THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1996, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Sunday, October 6, 1996 TAG: 9610040030
SECTION: COMMENTARY PAGE: J5 EDITION: FINAL
SOURCE: LYNN FEIGENBAUM
LENGTH: 85 lines
It's informative, an eye-opener - worthy of being on A1. Or it's inaccurate, superficial, maybe even communist propaganda.
That was just some of the reaction to ``America: Who Stole the Dream?'' - a Philadelphia Inquirer series that ran for seven days in The Pilot's BusinessNews section. The authors, Donald L. Barlett and James B. Steele, used numerous interviews to support their premise that America's economic policies help the rich get richer and the poor worker lose his job.
Readers have been calling and writing to offer their widely variant viewpoints since the series began on Sunday, Sept. 22. Some noted that Newsweek magazine had panned it as ``junk journalism'' and that the Wall Street Journal had dismissed it as a one-sided ``anecdotal avalanche,'' timed for the presidential elections.
So why, they asked, did The Pilot run this stuff? ``I guess the story was too negative and derogatory about the United States and business for you to ignore it,'' said Eric Hughes of Chesapeake.
But most of the calls and letters to the newspaper, about two dozen, praised ``American Dream'' and thanked The Pilot for printing it.
``I believe the critics of this story are in denial about the true meaning to the average American,'' wrote Lucy Vaughan of Virginia Beach. Or, she added, they're ``in that well-defined upper class that wants to continue to keep us peasants in the dark.''
The series struck a particular chord with Jackie Deshaies of Portsmouth. She was laid off as a civil service worker and has gone into business for herself as a Mary Kay beauty consultant.
Tracy S. Evans of Portsmouth wishes the series had run on the front page, where non-business readers would have seen it. And Warren Boisselle of Virginia Beach gave the articles to his granddaughter, to encourage her to go on college.
It's always a positive sign when a journalistic venture gets people talking and thinking. And as another reader pointed out, it's been the hot topic on TV, so at least Pilot readers could judge it for themselves.
Still, the series was heavily anecdotal and written from one viewpoint. My main concern was the lack of counterbalance to the writers' opinions. That was remedied last Sunday when an opposing view ran, citing local economists like John Whaley of the Hampton Roads Planning District Commission and Gilbert Yochum of Old Dominion University.
In addition, you can read still another opposing viewpoint tomorrow. Another Wall Street Journal piece, by former Magellan Fund money manager Peter Lynch, will run on Monday's editorial Perspectives page.
Why did The Pilot run the ``American Dream'' series? Wade Wilson, Pilot business section editor, says it appealed to him for the very reason that evoked some criticism - because it ``defies conventional wisdom.'' After all, conventional wisdom changes over time. Wade also was impressed by the authors' research and felt this was an issue worth exploring.
As for it being too anecdotal, ``even in our opposition viewpoint, they don't back up their arguments,'' said Wilson. ``I guess it's too complex for us simple folk.''
If ``American Dream'' drew a couple of dozen responses here in Hampton Roads, I wondered how it went over in Philadelphia, where it originated.
John Bull, assistant to the editor of the Inquirer and the newspaper's ombudsman, said they got more than 2,600 phone calls to a special hotline, 500 pieces of mail and more ``hits'' on the paper's Internet site than ever before. Bull said the calls ran 2-1 in favor of the series.
Bull couldn't tell me how many newspapers carried the series since it was available over the wires to all clients of the Knight-Ridder News Service. But one that did, The Seattle Times, yanked it after Day 1; the newspaper's editors found it too opinionated, he said.
And finally, I asked Bull what he thought of ``American Dream.'' His reaction, he said, was like most people's: astonishment.
``Personally,'' he added, ``it really challenged some of my own basic assumptions, which were that open trade, lack of trade barriers, is a good thing, NAFTA is a good thing, unions are too powerful, and unrestricted immigration is a wonderful virtue. I really have to rethink these things. . .
``I don't know all the answers but I found it very interesting, and my opinion reflects what I heard from readers.''
Still squinting at the mutuals. While I'm on the subject of business news: Ronald Glinski of Virginia Beach wonders when we're going to fix up the mutual funds listing. He and other readers have long complained that the small, cramped type is nearly impossible to read.
A couple of columns ago, I said that our business editors are working on the stock pages and that improvements were targeted for mid-September.
Well, they didn't make that date. And what with the complications of technology, I won't try to make any more predictions. But I do wonder what happened to those good old pre-high-tech days when you had a problem and fixed it the next day. All right, maybe two days later. . .
by CNB