Content-Type: text/html
VOICES FROM THE BOAT LANDINGS
IN THE CHIPPEWA TREATY RIGHTS DISPUTE
Source Selection and Bias in the Coverage
Of Two Very Different Newspapers
BY
PATTY LOEW
7788 W. Old Sauk Rd.
Verona, WI 53593
(608) 831-3127
[log in to unmask]
Abstract
Who do professional journalists seek as sources in their coverage of
racially charged issues? Is reporters' skin color or the ethnic
make-up of
their newspapers a good predictor of whom they will decide to quote? A
dispute between the State of Wisconsin and the Chippewa Nation
offers an
excellent opportunity to study how two newspapers, one Indian-owned,
the
other white-owned approached their news coverage of the issue and
how that
coverage changed over time. History
On March 8, 1974, Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources wardens
arrested two tribal spearfishermen from the Lac Courte Oreilles Band of
Chippewa and charged them with violating state conservation laws
outside
the boundary of the LCO Reservation. The LCO band sued the State of
Wisconsin in Federal District Court, alleging that the arrests violated
the
rights of the Chippewa Nation. The Indians argued that their Treaties of
1837 and 1842 permitted them to hunt, fish and gather off
reservation in
the land they had ceded to the Federal government. The State of
Wisconsin
contended the Chippewa gave up those rights when the tribe signed
the
treaty of 1854, establishing the six Chippewa Reservations in
Wisconsin.
In 1978, Federal Judge James Doyle Sr. ruled in favor of the state
in this
so-called Voigt decision, however the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals
reversed
Doyle's ruling. After the appellate court decision, the five other
Chippewa Bands located in Wisconsin joined the lawsuit. In 1983, the
U.S.
Supreme Court refused to hear the case. The Chippewa Nation had
won.
Subsequent court rulings established the nature and scope of Chippewa
Treaty Rights and set regulatory policy. In Spring 1991, Judge
Barbara
Crabb, who had inherited the case after Judge Doyle died, issued her
summary decision. The final ruling upheld the basic tenet of Chippewa
Treaty Rights and awarded the Chippewa Nation a fifty percent
allocation of
the resources in the ceded territory. The State of Wisconsin won some
important legal points as well, including the right to manage the
resources, entitlement to 100 percent of the timber resource in the ceded
territory and protection from back damages claims by the Chippewa.
Judge
Crabb gave the two sides sixty days to appeal. Neither did so and
seventeen years of litigation came to an end.[1]
Mood of Northern Wisconsin
The Chippewa Treaty Rights issue divided the people of Northern Wisconsin
like no other issue in recent history. In1990, reporters from around the
State voted it the most important news story of the decade.[2] Each
spring as
Chippewa spearers launched their boats to begin the walleye harvest,
hundreds of angry protesters would crowd Northern Wisconsin boat
landings
in order to taunt the spearfishers and dramatize their opposition to
Indian
treaty rights. There were numerous incidents of harassment, ranging from
rock throwing and attempted boat swamping to shots fired. The FBI
recovered pipe bombs believed to be associated with spearing protests.[3]
The opposition to Chippewa Treaty Rights took a number of forms:
political, socio-economic, environmental and racial. It was most heated
in
the Minocqua area, where the largest spearing band of Chippewa, the Lac du
Flambeau, exercised its rights. Some non-Indian resort owners and others
who make their living from the numerous lakes and recreation areas
felt
threatened by the prospects of sharing the natural resources with the
Chippewa. They viewed treaty rights as unfair and unequal rights for
Indians set down in outdated, 150 year old agreements. Many sportsmen
believed the spearing of spawning walleye would damage the resource.
There
were fears that the Chippewa would "take all the fish" and worries that
tourism, upon which the majority of Northern Wisconsin businesses
depend,
would suffer. Opposition groups like Protect American Rights and
Resources
(PARR) and Stop Treaty Abuse (STA) emerged and organized the boat landing
protests.
The Chippewa had their supporters too. Churches and other groups
organized "witness" programs, patterning them after the effort that sent
busloads of civil rights workers to the deep South in the 1960s.
Supporters, wearing white arm bands, gathered at boat landings to show
solidarity with the Chippewa Nation and to document incidents of civil
rights violations. The Midwest Treaty Network and Madison Treaty
Rights
Support Group began an effort to educate Americans about Indian
treaties.
The Chippewa established The Great Lakes Indian Fish and Wildlife
Commission (GLIFWC) to regulate the harvests of fish and other resources.
Other groups, like the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU),
offered legal
assistance.
The controversy had its neutral observers--the occasional resort
association or chamber of commerce that tried to facilitate some dialogue
between supporters and opponents, and individuals who arrived at the
boat
landings more out of curiosity than anything else.
The Battle Lines Blur
The battle lines were clearly defined in the Minocqua area during the
early years of the controversy. Those who supported Chippewa Treaty
Rights
included the Chippewa, GLIFWC, the witness and treaty support
networks and
the federal government, with whom all tribes have a trust
relationship.
