For more than five years, I have repeatedly chided the Star Tribune for running stories that rely heavily on court documents but failing to link to the documents themselves. Last week they did it again, this time in the context of a $3.5 million award based on sexual-orientation discrimination in favor of Mr. Stephen Habberstad against two small banks, Kimberly Habberstad (his ex-wife), Susan Boschetti, Terry Boschetti, David Dovernberg, Maureen Denges and Phyllis Sieveke.
On the one hand, I suppose I can understand the Star Tribune’s decision. The court’s “Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order for Judgment” is a 92-page document. It is a realistic assumption that very few Star Tribune readers will read it at all and fewer still in its entirety.
On the other hand, the Star Tribune journalist wrote that the judge “meticulously separated fact from fiction” in his ruling but she failed to link to the judge’s decision so readers could judge the judge’s meticulousness for themselves. In this way, the journalist, presumably unwittingly, improperly biased readers as to the accuracy of the judge’s decision. The journalist, in effect, appears to have sided with the judge’s opinion that “Stephen Habberstad was terminated because he is gay.” This, of course, could be quite hurtful and unfair to the defendants if, as a matter of fact, the decision is wrong.
To be fair and clear, the Star Tribune story did quote a defense lawyer saying, “We couldn’t agree more with Mr. Habberstad that you shouldn’t discriminate against anyone because they’re gay or any other reason. And [the defendants] didn’t….” In my view, the article as a whole, without giving readers the opportunity to read the decision for themselves, did a disservice to the defendants. At least in this reader’s opinion of the court’s opinion, the underlying story was far more complicated.
If you are interested in this story, I strongly recommend that you read the original underlying Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Order for Judgment. I will refrain from skewing your reaction except to say the following: Give some thought to the decision-making process and the decision-making outcome in this “bench trial” (a trial before a judge rather than before a jury). Contrast it to the decision-making process and the decision-making outcome of a jury trial.
We say “two heads are better than one” but those who shun juries seem quite sure that one head is better than twelve (or seven or however many jurors are seated on a jury). I am not so sure.
Terry J Boschetti
YOU ARE SO VERY RIGHT ON THIS I KNOW I WAS THERE AND WOULD LOVE TO HAVE THE FACTS OF THIS CASE KNOW TO THE PUBLIC.