SPJ "Ethics Week" Ideas

Some fascinating ideas here,
subjects of real significance,
none adopted, not even a response from Mr. Gratz.
Craig Cantoni's essay below is superb.

Dear Mr. Gratz and Mr. Scarp,
(President of the Society of Professional Journalists, and
SPJ Chapter President in Phoenix, respectively)

The widely accepted practice of airing VNRs (video news releases), without attribution by all major broadcasters, is a perfect topic for SPJ's upcoming Ethics Week -- especially with the White House's possibly illegal use of this tool making front page news. Most people have no idea that a significant portion of the news is produced by private interest factions, or commercial groups, packaged to look like newscasts, and then simply aired without notice by “objective” news teams and networks.

Because the question of bias in gun news coverage has been so well documented, it seems a perfect subject for Ethics Week too. I have numerous stories related to this posted for your review at http://www.gunlaws.com/NewsAccuracy.htm, in case you are unfamiliar with them.

The whole idea of reporting on isolated murderers, from thousands of miles away, while doctors are responsible for hundreds of “accidental” deaths every day, many near you, casts some doubt on the story selection process the media uses. Do the shooting deaths way across the continent cast a negative shadow on the value of firearms? Does supressing the doctor-death stories give a false sense of security instead? Is the public interest served, when the true risks we face are so mistakenly represented? What a great subject for ethics week.

Now, my close friend and newspaper columnist Craig Cantoni has discovered stunning bias in financial news coverage -- a profound additional candidate for Ethics Week. His report, documented thoroughly:

[See what SPJ chose for its Ethics Week topic -- “Are some letters to the editor too strong to print?”]

-----------------------------

Journalism and the Biotech Feeding Frenzy

By Craig J. Cantoni

March 24, 2005

The Arizona Republic has been advocating huge public investments in biotech research, due to a belief that such investments are a way for Arizona to gain economically from the coming biotech revolution. Other big-city dailies across the nation have advocated the same thing for their hometowns.

This raises two questions: First, are the investments a smart and proper use of public money? Second, is it the proper role of journalism to be an advocate for such investments instead of being neutral and presenting both the pros and cons of this use of public money?

Let's start with the proper role of journalism.

Last Sunday's edition of The Arizona Republic devoted six pages to a new biotech research center that was built with public money in Phoenix. Three of the pages were in the news section, and three were in the opinions section.

In a blurring of news and opinion, there was no difference between the coverage in the news section and the editorials in the opinions section. Both sections quoted people and organizations that have a vested interest in the public investments, and both sections steered clear of people, studies and statistics that question the wisdom of the investments.

Such one-sided coverage plays into the hands of critics on the right who say that the mainstream press is losing market share because it has a big-government agenda and can't be trusted to report the news objectively. My view is that newspapers should be a watchdog over the public purse and should have a healthy skepticism about government proposals to take money from the purse, especially for the purposes of industrial planning and economic development.

Let's turn to the question of whether public investment in biotech is a smart and proper use of public money. I'll skip the "proper" part of the question, because that comes down to a philosophical, ideological, constitutional and moral issue of whether the government should have the power to forcibly take money from citizens for what is essentially a modern form of mercantilism.

To determine if it is a smart investment to spend public money on biotech research, we first need to know the following:

1. The expected rate of return on the invested money.

2. The historical return on investment of both public and private capital invested in biotech research.

3. The success of such investments in other cities and states.

4. The economic opportunities that were lost by taking capital out of the private sector.

5. The competition faced by cities and states in biotech, and whether, instead of investing in biotech, they would be better off playing to their natural competitive advantages, coupled with removing tax and regulatory barriers to economic growth.

Amazingly, to the best of my knowledge, neither the local government nor the press has provided the foregoing information.

Worse, with respect to No. 1, the local press did not challenge a specious claim by the head of Phoenix's new research center that there has already been a sizable return on investment. How did he calculate the ROI? He included federal research grants in the center's revenue.

In other words, if money is taken from taxpayers twice - once to build and operate the research center, and once to fund research grants - the center is generating a profit. In reality, taxpayers have experienced a loss.

It's not as if the information listed above is difficult to find. I found it in one hour by doing two things: one, typing various city names into an Internet search engine, along with the words "biotech research;" and two, sending an e-mail to contacts familiar with public policy issues, asking them if they knew of any authoritative studies on the subject of publicly-funded biotech research.

Here's what I discovered from my city-by-city search:

- That scores of cities are pinning their hopes on publicly-funded biotech research but have not provided the information listed in Nos. 1-5 above.

- That scores of big-city newspaper are advocating biotech research as an economic elixir but have not provided the information listed in Nos. 1-5 above.

Here's what I discovered from authoritative studies by the Cato Institute, the Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis and others:

- That there is now more biotech research capacity in the nation than the number of scientists needed to fill the capacity, a situation that is similar to the excess convention center capacity in the nation, due to cities exaggerating the economic benefits of the centers and racing each other to see who can build the biggest and fanciest facilities.

- That advocates of publicly-funded research centers have exaggerated the returns on investment.

- That privately-funded research centers have higher returns on investment than publicly-funded research centers.

- That the research centers are based on the idea of cluster-based economic development, an idea that has dubious merit.

- That politicians are in a bidding war of financial subsidies for a small number of biotech companies, thus driving up the value of the companies beyond their true economic value.

- That a smart strategy for a city or state is to reap the benefits of biotech research while letting other cities and states incur the cost of the research, by instituting tax and regulatory policies that attract biotech companies (and other companies).

For more information, see the following sources:

http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj14n1-6.html

http://minneapolisfed.org/pubs/fedgaz/03-09/biotech.cfm

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/06/07/EDGD56NA7O1.DTL

http://minneapolisfed.org/pubs/fedgaz/03-09/clusters.cfm.

In closing, it would seem that before hundreds of millions of dollars of public money are spent, the government and the press should at least do an hour of research and report the results.

_________

Mr. Cantoni is an author, columnist and founder of Honest Americans Against Legal Theft (www.haalt.org). His new book will be published in a couple of months (Breaking from the Herd: Political Essays for Independent Thinkers by a Maverick Columnist). He can be reached at either ccan2@aol.com or haalt1@aol.com.

----------------------------

An hour of research to provide two sides to a hundred-million-dollar story -- what a wonderful concept! Should the news media do this? And what a wonderful topic for SPJ Ethics Week! Will it happen?

Alan Korwin
Publisher
Bloomfield Press

P.S. Mr. President Gratz, I have not yet heard from you on any of this yet, would you kindly respond. Thank you.
[No response ever received]



Alan Korwin, Publisher
Bloomfield Press
4848 E. Cactus, #505-440
Scottsdale, AZ 85254
602-996-4020
602-494-0679 Fax
1-800-707-4020
alan@bloomfieldpress.com
http://www.bloomfieldpress.com

If you can read this, thank a teacher.
If you're reading this in English, thank a veteran.

 

COMPLETE ALPHABETICAL LIST OF PRODUCTS
Gun LawsGun Rights Gun PoliticsFree SpeechVideosSelf Defense and Safety
SurvivalPolice GuidesKnivesNovelsThe Founders PackageHistory of Rights
ButtonsRecent Additions  123Women & KidsFirst-Time Gun Owners
E-BooksNewest ProductsCloseoutsPackage Deals
Bloomfield Press

gunlaws.com and bloomfieldpress.com are domains owned by Alan Korwin.

Alan is a nationally recognized author of numerous books
on gun laws and other topics.

If you like this site you'll like his books. Take a look