Among those who opposed Chippewa Treaty Rights were the State of
Wisconsin,
groups such as PARR and STA and a number of local businesses involved with
tourism (resort owners, motel operators, taxidermists, etc.). In 1987,
gubernatorial candidate Tommy Thompson began courting anti-treaty
groups.
After his election, he publicly sympathized with their calls to
abrogate
the treaties, but said that his hands were tied, that only federal
officials could change an Indian treaty.[4] Boat landing protests
intensified
as opponents attempted to attract nationwide attention and influence
federal officials to end Chippewa spearfishing. Northern Wisconsin
boat
landings did, in fact, gain the attention of the national media in
the
mid-to-late 1980s. In what evolved into a media circus for three
weeks
each April and May, dozens of TV satellite trucks beamed shots of
violent
protests to ABC, CBS, NBC and CNN audiences across the country,
while
hundreds of print journalists fed stories to newspapers like the New
York
Times and Chicago Tribune and periodicals such as Time Magazine.
Federal
officials led by Senator Daniel Inouye, the Chairman of the Senate
Select
Committee on Indian Affairs, however, made it clear they would not
consider
abrogating the treaties.[5]
In 1989, Thompson and Wisconsin Attorney General Don Hanaway looked to
Minnesota for a possible solution to Indian treaty rights.
Minnesota had
successfully entered into an agreement with its Chippewa Bands to
lease a
portion of their treaty rights on a long-term basis. This had the
effect
of essentially paying the tribes not to hunt, fish and gather off
reservation. Convinced that federal officials would not come to their
assistance, Wisconsin officials began negotiating a lease agreement
with
two of the six bands of Chippewa--Mole Lake, the smallest band, and
Lac du
Flambeau, the largest. After Mole Lake tribal members turned down
the
offer, Thompson and Hanaway began an intensive public relations effort
to
persuade Lac du Flambeau tribal members and state legislators (who
also
would have to approve the deal) to accept a similar offer. The
proposed
lease agreement divided both the Indian and non-Indian communities.
The
Lac du Flambeau Tribal chairman and council unanimously voted to
recommend
the offer to their members, however a rival group, the Was-Wa-Gon
Treaty
Association, began an intense campaign to reject it. In addition,
the
Flambeau leadership found itself increasingly isolated from the
leadership
of the five other bands of Chippewa who viewed the offer as an
attempt to
"buy them off."
The non-Indian treaty support groups and witnesses found themselves in
the middle. During the 1990 harvest, Lac du Flambeau Tribal
Chairman
Michael Allen and Governor Tommy Thompson jointly asked all supporters
and
opponents to stay away from the landings so the Chippewa could spear
in
peace. However Was-Wa-Gon and a majority of the five other tribal
chairs
disregarded those pleas and formally invited supporters and
witnesses to
the landings.
A rift developed between state officials and the leadership of PARR and
STA during this same period. The costs of keeping the peace on the
boat
landings skyrocketed. The governor ordered thousands of law
enforcement
officers from all parts of the state to the landings each spring to
relieve
overwhelmed local officers. By Summer 1991, the price of that law
enforcement had reached almost seven million dollars. That and a number
of
events began to turn public opinion against treaty opponents. A U.S. Civ
il Rights Commission investigation concluded that racism was
partially to
blame for the controversy.[6] A $300,000 study, commissioned by
Inouye and
conducted jointly by federal, state and tribal natural resource
managers,
concluded that spearfishing was not damaging the walleye population.
Another study by three University of Wisconsin law professors, conducted
at
Inouye's request, strongly criticized the state's handling of the treaty
rights issue. It advised the governor that "meeting with leaders of
these
groups [PARR and STA] is precisely analogous to consulting with the
Ku Klux
Klan regarding voting rights.[7] There were further indications that public
sentiment on the issue of treaty rights was changing. A recall
election,
organized by treaty opponents, failed and an STA leader who ran for
a
legislative seat was soundly defeated. State officials began
distancing
themselves from the protesters. By the end of 1989, the protesters
were
telling reporters they felt betrayed by the state, whose position
they
perceived to be softening on the spearfishing issue.
A curious political alignment occurred on the lease agreement proposal.
PARR and STA joined Was-Wa-Gon and most of the Chippewa leadership
in
arguing against the lease option. The Lac du Flambeau tribal
leadership
and the Wisconsin governor and attorney general meanwhile put aside
their
litigious past and joined forces to argue for it. Tribal members
ultimately
defeated the proposal.
The Issue is Resolved
By Spring 1990, it was clear there would be no movement on the part of
federal officials to abrogate the treaties or to involve themselves
in the
controversy without the consent of the six bands of Chippewa. In
addition,
the Chippewa won an injunction against the leader of the anti-treaty
group, STA, which in essence, ordered him and several other STA members
to
stay away from the boat landings during Chippewa spearfishing.
Federal
Judge Crabb warned she would not tolerate harassment of the spearers
and
threatened any who disobeyed her orders with federal contempt of
court
charges and possible civil rights violations. These charges carry much
stiffer penalties than the local disorderly conduct charges protesters
had
faced in the past.[8] PARR leaders heeded the call of the governor
and
voluntarily stayed away from the landings. As a result, the crowds were
much smaller and quieter than in previous years and the media began
losing
interest.
