Teaching Notes: Minnesotas Basketball Cheating Scanda Synopsis The St. Paul Pioneer Press, in a three-month investigation in 1999, uncovered widespread academ ic cheating among University of Minnesota basketball players. When the paper published its findings the day before the Gophers were to play an Ncaa tournament game the public reacted with anger against the Pioneer Press. The university ' s own investigation subsequently found that the cheating and m conduct had sullied Minnesota's athletic program. Three top university officials lost their jobs as a result of the scanda Objectives This case may be used to teach the issues involved in the public's right to know inform ation once a journalist has it. It goes to the heart of the question, how much re porting is enough? When is a story ready to publish? And what factors determ ine the answer to those questions? The case also deals with the ethics of investigative reporting the cultivation of sources and com petition between news organizations. Discussion Questions Publics Right to Know 1. The St. Paul Pioneer Press knew that a scandal was brewing in the minnesota bas ke tball program that the unive rsity had self-re ported itse lf to the NCAA, and was conducting an investigation and compliance review. Still, the paper withheld this inform ation from the public from November until March Should the Pioneer Press have run the story earlier? 2. The paper actively withheld inform ation -and it was public information-from the public for a protracted period How would you justify withholding the information from a citizen who asked,"Why didn 't you tell me about this earlier? When does the public's right to know kick in? 3. Once the paper did decide to hold off, should it have waited until the end of the tournament? Should the potential impact of a story determine when it runs? 4. Who were making the decisions in this story? Did they pursue the process responsibly inside the newsroom Who should decide when the story is ready? should the managing editor have been informed of the possible story earlier?Teaching Notes: Minnesota's Basketball Cheating Scandal Synopsis The St. Paul Pioneer Press, in a three-month investigation in 1999, uncovered widespread academic cheating among University of Minnesota basketball players. When the paper published its findings the day before the Gophers were to play an NCAA tournament game, the public reacted with anger against the Pioneer Press. The university's own investigation subsequently found that the cheating and misconduct had sullied Minnesota's athletic program . Three top university officials lost their jobs as a result of the scandal. Objectives This case may be used to teach the issues involved in the public's right to know information once a journalist has it. It goes to the heart of the question, how much reporting is enough? When is a story ready to publish? And what factors determine the answer to those questions? The case also deals with the ethics of investigative reporting, the cultivation of sources and competition between news organizations. Discussion Questions Public's Right to Know 1. The St. Paul Pioneer Press knew that a scandal was brewing in the Minnesota basketball program , that the university had self-reported itself to the NCAA, and was conducting an investigation and compliance review. Still, the paper withheld this information from the public from November until March. Should the Pioneer Press have run the story earlier? 2. The paper actively withheld information—and it was public information—from the public for a protracted period. How would you justify withholding the information from a citizen who asked, "Why didn't you tell me about this earlier?" When does the public's right to know kick in? 3. Once the paper did decide to hold off, should it have waited until the end of the tournament? Should the potential impact of a story determine when it runs? 4. Who were making the decisions in this story? Did they pursue the process responsibly inside the newsroom? Who should decide when the story is ready? Should the managing editor have been informed of the possible story earlier?