Updates: Wellmark, Sicko, Gambling & Conference

July 12, 2007, 6:00 a.m.

July 11, 2007, 7:00, 8:00 a.m. (See "Reason Rules," and "Marcus Theatres/Sicko," below, for today's mini-essays)

July 10, 2007, 7:00 a.m.; 3:50 p.m.

Updates: Wellmark, Sicko, Gambling, Fairness, Sales Tax & Resources Conference
Yesterday [July 9] I said I was going to swear off blogging and get some work done -- primarily for want of any news worthy of commentary. One day later, as if to take up my challenge and prove to me that they can find news related to the subjects tracked by this blog, the papers are full of it again today [July 10]. No lengthy essays from me. But you'll at least want the links to the updates.

Wellmark: "Well then, if you're not going to accept our money we're just not going to give you the money. So there!"

[July 12] Marvin Pomerantz, an exceedingly generous benefactor of the UI and other Iowa institutions and projects, a former Wellmark board member, chair and prime mover of the College of Public Health Capital Campaign Committee, says he is "embarrassed" by the rejection of the Wellmark offer to purchase the name of the College in perpetuity for $15 million.

With respect, I think to the extent there is any embarrassment felt by Pomerantz, lead Wellmark director John Colloton and Wellmark CEO John Forsyth -- all involved in this proposal -- it is an embarrassment of their own making. When Forsyth says, as he has, that Wellmark did not envision that its effort to buy the name of the College "would spawn the negative reaction" that it has it indicates either (1) a lack of prior research and consultation or (2) an arrogant sense of entitlement that Wellmark's money should enable it to buy anything, along with a willingness to steamroller over opposition he knew would be there. It's an embarrassment that they thought of the idea; that they went ahead with it; and that they've reacted with such a petulant "I'm taking my marbles and going home" display. Those are the things that make this fiasco embarrassing. What the College did in rejecting the proposal is in no way embarrassing.

On the other hand, there's something the University does need to address. That's Pomerantz' comment that "we think they [the UI administration and faculty] were making rules up as they went along." I have no way of knowing what happened. I wasn't there. But I wouldn't be surprised if Pomerantz is dead on about that assertion.

As I wrote in Nicholas Johnson, "More on 'The Name Game'" in "Name Game & Other Moral Dilemmas," July 4, 2007:

What's happening, as I see it, is but a tiny sub-set of a much larger, looming challenge that I wrote about in an earlier blog entry. Nicholas Johnson, "Greed, Conflicts, Cover-Ups and Corruption" in "Conflicts, Cover-Ups and Corruption," June 26, 2007.

Our so-called "public universities" (increasingly "private" in terms of operating budgets and escalating tuition and other student expenses) are in a period of transition -- although to what is not altogether clear. I wrote about these alternative futures in a Press-Citizen op ed. Nicholas Johnson, "Where Are We Going? Who's Going With Us?" Iowa City Press-Citizen, June 19, 2007.

The issue here is not whether corporations and business are "bad." We are surrounded daily with evidence to the contrary provided by everything from the start-ups of our youngest entrepreneurs to our oldest and largest corporations.

The issue is whether we wish to maintain a sanctuary anywhere in our society from the values and pressures of profit maximization -- churches, national parks, what was created to be a "non-commercial" radio service and is now larded with commercials? The academy does seem to be well into a similar transition from a cloistered sanctuary for the free education of students to a corporate-sponsored and administered jobs training program (from which the banks prosper with the interest on the student loans necessary to pay the ever-rising tuition). Because it is a transition we may well be, as Pomerantz suggests, "making rules up" as we go along.

As I discuss in "Conflicts, Cover-Ups and Corruption," linked above, the issues go well beyond the naming of universities, colleges, buildings -- indeed, anything large enough to hold a plaque. I won't repeat here that list of potential issues confronting our new UI President, Sally Mason. But if we are, in fact, making up the rules as we go along I would humbly suggest that we pause a moment to think through with deliberation the issues and the policies that we wish to pursue rather than continue to wander down a road littered with the kind of improvised explosive devices that we've just seen triggered.