When the state and the Chippewa announced neither would appeal Judge
Crabb's final decision, which ended seventeen years of litigation
between
the two sides, PARR vowed it would return to the landings and press
for a
re-opening of the Voigt case. During the 1991 spearfishing season,
however, few PARR members showed up at the landings to protest and media
coverage was minimal. By 1992, there was virtually no organized
protest
and little, if any, media coverage. Today, although hard-core
opponents
are still pushing for an end to spearfishing, the issue, at least as
it
relates to the state and the Chippewa, appears to be resolved.
Two Very Different Newspapers
The Chippewa Treaty Rights controversy offers an excellent opportunity
to compare and contrast the sources selected and the possible bias
reflected by two very different newspapers--one of them a mainstream
publication, the other an Indian-owned newspaper. In the early years of
intensive spearfishing, most downstate newspapers characterized the
controversy as a squabble over natural resources. For the people of
Northern Wisconsin, however, it was much more than that. Reporters for
the
Lakeland Times and News From Indian Country were in a unique position to
observe the complexities of the struggle on a daily basis. For
three weeks
each spring, the issue ripped apart the Indian and non-Indian communities.
Few families were untouched by the treaty rights issue, since the Native
and non-native economies are inextricably tied to natural resources.
The
downstate media were captivated by the nighttime drama on the boat
landings, but reporters for the Lakeland Times and News From Indian
Country
--like everyone else in Northern Wisconsin--had to cope with the
daytime
distress. For the Lakeland Times, that distress presumably was, in
part,
financial. The bulk of its advertising revenue comes from
businesses
either directly or indirectly tied to tourism and recreation. For the
staff of News From Indian Country, the distress was personal. Native
reporters, like others in the Indian community, view treaty rights as a
cultural and spiritual expression. In addition, there were reports
that
Indians, some of them not even Chippewa, were verbally abused and
harassed
by angry treaty opponents who didn't make tribal distinctions.
Lakeland Times
The Lakeland Times is a small twice-weekly newspaper located in Minocqua,
Wisconsin. Its circulation is just under 10,000. It has a staff of
fifteen, four of whom work full-time in news (three reporters and one
editor). Its circulation area includes several small, predominantly
white
tourist communities (Minocqua, Woodruff, Arbor Vitae and Hazelhurst)
and
the Lac du Flambeau Chippewa Reservation. According to its editors,
the
Lakeland Times has never employed a Native American either as a news
reporter or as a general staff member. It did, however, once employ a
non-Indian "stringer" who lived on the Reservation and who provided the
paper with stories about the Lac du Flambeau Band. The relationship,
however, was relatively brief.[9] Newspaper editors say they've made
repeated
attempts to attract Native American journalists to their staff and
would
have hired them, but "no one ever applied."[10]
Between 1987 and 1991, the Lakeland Times had three editors, Dean Bortz
(1986-88), Vicki Miazga (1988-1990) and Dean Acheson (1990-1991).
These
three covered most of the treaty rights stories that appeared in the
Lakeland Times during this five year period. One might expect
journalists
working on a small newspaper to have minimal experience, but this
was not
the case. Bortz had five years of reporting experience, Miazga had
six and
veteran Acheson had fifteen years. There were reporters who came and went
between 1987 and 1991. The editors estimated that these reporters had
between one and three years of experience.
The Lakeland Times took a strong editorial stance against Chippewa Treaty
Rights and spearfishing between the years of 1987 and 1991. Bortz and
Acheson say they oppose Chippewa treaty rights personally as well,
but both
say this did not affect their news coverage, which they characterize as
having been "more objective than the dailies."[11] They describe the
downstate
dailies as not spending enough time in Minocqua and being content to
talk
to the same sources. They feel the Lakeland Times, however,
provided more
technical stories and went beyond merely reporting about the boat
landing
confrontations and explained the real issues.[12]
Bortz and Acheson say their efforts to provide objective, balanced
coverage were compromised by the fact that many Indians wouldn't talk
to
Lakeland Times reporters. Acheson says, "I went out of my way to get
the
Lac du Flambeau perspective, so we couldn't be accused of bias.
Then we
got a fair amount of criticism from anti-treaty people who thought
our
coverage was unfair."[13] When asked if his newspaper was perceived as
being
"anti-Indian," Bortz said no. "We probably have more positive
stories about
Indians than any other newspaper in the State."[14] Bortz and Acheson say they
don't believe their coverage changed appreciably from 1987 to 1992.
