It's Not You, It's Mee Xiong   

The St. Paul Pioneer Press goof that just won't die

Most major metropolitan newspapers publish one or more corrections a day, setting right the errors of recent editions. It's as much a part of the business as reporters griping about editors. But the St. Paul Pioneer Press is learning that even two corrections aren't enough to prevent one lawsuit.

On September 19, the Minnesota daily published a metro section-front story chronicling the commitment of a local Hmong woman to a state psychiatric hospital. The allegations were grisly. St. Paul resident Mee Xiong was charged with second-degree murder for killing two of her children, ages 1 and 3, who were found stabbed 59 times. According to the story, "psychiatrists testified that Mee Xiong was in the grip of hallucinations and delusions that included ghosts and spirits threatening her and voices commanding her to harm herself and others."

The news story was unimpeachably accurate. Not so the photos that went with it. Under the headlines of "Judge commits woman" and "Mother accused of killing 2 children," the Pioneer Press ran a photo of a Minneapolis woman also named Mee Xiong, a Mee Xiong who had absolutely nothing to do with the murder case. (The newspaper had the other Mee Xiong's picture because in August 2000 it published a story about the disappearance of her husband in Southeast Asia along with a photo of the couple.) The next day, the Pioneer Press published a standard correction, with the correct photo.

But the other Mee Xiong had a lawyer arguing that wasn't enough. So, on October 31, the Pioneer Press ran an item headlined "RETRACTION" and "Incorrect Photo Published," on the front page of its metro section, in roughly the same position the original story had appeared. Photos of both women ran with language that took pains to clear up the confusion: "This Mee Xiong did not kill anyone and has never been charged with any crime. This is not the Mee Xiong charged with killing two of her children. The Pioneer Press apologizes to this Mee Xiong for this mistake."

But this Mee Xiong wasn't satisfied. In January, this Mee Xiong sued that Pioneer Press, demanding more than $50,000 in damages and saying she had been "humiliated and embarrassed in her community and beyond."

While the lawsuit charges that the original article was "false" and "defamatory," this is no standard defamation case. The primary legal claim is that the retraction failed to comply with an obscure Minnesota law. That law dictates a retraction must be published "on the same page and in the same type" as the offending article, and that the item must be under the heading "Retraction" featured "in 18-point type or larger."

This Mee Xiong's attorney, Pat Tierney, supplied the bulk of the language that the Pioneer Press published in its retraction. "They got it on the same page, they do have the heading 'Retraction,' but it's our position that it's not in the same type," says Tierney, who argues that the headline size of the retraction didn't match that of the offending article. "We sent a proposed retraction to them, and in the letter we tell them we want it in the same size print." Tierney adds that the retraction also did not include a subheadline that he had sought.

Paul Hannah, an attorney representing the Pioneer Press, contends that the newspaper fulfilled both the spirit and letter of the law. "The only reference in the statute to sizing in the type is that reference to the word 'retraction,' " says Hannah. "We tried to do the best job we could. I think their point is that the headline is not the same size as the original headline, but I don't think that's what [the law] calls for."

Pioneer Press Editor Vicki Gowler finds the debate over point size a little baffling, saying, "We weren't being asked to retract the headline, we were asked to retract the photo." But Tierney insists that the juxtaposition of the wrong photo with the news story created the impression that the article referred to his client: "I think everything in the article relates to the person in the picture. The article is clearly about her."

Tierney says his client is not available for comment. "She doesn't feel comfortable talking to the media. Especially after what happened."

Minneapolis media attorney John Borger, who doesn't have a Mee Xiong in this fight, predicts Tierney will have an uphill battle. "When you start arguing about type size when the offending publication is of a photograph and not in type, you really start getting into angels dancing on the head of a pin."

Minnesota's venerable retraction law dates back to 1887. As written, it only applies to newspapers--not TV, radio or online media. Some of the law's language hints at its mustiness: "This section shall not apply to any libel imputing unchastity." Neither Tierney nor Hannah can readily point to past cases testing the law.

A day after the lawsuit was filed in January, the Pioneer Press published a short, sober article noting the action. As yet, that five-paragraph item hasn't prompted any threats of litigation.

As for the photo foul-up, Tierney also charges that the Pioneer Press wasn't appropriately sensitive to the burgeoning local Hmong community. Recent Census figures show that Minnesota's Hmong population increased by roughly 150 percent during the '90s. St. Paul is home to nearly 60 percent of the state's Hmong--24,000.

"If they had a picture of a Joe Smith in their files, I don't think they would have published it without making sure it was true," argues Tierney.

Gowler dismisses that notion, saying there were no cultural biases behind the error. She says that at the time the photo of the wrong Mee Xiong ran, family photographs--those not taken by staff photographers--were kept on file by name, with little additional information about the person in the picture. "We have since changed that system," says Gowler, explaining that those photos are now filed with additional biographical details.

"Bottom line is the newspaper made a mistake," Gowler says, adding that the retraction makes it clear that the paper owned up to the blooper. "We thought we had done the right thing, had done it quickly, had done it well. For whatever reason, it wasn't enough for the family."