(And while we're doing it, the Press-Citizen's thoughtful editorial this morning [July 12] to the contrary notwithstanding, consider the possibility that it does not necessarily follow that a red hot solution to the Wellmark naming controversy would have been to take the money but not name the building -- even if that option had been available, which it never was. It is the taking of the money (in some circumstances, including this one) that creates the conflict of interest. The naming of the building for the corporate donor only advertises one's willingness to engage in such conflicts, one's having finally swapped one's ethics for money after, as Shaw put it, "haggling over price." Editorial, "Wellmark Should Give a True Gift to Health College," Iowa City Press-Citizen, July 12, 2007.

And see, Brian Morelli, "Pomerantz resigns from college committee; Former Wellmark director 'embarrassed' by rejection of plan," Iowa City Press-Citizen, July 12, 2007, p. A1; Diane Heldt, "Pomerantz Leaves UI Fundraising Committee; Major UI Donor Upset Over Handling of Wellmark Gift Offer," The Gazette, July 12, 2007, p. A1.

[July 11] Rekha Basu, "U of I Shows Healthy Respect for Its Good Name," Des Moines Register, July 11, 2007 ("The University of Iowa's school of public health deserves a great big bouquet of roses for proving that not everything is for sale, especially not its name. . . . The fact is, insurance industry goals can be at odds with public-health ones. (Go see "Sicko" if you have any doubt about that). Promoting public health doesn't always line up well with the profit motive in health care. . . . It's too bad Wellmark can't respect the integrity behind the college's decision and has chosen, instead, to take its marbles and go home. . . . [because] withholding the money says it was essentially looking for an ad buy rather than wanting to make a gift. No one needs reminding of the extent to which corporations already run most facets of American life, from the chain newspaper to the chain restaurant to the sports stadiums and arenas that already trumpet the big names in corporate America.")

Alan Jensen, "Lower insurance premiums better than naming rights, The Gazette, July 11, 2007, p. A4 ("If Wellmark Blue Cross Blue Shield has $15 million to give the University of Iowa for naming rights, they can most certainly cut our health insurance premiums.")

Brian Morelli, "Wellmark withdraws $15M offer; Official: We will wait for UI community to support naming rights," Iowa City Press-Citizen, July 10, 2007

Wellmark executives, still looking for a college where everyone will know their name, have been singing the old "Cheers" theme lyrics: "Sometimes you want to go/Where everybody knows your name,/and they're always glad you came./You wanna be where you can see,/our troubles are all the same/You wanna be where everybody knows/Your name."

"What we've got here is failure to communicate." Two quotes in The Gazette's version of this story tell a lot about the growing gap between the perspective of the academy and that of the corporate world -- a gap that President Sally Mason will confront the moment she sets foot on the Pentacrest.

"traditional and outdated precepts" John Forsyth, CEO, Wellmark, in email to Jim Merchant, Dean, UI College of Public Health: "I would submit that the real challenge for academic leaders like you is to create a mind-set of leading and embracing change . . . over traditional and outdated precepts such as the need to separate academic from commercial interests."

Interim President Gary Fethke: "I regret that the discussion of this generous donation failed to focus on the substantial benefits of corporate partnerships for our students, faculty and staff."

Diane Heldt, "Wellmark Withdraws $15 Million Naming Offer; Insurance Company Says Negative Reaction to Gift Not Envisioned," The Gazette, July 10, 2007, p. A1.

Maria Houser Conzemius, "At This Point it Seems That, 'They're All in it Together,'" Iowa City Press-Citizen, July 10, 2007 (whether presidents live on Church Street in Iowa City, or Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, there seems to be a common expectation from elites regarding their behavior)

Editorial, "Wellmark's Gift Had Too Many Strings Attached," The Daily Iowan, July 11, 2007, and Stephen Schmidt, "Wellmark Rescinds $15 Million Offer," The Daily Iowan, July 10, 2007.

Marcus Theaters' "broad commercial appeal" makes Iowa City's residents "Sicko"

The Press-Citizen's editorial page has two items regarding "Sicko" this morning. One is Editorial, "Film's Delay to City Hurts Its Health Care Image," Iowa City Press-Citizen, July 11, 2007.

The other presents one of the usual industry attacks on Michael Moore and his film, Brett Skinner, "Canada's 'Sicko' Care," Iowa City Press-Citizen, July 11, 2007. Skinner says, for example, "Michael Moore is not interested in . . . facts. He makes fictional films."

For a sample of the kind of point by point by documented point response Moore and his supporters can make to such libelous charges, see "'Sicko Truth Squad Sets CNN Straight," July 10, 2007.