News From Indian Country
News From Indian Country is a small, twice-monthly, Indian-owned national
newspaper located in Hayward, Wisconsin (although during much of the
research period, it was published monthly). It began life in 1984 as The
LCO Journal--a tribally-owned, local newspaper published by the Lac
Courte
Oreilles Band of Chippewa. In 1987, it was purchased by a private
group
and, during a one-year transition period, became The Journal: News
From
Indian Country. It has used its present title, News From Indian
Country
since August 1988. It has a circulation of 5,000 with subscribers in
all
fifty states and twelve foreign countries. Half of its subscribers
and
one-third of its readers are non-Indian.[15] It has a full-time staff
of seven,
with one person, editor Paul DeMain, devoted exclusively to news.[16] DeMain
depends upon free-lancers for locally originated material. For the
last
three years, he has complemented his own stories and those of his
stringers
with Associated Press accounts and reprints from other Native and
non-native newspapers.
Of the dozen or so free-lancers that covered the Chippewa Treaty Rights
issue between 1987 and 1991 for News From Indian Country or its
predecessors, DeMain says seven were Native Americans and five were
non-native. All had at least two years of experience and some had as
many
as nine. DeMain describes all of them as having a good
understanding of
the cultural and legal aspects of Indian treaties.[17] News From
Indian
Country, he says, strives to provide "the objective Indian view" on
issues
of the day. DeMain says other newspapers may view his publication
as an
advocate for Indian Country, but he doesn't view News From Indian
Country
as advocacy journalism, nor does he see his paper as "an alternative
newspaper." DeMain characterizes it as a left-leaning, liberal
publication, but that most Native people view it as more of a "mainstream,
moderate newspaper and not real activist."[18]
DeMain says he's comfortable with the number of non-native sources quoted
in his paper's Chippewa Treaty Rights stories--even in the early days of
the coverage, but thinks the spectrum of sources broadened over the
five
year research period as "more moderate non-native voices
emerged."[19]
An assumption can be made that these two newspapers, one
mainstream, the other ethnic could be expected to approach their coverage
differently. One might expect the non-Indian newspaper to use
predominantly non-Indian sources and the Native medium to use predominantly
Native sources and that the statements attributed to those sources might
reflect a bias. One can further assume that as the issue and the
coverage
matured and the non-Indian and Indian communities intensified their
dialogue, the spectrum of sources may have broadened over the five year
period. In light of these assumptions, these specific questions are
raised
and examined:
1. Did the Lakeland Times primarily use non-Indian sources and News From
Indian Country primarily use Indian sources in their coverage of
the
Chippewa Treaty Rights issue during the five year research period?
2. Did the number of statements attributed to these sources reflect a
bias?
3. Did the spectrum of sources and statements change over time?
Method
The author chose content analysis as the research tool for this study.
As Krippendorf points out, this method has served social scientists
well
for the past 100 years and is especially useful when assessing
bias.[20] Shaw
adds that content analysis "gains power as one attempts to follow
trends
and loses power sharply when one focuses upon single years and
regions.
The method is best used to follow broad t[r]ends, especially over
time."[21]
The author hoped that a quantitative analysis of sources and
statements
used by two very different newspapers in their coverage of an
emotionally
charged issue over a five year period would yield some useful facts
and
identify some interesting trends. Shaw argues, "the content of
newspapers
reflect [sic] the day-to-day judgments of the press at one level and
the
intrinsic values of a social system and culture at other levels.[22]
The Chippewa spearfishing season begins shortly after the ice breaks on
Northern Wisconsin lakes--sometime between mid-April and early May.
The
author expected that the bulk of spearfishing stories would appear
in both
publications during those two months, so the decision was made to
sample
the April and May issues of both News From Indian Country and the
Lakeland
Times. Because News From Indian Country was published monthly during
the
first four years of this study, all stories in all April and May
issues
from 1987-1990 were included. Since there were two issues during
April and
May of 1991, the author randomly selected one from each month (coin flip).
A total of ten issues provided forty-four stories. Ten of those stories,
however, were either lifted from the Associated Press wire (8) or
reprinted from other newspapers (2). For purposes of purity, the figures
in this study reflect totals analyzed with and without these
"outside"
accounts.
An equal number of Lakeland Times issues were studied. Because the paper
is published twice-weekly, there were at least eight and sometimes nine
issues each April and May from which to choose. The author assigned
a
number to every issue during April of 1987 and an independent selector
(the
husband of this researcher) randomly drew a number. This procedure was
repeated for all May of 1987 dates, then April of 1988 dates, etc.
The ten
Lakeland Times issues chosen yielded forty-eight stories which
compared
favorably with the number of articles in the ten News From Indian
Country
issues selected. Only stories with three or more paragraphs
containing
attributed statements were studied. Any story about Chippewa
spearfishing
or treaty rights was included without regard to state or national
boundaries. Ganje argued when she included Canadian as well as American
publications in her list of Native newspapers, "Native people often
do not
recognize the international border and {that} tribal groups freely
cross
between the two countries."[23]
The author gave considerable care to selecting the categories for
sources. Holsti points out that categories should be exhaustive and
mutually exclusive.[24] The first categories were obvious. Were the
sources
Indian and or non-Indian? Who were they and what did they do? Were
they
officials who directed or regulated policy? This category included
tribal
chairs, the governor, state and federal legislators, GLIFWC and DNR
wardens, etc. Were they non-officials? This category included fishing
guides, motel owners and tribal members likely to be directly
impacted by
the dispute. Also included in this category were attorneys and
biologists
working for both sides. This distinction was made because many of
the
professional attorneys and resource managers employed by the Chippewa
were
non-Indian and not viewed by the tribes as "official" spokespeople
for
them. Finally, it was important to know how the sources felt. Did
they
support spearfishing and Indian treaty rights? Did they oppose it?
