Newman, known for her colorfully decorated home in South Minneapolis, complained to the News Council after she saw the May theater review that contained what she said were offensive descriptions of her character. Newman complained that her inclusion in the article was "politically incorrect" and "cheap." Newman also complained that the use of her first and last name, as well as the location of her residence in the article was unnecessary.

The News Council denied a third complaint that the use of Newman’s first and last name, as well as the location of her residence in the review was unfair. The vote was 10-3, with one abstention.

The publishers of the Minnesota Daily attended the hearing, and defended their inclusion of Newman in its review of "The Madwoman of Chaillot." "The author, Sarah Miller, drew parallels to real life, where readers could relate to the play and its message… Miller used people from the Twin Cities, including Newman to speak critically about societies that label people ‘crazy,’ " said Editor-in-Chief Emily Banks. "The words used to describe Newman were subjective and intended to communicate nonconformity, or extreme eccentricity," noted Banks.

"There’s an underlying negative tone to this review, it goes beyond colorful creativity," said media member Kerri Miller.

Banks, defending the review, told council members that the review, taken as a whole is meant to celebrate eccentric, colorful women, like the play’s main character. "The article wasn’t meant to attack Ms. Newman," said Banks.

The council members agreed that Newman, whose home and art has been featured in past news coverage, is a public figure. "Newman’s history of being in the media spotlight made her a public figure subject to public critique," commented Banks.

However, most Council members believed that the inclusion of Newman in the theater review was unnecessary.

"I always tell my journalism students ‘Never forget that you’re writing about real people,’ " said media member Steve Schild. "I don’t think the Daily did that here."

Al Zdon, a public member who voted to deny all three complaints, did not think the review was unfair. "I don’t see a problem with what the Daily wrote," said Zdon. "Perhaps it was not well-written, but that’s fairly common in journalism."