Posted on: Sunday, October 6, 2002

AFTER DEADLINE
Fine line separates public's right to know, right of family privacy

By Jim Kelly

Our first report on Patsy Mink's hospitalization was a fairly brief item that ran inside the Hawai'i section on Sept. 6.

Between that day and Sept. 28, the day of her death, we ran 18 stories about Mink's hospitalization and what people were saying about her condition.

But did we do enough to report the full story of her deteriorating health and the consequences for the election?

Since her death eight days ago, some readers have said we should have been more aggressive. A Maui reader wrote: "The Advertiser was apparently very happy to serve the interests of the Democratic hard-liners."

The truth is, editors debated nearly every day how hard we should push for information about Mink and whether it was appropriate to write about such matters as the high mortality rate for older people with pneumonia, or what the process was for replacing a candidate on the election ballot.

In hindsight, it's pretty easy to second-guess our coverage, since it's now clear that Mink was a lot sicker than anyone let on.

Our first instincts — to chase hard after the story — were tempered by our desire to be sensitive to a family dealing with the serious illness of a loved one. One of our editors, who previously worked at the New York Post, observed that if this were New York, he'd be sending a photographer to bull his way into the intensive care unit under orders not to come back without the photo.

But this isn't New York. In this community, privacy is firmly guarded and questions about health are held close, even within the family.

Early on, we decided that we would make checks on Mink's condition several times daily and press for as much information as we could get without hassling her family. That proved to be difficult. The Mink family directed Straub Hospital & Clinic not to release any information about the congresswoman's condition. Her doctors would not talk, nor would her office, nor would her family.

We tried people close to Mink, as well as people in the Democratic Party. No one knew anything. We heard rumors that Mink was unconscious, hooked to a machine to help her breathe, but we couldn't confirm that.

As the primary election drew closer and Mink's condition remained a mystery, we decided not to write a "what if" story — what were the rules for replacing her if she died or couldn't serve? With nothing to suggest Mink's condition was worsening, we thought it would be insensitive to run a story speculating about her death or incapacity. But we asked a reporter to start getting some background information on the issue.

On Sept. 19, two days before the primary, we ran our first front-page story about the Mink situation, in which her Republican opponent, Bob McDermott, said the public had the right to know her condition. In response to a question from a reporter, Gov. Ben Cayetano said he also thought that more information about Mink's condition should be forthcoming, but stressed that it was up to her family.

On the same day, we ran an editorial urging Mink's family to lift the veil of secrecy surrounding her illness.

Once the primary had passed and Mink was the Democratic nominee, editors decided that questions about her condition and reporting what would happen if she died were fair game. We sent a reporter to Straub to see if she could get in to see Mink and at least determine if she was conscious. She briefly approached John Mink, but he declined to answer questions.

Meanwhile, we ran a story laying out what would happen if Mink died or couldn't run. Between the day of the primary and the day of her death, we ran at least one story every day on Mink's condition and what people were saying.

Some readers say we should get a copy of Mink's death certificate to find out when she died. Under state law, death records are available only to people "with a direct and tangible interest in the record," such as a relative. While I could certainly argue that knowing the timing of Mink's death qualifies as being in the public interest, does it outweigh the Minks' right to privacy? I haven't heard anything beyond the usual cynical conspiracy theories from the usual loudmouths to suggest that the Minks or Democratic Party heavyweights somehow manipulated the timing of Mink's death. And what good would that have done them?

But clearly, readers are feeling duped. They are bothered that people in the party, including U.S. Rep. Neil Abercrombie and Democratic Party Chairwoman Lorraine Akiba, said flat out that Mink was on the mend and would be able to serve. We reported those statements and tried to verify their accuracy, but we were unsuccessful, which I guess to some folks makes us look like dupes, too, or conspirators.

I'm satisfied that we did our best to find out what was going on. I'm also convinced that only a handful of people knew how ill Patsy Mink really was and they chose not to tell us. That's their right.

Jim Kelly is executive editor of The Advertiser.