Were
they neutral on the question? The fundamental questions led to the
formation of twelve exhaustive and mutually exclusive categories:
1. Indian officials offering statements in support of treaty rights...
2. Indian officials offering statements in opposition...
3. Indian officials offering neutral statements...
4. Indian non-officials offering statements in support....
5. Indian non-officials offering statements in opposition...
6. Indian non-officials offering neutral statements...
7. Non-Indian officials offering statements in support...
8. Non-Indian officials offering statements in opposition...
9. Non-Indian officials offering neutral statements...
10. Non-Indian non-officials offering statements in support...
11. Non-Indian non-officials offering statements in opposition...
12. Non-Indian non-officials offering neutral statements...
The universe of newspaper issues selected yielded a total of ninety-two
stories containing 1408 attributed statements, which were then coded
into
one of the twelve categories. Intercoder reliability was tested by
having a
professional news reporter, who had covered the boat landing
confrontations for television stations in Madison and Wausau, code a random
sample of fifteen percent of the stories. Seven stories from News From
Indian Country and seven stories from the Lakeland Times were
randomly
selected and yielded a total of 183 attributed statements. The author
then
compared her coding decisions with those of the second coder, using the
formula set down by Holsti in Content Analysis for the Social
Sciences and
Humanities.[25] Using Holsti's method, intercoder reliability was
.73, which is
considered a satisfactory level of reliability.
Consideration was given to criticism that Holsti's formula does not take
into account intercoder agreement that may result from chance.[26]
However, it
does not appear that chance would be much of a factor in this
research
study because of the relatively large number of categories used.
Interestingly enough, the disagreements the two coders experienced were not
so much about the attitudes reflected by the sources, but rather about
identifying the ethnicity of the sources. Indeed, this would be no
small
task for an outside researcher attempting to duplicate this story.
For
example, someone less familiar with the issue might assume that a
tribal
attorney commenting on the cultural implications of Chippewa Treaty
Rights
was Indian, when in fact nearly all the tribal attorneys working for
the
Chippewa in Wisconsin during this period were white.
Discussion
Sources
The extent to which News From Indian Country and the Lakeland Times used
Indian sources in their coverage of the spearfishing issue during
the five
year research period was surprising. Of the 102 unduplicated sources
quoted by the Lakeland Times, only seventeen of them, or sixteen
percent,
were Indian (Table 1). In fact, during the first three years of the
research period, the paper quoted only three unduplicated Indian sources
in
thirteen stories. Earlier in this article, it was stated that the
editors of the Lakeland Times felt their coverage was compromised by the
fact that few Indians would talk to their reporters. Some observers
believe that this was due to the Lakeland Time's strong editorial stance
against Chippewa Treaty Rights. This, they say, resulted in the
perception
in Indian Country that the newspaper was "anti-Indian" and would explain
the reluctance some Indians may have felt in assisting Lakeland
Times
reporters with their stories. The fewer Indian sources Native people
saw
in the Lakeland Times, the more likely they were to view it as
anti-Indian.
Assumptions that News From Indian Country primarily would use Indian
sources turned out to be false. Even though the Native newspaper
used
twice as many Indian sources as the Lakeland Times used, it still
primarily
cited non-Indian sources. Of the 151 unduplicated sources cited by News
From Indian Country during the five year research period,
thirty-five
percent were Native (Table 1).
Why would a Native newspaper go to non-Indian sources for a majority of
its quotes? There are several possible explanations. First, there
were a
lot of non-Indians working for the tribes in all facets of the
Chippewa
treaty rights dispute during the research period. The State of
Wisconsin
had a well-established bureaucracy, the Department of Natural
Resources,
for dealing with resources issues. The DNR's counterpart, the Great
Lakes
Indian Fish and Wildlife Commission, was only three years old at the
start
of the research period. Many of the GLIFWC management positions,
including
public relations and media specialists and nearly all of the biologist
positions were held by non-natives. In addition, all but one of the
tribal
attorneys for the six Chippewa Bands were white. So many of the legal and
scientific questions News From Indian Country reporters could be expected
to ask would likely be answered by non-natives working for the
Tribes. It
is also important to note that there are many more white people
living in
Indian country than there are Indians living in white communities.
Between
thirty and fifty percent of the population living within Chippewa
reservation borders in Wisconsin are non-Indian. This is the legacy of
federal policies at the turn of the century which allotted land
parcels to
tribal members and sold the excess to non-Indians. So if reporters
for a
Native publication found more non-Indians than Indians to interview,
it
should not be surprising that Lakeland Times reporters with fewer
connections in Indian Country would find even fewer Native sources.
