurt the paper in any way? What about Vicki Gowler's previous experience with tim ing? Case Analysis A. Public's Right to Know Tim ing turned out to be amost everything in ths story -or so it seemed on publication day. Consider the fact that after a huge upset loss for the vikings in the NFC championship game, plus a long and dreary NBa strike, Minnesotans were longing for success. Now at last the Go phe rs-the only big-time college team in the state-were slated the following day to play their first-round NCaa tournament game against Gonzaga. Minnesota's hopes were riveted on them. No wonder, it seemed to many afterward that the public res ponse was so hugely negative In considering the choices the staff made, it's m portant to remember that they acted without knowledge that those of us reading the case now have No one had any idea, for exam ple at the beginning of the reporting how big the story would turn out to be And no one knew until the pairings were announced the Sunday night before the Wednesday publication that Minnesota was going to the tournament
B. Questions about other influences on professional judgment could include: 1. Regarding professional standards, how did Dohrmann arrive at his approach to his sources? What principles did Garcia-Ruiz apply to the question of sourcing? What level of sourcing would you say is required for this story? Would the requirement differ if the subject were, say, politics, instead of sports? Should public attitudes affect the level of proof required? Did public attitudes affect the level of proof required in this story? What specific skills and principles did each of the central actors—the reporter, the sports editor and the supervisory editors—bring to the story? What were the risks to the paper in running it? Would you have handled the story the way Lundy did, if you were executive editor? 2. Regarding competition, what were some of the effects of the newspaper rivalry on the early reporting? What was the effect in the end, as to when the s tory was published? Did more good, or more harm , come from journalistic competition? 3. Regarding the impact of previous experience, how did the UCLA story affect Dohrmann and Garcia-Ruiz? In what ways did it strengthen the story? In what ways did it make them behave questionably? Did the fact that the two of them had come recently to the Twin Cities make them better equipped to do this story? Did their lack of connection hurt the paper in any way? What about Vicki Gowler's previous experience with timing? Case Analysis A. Public's Right to Know Timing turned out to be almost everything in this story—or so it seemed on publication day. Consider the fact that, after a huge upset loss for the Vikings in the NFC championship game, plus a long and dreary NBA strike, Minnesotans were longing for success. Now, at last, the Gophers—the only big-time college team in the state—were slated the following day to play their first-round NCAA tournament game against Gonzaga. Minnesota's hopes were riveted on them . No wonder, it seemed to many afterward, that the public response was so hugely negative. In considering the choices the staff made, it's important to remember that they acted without knowledge that those of us reading the case now have. No one had any idea, for example, at the beginning of the reporting, how big the story would turn out to be. And no one knew until the pairings were announced the Sunday night before the Wednesday publication that Minnesota was going to the tournament
With this caution in mind, consider the early decision-making. What if Dohrmann had been pulled off NBA coverage earlier? What if less time had elapsed between his contacts with Gange hoff? Might the story have broken sooner, and its tim ing been less incendiary? In pondering whether the pace of the reporting ought to have been different, it's useful to consider these views Lundy, says that, when Emilio first informed him about George talking to Gange hoff, Frankly I wasn't too excited. I couldn 't be lieve there was something there -or that we could prove it. Garcia-Ruiz, sim ilarly says that when the season started, he didn 't have anyone but Dohrmann to cover it. Besides he adds, "I didn't think we'd ever get proof of what Gange hoff was saying. As for the later decisions, after the pairings were announced, says Lundy, Vicki(Gowler, the managing editor) and I had a brief conversation about the fact that this story was gonna hit somewhere around when they were going(to the tournament), and i thought some would say, Hey wait a m inute. Did you time this? We called the university We called the unive rsity on Monday. We had some hope we could go on Tuesday. We were gonna get racks printed outside the building. I called, and they said they could do them at 7 p.m."But the university didn't call back. By Tuesday, the paper had given the university 24 hours. Lundy was deem ined he would go with the story Wednesday. Even so, he said If they'd called and said, we need 48 hours we'd have given it to them. As for Dohmann, he too thinks the tim ing couldn t have been very different. I really needed to give [Gangelhoff] room to breathe for a while Moreover, his confirm ing source, Donahue, was out of the country for much of the reporting period, returning only on March 1 One other piece of inform ation about what the journalists' expectations were, and how they influenced their decisions on tim ing: Both Garcia-Ruiz and Lundy contend they did not expect that the story would result in players being declared ineligible for the tournament. As Garcia-Ruiz puts it There is a practice in the ncaa that if there is an eligibility question about a player, you report it to the ncaa and then you appeal it. So, in a sense you appeal your own reporting And the NCAa says, okay, pending us checking into this, the kid can play. We thought they'd sus pend four kids, appeal, and the NCAa would say, you didn t have time to look into this, and they' d play. It was note worthy says Garcia-Ruiz, that the university didnt end up doing that-that whatever the kids told them that day made them decide they weren't going to appeal. In
With this caution in mind, consider the early decision-making. What if Dohrmann had been pulled off NBA coverage earlier? What if less time had elapsed between his contacts with Gangelhoff? Might the story have broken sooner, and its timing been less incendiary? In pondering whether the pace of the reporting ought to have been different, it's useful to consider these views: Lundy, says that, when Emilio first informed him about George talking to Gangelhoff, "Frankly, I wasn't too excited. I couldn't believe there was something there—or that we could prove it." Garcia-Ruiz, similarly, says that when the season started, he didn't have anyone but Dohrmann to cover it. Besides, he adds, "I didn't think we'd ever get proof of what Gangelhoff was saying." As for the later decisions, after the pairings were announced, says Lundy, "Vicki (Gowler, the managing editor) and I had a brief conversation about the fact that this story was gonna hit somewhere around when they were going (to the tournament), and I thought some would say, 'Hey, wait a minute. Did you time this?' " 'We called the university' "We called the university on Monday. We had some hope we could go on Tuesday. We were gonna get racks printed outside the building. I called, and they said they could do them at 7 p.m ." But the university didn't call back. By Tuesday, the paper had given the university 24 hours. Lundy was determined he would go with the story Wednesday. Even so, he said, "If they'd called and said, 'we need 48 hours,' we'd have given it to them ." As for Dohrmann, he too thinks the timing couldn't have been very different. "I really needed to give [Gangelhoff] room to breathe for a while." Moreover, his confirming source, Donahue, was out of the country for much of the reporting period, returning only on March 1. One other piece of information about what the journalists' expectations were, and how they influenced their decisions on timing: Both Garcia-Ruiz and Lundy contend they did not expect that the story would result in players' being declared ineligible for the tournament. As Garcia-Ruiz puts it, "There is a practice in the NCAA that, if there is an eligibility question about a player, you report it to the NCAA and then you appeal it. So, in a sense you appeal your own reporting. And the NCAA says, okay, pending us checking into this, the kid can play. "We thought they'd suspend four kids, appeal, and the NCAA would say, you didn't have time to look into this, and they'd play." It was noteworthy, says Garcia-Ruiz, that the university didn't end up doing that—that "whatever the kids told them that day made them decide they weren't going to appeal." In