U.S. News and 3M: A Case Study

     The typical litigation story starts with a tale of life gone wrong, seen almost entirely from the side of the “wronged” party. It might be about anything - car accidents, failed medical procedures or product liability. If the other side is contacted at all, their comments are buried or they are unable to respond because the case is still in court.

     The U.S. News & World Report piece on 3M on Aug. 9, 2004 was a classic. Reporters Christopher H. Schmitt, Ann M. Wakefield, and Monica M. Ekman targeted a company “which produces everything from Post-it notes to Scotch tape.” One of those products was a filter mask, designed to keep workers safe from breathing in foreign substances. According to the story, “U.S. News found serious problems with the safety and reliability of the company’s mask, plus inadequate oversight by accommodating federal regulators.”

     It continued: “The inquiry is based on interviews, company documents, court depositions, government records, and an exhaustive examination of worker-safety records.” What the article didn’t say is that it relied heavily on information from the plaintiff’s point of view. Readers had to catch the correction to tell that it was riddled with errors and skewed reporting.

     The error-filled story resulted in an eight-paragraph correction: “A subsequent review of the article by the editors of the magazine, requested by 3M, disclosed several significant shortcomings and inaccuracies.” 

     Those errors included misreading test results, failing “to offer a fully balanced presentation of the issues raised by the cases,” and even an unfair headline. The correction also pointed out that four people cited by the article criticizing the masks were also “paid advisers to plaintiffs’ counsel in litigation against 3M.” It also mentioned that 3M had won six of the seven court cases involving the mask and was appealing the seventh.

     U.S. News concluded: “‘Secrets Behind the Mask’ failed to meet U.S. News’s acknowledged high standards of journalistic fairness and balance. Throughout its long history, U.S. News has enjoyed a reputation for honoring both qualities. That we failed to do so in this case is a cause of deep regret.”

Back to Full Study

The Business & Media Institute is a division of the Media Research Center
Dan Gainor, Director
Charles Simpson, Research Analyst
www.businessandmedia.org

The Media Research Center
325 South Patrick Street • Alexandria, Virginia, 22314
(703) 683-9733 • www.mediaresearch.org