Statements
A study of the attributed statements made by sources quoted by the
Lakeland Times reveals balanced coverage. Of the 760 statements studied
in
the five year sample, 103 or thirteen percent were judged to be favorable
to Chippewa Treaty Rights, 117 or fifteen percent unfavorable and
540 or
seventy-one percent neutral (Table 1, 2 ). The favorable comments
were
split equally between Indian and non-Indian sources. The
unfavorable
comments came exclusively from non-Indians. Not a single Native source
used by the Lakeland Times issued a statement in opposition to
spearfishing
or treaty rights. Seventy-one percent of the comments fell into the
neutral category, with non-Indians supplying eighty-six percent of the
statements in this category and Indians providing fourteen percent.
This
is consistent with the relatively few number of Native sources used
by the
white-owned newspaper.
News From Indian Country used far fewer neutral comments (32%) as
compared to the Lakeland Times and the statements that reflected a bias
were likely to be in support of spearfishing or Chippewa Treaty
Rights
(Table 1, 2 ). Of the 648 statements studied in News From Indian
Country
during the five year sample, 315 or forty-nine percent were judged
to
reflect a favorable attitude toward treaty rights. Only 125 or
nineteen
percent of the comments were judged to reflect an unfavorable
attitude.
The favorable comments were split equally between Indians and
non-Indians,
but as with the Lakeland Times, nearly all of the unfavorable
comments
(99.5%) were collected from non-Indians. Of those providing neutral
statements, sixty-five percent were non-Indian, thirty-five percent were
Indian. When the eight Associated Press stories and two reprints
were fac
tored out of the News From Indian Country equation, the neutral and
unfavorable percentages remained the same. The ratio of non-Indians
issuing favorable statements rose slightly when A.P. and reprint stories
were factored out.
Was News From Indian Country's coverage balanced and objective? It is
important to use caution when judging minority cultures by majority
standards. Once again, consider the responsibility editor Paul DeMain
believes his newspaper has in Indian Country--to provide "the
objective In
dian view" on issues of the day. The objective view on treaty
rights in
Indian Country is much different from the objective view in the
mainstream
culture. In the dominant society, there is argument about whether
treaty
rights exist. In Indian Country, there is no such debate. Treaty
rights
are a fact of life. It is next to impossible to find Native
Americans who
oppose Indian treaty rights. They may disagree on whether to lease
those
rights, but they fully recognize the rights exist. This is born out
by the
fact that of the 242 unfavorable statements made by sources in both the
Lakeland Times and News From Indian Country only one was made by an
Indian.
As was mentioned earlier during the discussion on sources, many of the
tribal support positions were filled by non-Indians. It stands to
follow
then that most of these non-Indian "experts" interviewed by News
From
Indian Country reporters would reflect the attitudes of their tribal
employers. This might explain why non-Indians shared more favorable
than
unfavorable comments about Chippewa spearfishing.
Changes Over Time
In the case of the Lakeland Times, the spectrum of sources and their
corresponding statements definitely changed over time. The paper used
only
three unduplicated Indian sources during the first three years of the
research--spearing leader Tom Maulson, the Great Lakes Indian Fish and
Wil
dlife Commission and "Chippewas." In the final two years of the
study,
1990 and 1991, it cited fourteen unduplicated Native sources,
including
tribal chairs and councils, spearfishers and GLIFWC biologists (Table
3).
Many of the non-Indian sources cited during the first three years of
the
study were state and local officials and those likely to be directly
involved in the issue--resort owners and sports fishermen. It was not
until 1989 that Lakeland Times reporters began quoting federal
officials,
like Senator Dan Inouye and Interior Department spokespeople. It
appears
they didn't initially recognize the Federal Government as a main
player in
the dispute. Most non-Indians did not know much about the treaties
and
concentrated their attention on state and local officials who were
powerless to act. In 1989 that began to change. The Lakeland Times also
appeared to cite more non-Indians with neutral or favorable
statements in
the final two years of the research study.
The data suggests that just as the spectrum of sources used by the
Lakeland Times changed over time, so did the spectrum of sources used by
News From Indian Country. The number of neutral sources increased
dramatically from the first three years to the last two years. In 1990 and
1991, the paper more than doubled its use of neutral Indian sources from
the previous three years and nearly quadrupled its use of non-Indian
sources (Table 3). Another discernible broadening occurred in the
"Indian
official" category during the last two years of the study. The
paper began
to cite more Indian leaders from outside the State of Wisconsin. Perhaps
this reflected a recognition by News From Indian Country reporters
that
there were similarities between the Chippewa struggle in Wisconsin
and
disputes raging elsewhere over Indian treaty rights. It is true also
that
these challenges to treaty rights galvanized treaty supporters
across the
country and produced a number of national boycotts, protests and
conferences. These were the kind of news events about which a national
Indian newspaper like News From Indian Country could be expected to
report
and might also explain the broadening of Indian sources. As editor
DeMain
suggested during his interview, there was also a broadening of
non-Indian
sources over time. The non-Indian resort owners, guides and sports
fishermen cited by News From Indian Country in the early years of the
research study almost exclusively held anti-treaty positions. As the
issue
matured and as News From Indian Country's coverage matured along with it,
the non-Indian resort owners, guides and anglers were just as likely
to
express neutral or even favorable statements on treaty rights as they
were
to share unfavorable statements.
Conclusions
The purpose of this study was to conduct a content analysis of coverage
given to the Chippewa Indian Treaty Rights dispute over a five year
period
by two Northern Wisconsin newspapers, one Indian-owned, the other
white-owned. The author quantified both sources and attributed statements
in an effort to determine possible bias, theorizing that the Indian
newspaper primarily would use Indian sources and that the non-Indian
newspaper primarily would use non-Indian sources. If these sources and
their statements did reflect biases, the author theorized that these
biases
might soften over time as the issue matured and the news coverage matured
along with it.
The author coded statements into twelve categories which reflected the
source--Indian or non-Indian; the role of the source--official or
non-official; and the attitude conveyed by the source--favorable,
unfavorable or neutral to the treaty rights issue. Finally, the author
quantified sources and statements to determine whether they had
changed
over the five year research period.
The white-owned newspaper used very few Indian sources--only five percent
during the first three years of the study. That percentage increased to
twenty-six percent during the last two years. It is not surprising
that
the number of statements attributed to Indians also increased over
time--from only fourteen statements in the first three years of the study
to 109 statements in the last two years. There was an obvious change
in the
attitude of the sources quoted over time as well. In the first three years
of the study, only thirty-two statements in support of Indian treaty
rights were found. That number more than doubled to seventy-one
during the
last two years. At the same time, the number of unfavorable statements
dropped from seventy-eight to forty-five, a forty-two percent
difference
from the first three years of the sample to the last two years.
Surprisingly, the Indian-owned newspaper also used more non-Indian than
Indian sources (63%) and quoted them more often (65%). There was no
appreciable difference when the eight Associated Press and two reprinted
stories were factored out of the data. Nearly half the statements
attributed to either Indian or non-Indian sources were favorable to Indian
treaty rights, while only nineteen percent reflected unfavorable
attitudes.
Like the white-owned newspaper, the Native newspaper broadened its
coverage over time as well. First of all, the sheer number of quotes
increased. In the first three years of the research period, 195 quotes
were cited in forty-four stories. In the last two years, that figure
more
than doubled to 453 statements. The paper was also more likely to
include
comments unfavorable to Chippewa Treaty Rights. One category
alone--
non-Indian, non-officials offering unfavorable statements on treaty
rights
saw a doubling from thirty-two negative statements in the first
three years
to sixty negative statements in the last two years. The number of
neutral statements from all sources increased dramatically as well. To
review the three questions in this research study:
1. "Did the Lakeland Times primarily use non-Indian sources and News
From Indian Country primarily Indian sources in their coverage of
Chippewa
Treaty Rights over the five-year research period?" The answer to
the first
question is mixed. The white-owned newspaper used mostly white sources,
but the Indian newspaper used a majority of white sources as well.
The
lack of Indian sources used by the Lakeland Times perhaps reflected
the
fact that the paper had few Native subscribers and no Native
journalists on
staff. It also may have reflected the disproportionate number of
non-Indians living within the reservation boundary and working in
professional capacities for the Chippewa Nation.
On the other hand, fifty percent of the subscribers to News From Indian
Country were non-Indian and so were forty percent of the reporters
who
filed spearfishing stories. It may be that in its source selection,
News
From Indian Country mirrored the diversity of its stringers and
readers. Or
it may be that minority reporters are just better adapted to finding
resources in the dominant society than majority reporters are to
finding
them in a minority culture. Most Native Americans no doubt feel
it's a
matter of survival to understand the white culture, but there is
little
pressure on non-natives to understand how Indian Country works. It
is also
important to note that there are simply many more whites than Indians in
Wisconsin and large numbers of them live on Indian reservations. So
it's
perhaps not so surprising that even a Native newspaper would
interview more
non-Indians than Indians on an issue affecting both cultures.
There are some cultural considerations as well. "Man-on-the-street"
interviews, which are common in the white culture are not considered
appropriate by many traditional tribal members who prefer to have their
clan leaders or some other designated speaker talk for them. This
may have
affected the number of responses in the Indian non-official categories
that News From Indian Country would have been likely to cite.
2. "Did the number of statements attributed to these sources reflect a
bias?" Again, the answer to the second question is mixed. There
appears to
be no bias on the part of the Lakeland Times. It's remarkable that in the
citation of 760 statements, the paper was able to come within two percent
in its favorable-to-unfavorable ratio of quotes about treaty rights.
One
could argue, however, that in the minds of Indian readers, the
quality of
sources was biased in that the newspaper quoted so few Native
Americans,
especially in the first three years of the study. Conversely, News
From
Indian Country appears to project a clear bias toward the favorable
recognition of Indian treaty rights. The author cautions against
characterizing News From Indian Country's coverage "subjective," however.
From the perspective of the dominant society, an objective
discussion of
Indian treaty rights might begin with arguments about whether those
rights
exist; in Indian Country, where there is near universal agreement
about the
existence of treaty rights, an objective discussion likely would begin
with a discourse about the nature and scope of those rights.
3. "Did the spectrum of sources and statements change over time?" Yes.
The non-native newspaper cited virtually no non-Indian sources
during the
first three years of the research period. The last two years, it
increased
them dramatically. And as the diversity of its sources grew over time, so
did the diversity of statements about the treaty rights issue. The Native
newspaper's source selection changed over time as well and while it cited
both Indian and non-Indian sources from the beginning of the
research
period, it increased the number of neutral comments from both Natives
and
non-natives. It also broadened its use of Indian sources as the
issue
matured and as Wisconsin Indians perhaps began to view their struggle
as
part of a larger pan-Indian struggle over treaty rights. It is
perhaps no
coincidence that a Wisconsin Chippewa tribal leader sought and won
the
chairmanship of the American Indian National Congress in 1991.
The changes observed in both newspapers over the five year research
period reflected changes taking place in Wisconsin as a whole. Just as
the
relationship between the state and the Chippewa grew distinctly less
adversarial in the last two years of the study, the coverage in both
the
Lakeland Times and News From Indian Country grew distinctly more
moderate.
The white-owned newspaper began quoting Indians more often while the
Native publication began giving space to neutral voices more often.
Less
than a year after the lease proposal failed, a delegation of
Wisconsin
legislators traveled to the State of Washington where officials had
shaped
a partnership with Indian tribes to co-manage the resources. A
short time
later, the DNR and several Chippewa Bands announced cooperative fish
rearing and stocking projects in Wisconsin. In a separate announcement,
Governor Thompson designated the Lac du Flambeau reservation a new
state
"economic zone" and authorized tens of thousands of dollars in state
aid.
In September of 1991, an educational mandate went into effect that,
in
essence, required all public schools to teach Indian history and
culture
beginning in the fourth grade. The Chippewa responded by lowering
their
spearfishing quotas and announcing plans to stock off-reservation
lakes
with fish reared at tribal hatcheries.
The acceptance of Chippewa Treaty Rights among non-natives in Wisconsin
is clearly growing. Moderate and neutral voices from both the
Indian and
non-Indian communities have come to dominate the public discussions
about
the treaties and those same voices have become principal sources for
the
media, including newspapers like the Lakeland Times and News From
Indian
Country. As the Chippewa Treaty Rights issue has matured, news
coverage in
these two very different newspapers has clearly matured along with
it.
Table 1
[--- WMF Graphi
c Goes Here ---]
[--- WMF Graphic Goes Here ---]
Table 2
[--- WMF Graphic Goes Here ---]
[--- WMF Graphic Goes Here ---]
Table 3
[--- WMF Graphic Goes Here ---]
[--- WMF Graphic Goes Here ---]
[1] LCO vs State of Wisconsin, Federal Judge Barbara Crabb, March, 1991
[2] Associated Press "Story of the Decade" polling results, December 1989
[3] Lakeland Times and other news reports, April 22, 1988
[4] Spring of Di
scontent television documentary, WKOW TV-Madison, May, 1990
[5] Ibid.
[6]
Discrimination Against Chippewa Indians in Northern Wisconsin, Wisconsin A
dvisory
Committee to the United States Commission on Civi
l Rights, Summary Report, December 1990
[7] Keeping Our Word: Indian Treat
y Rights and Public Responsibilities, A Report on a
Recom
mended Federal Role Following Wisconsin's Request for Federal Assistance, R
ennard
Strickland, Stephen J. Herzberg and Steven R. Owen
s, April 16. 1990
[8] Federal Court injunction, April 1990
[9] Author int
erview with Lakeland Times editors Dean Acheson and Dean Bortz in Minocqua,
August 28, 1992
[10] Ibid.
[11] Ibid.
[12] Ibid.
[13
] Ibid.
[14] Ibid.
[15] Author telephone interview with News From Indian
Country editor Paul DeMain,
September 23, 1992
[16] Ibid
.
[17] Ibid.
[18] Ibid.
[19] Ibid.
[20] Krippendorf, Klaus, Content Ana
lysis: An Introduction to Its Methodology, Sage
Publicat
ions, 1980, pp. 14-15
[21] Shaw, Donald Lewis, Some Notes on Methodology:
Change and Continuity in American
Press News 1820-1860, J
ournalism History 8:2, Summer 1981, p. 52
[22] Ibid., p. 53
[23] Ganje, L
ucy, Design of the Native Press: A Cultural Perspective, presented to the
Minorities and Communication Division, Association for Edu
cation in Journalism and Mass
Communications annual conve
ntion, Montreal, 1992, p. 6
[24] Holsti, Ole, Content Analysis for the Soc
ial Sciences and Humanities, Addison-Wesley
Publishing Co
, 1969 p. 95
[25] Ibid., p. 140
[26] Bennet, Alpert and Goldstein (1954).
Communications Through Limited Response
Questioning, Pub
lic Opinion Quarterly, 18, pp. 303-308