And don't miss James Clay Fuller, "Sicko: Commenting on the Commentaries," Twin Cities Daily Planet, July 10th, 2007 5:26 am ("Apparently there is a rule in corporate journalism that every mention of [Michael] Moore and his films . . . must contain at least two snide observations about his . . . attacks on rich and powerful but somehow –- in the eyes of the corporate journalists -- defenseless people such as the chairman of General Motors, and, if you can slide it in, Moore's physical appearance" -- all from a journalist who says he's never met or communicated with Moore).

If you'd like to watch CNN's slashing, false attack on "Sicko," and Moore's on-camera response (the piece to which the "truth squad's" textual analysis relates), here it is:


Kathryn Fiegen, "Residents Must Wait to See Sicko," Iowa City Press-Citizen, July 10, 2007 (theater monopolist executive says, "Marcus Theatres' primary business is to show films with broad commercial appeal." Why does this sound so reminiscent of the instructions a major advertiser once gave the radio networks regarding the programs it sponsored: "There will be no material that may give offense, either directly or by inference, to any commercial organization of any sort"?)

Iowans' Gambling Losses Increase Someone's "Economic Growth" -- Just Not Ours

Rod Boshart, "Casino revenue hits $1.32 billion; New venues fuel 14.9 percent increase in fiscal 2007 figures," The Gazette, July 10, 2007, p. A1.

Fairness Doctrine

Editorial, "Beware of 'Fair' in Talk on the Air," The Gazette, July 10, 2007, p. A4.

Reason Rules on Tax Shift Onto Poor: 85% Vote "No" on "Yes to Destiny"

A little-noticed story in last Saturday's Gazette caught my eye. It was a report of a town-meeting-type exchange between Senator Chuck Grassley and some of his West Branch constituents. One asked him, "Would you rescind your authorization of the war?" Another "deplored the inequity of the 15 percent capital gains tax" (reduced from 20%) compared with ordinary income tax rates. A third commented regarding import protections for fertilizer companies -- driving up prices. "It's unfair that farmers are expected to sell their crops on a global market but cannot buy their fertilizer on a global market." Grassley's answers. (1) No. (2) "He defended the lowered tax, saying it expanded the nation's economy . . .." (3) "Grassley took notes." Marlene Lucas, "East Iowans Question War, Taxes; Grassley Defends Policies, Takes Notes," The Gazette, July 7, 2007, p. B2.

This morning's Register reports that, notwithstanding the near-unanimous support of the Des Moines business community's elite, their willingness to put $700,000 of their mouths where their money is, and the overwhelming coverage and editorial support they had from the area's dominant newspaper, the proposal to shift their property taxes to the backs of the sales-tax-paying poor was rejected by 85% of the voters. Jeff Eckhoff and Melissa Walker, "Three counties, one voice: ‘No;’ Only 15% support multipurpose, business-backed levy; Special vote gets unusually high turnout; Ecstatic foes of plan hope lopsided result buries idea for good," Des Moines Register, July 11, 2007

Yesterday (see Morelli's story, linked above within this blog entry) we read Wellmark CEO Forsyth's comment regarding his efforts to put the company's name on the College of Public Health, ""Neither Wellmark BlueCross and BlueShield nor Wellmark Foundation envisioned that their [gift and naming proposal] would spawn the negative reaction that has been reported in news media,' John Forsyth wrote to James Merchant, dean of the College of Public Health on Friday."

UI's athletic program and other administrators were seemingly also taken by surprise earlier at the adverse reaction to the use of the Iowa Fights song and the University's name and setting for an Iowa Lottery television commercial encouraging increased gambling by Iowans.

And so were the board members of the University of Iowa Community Credit Union who were so confident the members would just go along with the new name they enthusiastically accepted from a high-paid corporate consultant, "Optiva," that they didn't think it necessary to check with the members first.

There are two observations I'd make about these stories. (1) The gap between the lives, interests, understandings, concerns and opinions of the wealthy, corporate ruling elites in this country, and those of the 90% of all Americans who suffer at their hands, is growing even faster than the gap in their campaign-contribution-provided incomes and those of the rest of us. (2) There seems to be an upswing in the willingness of the 90% to do something about the uninformed and unfeeling overreaching by those elites. That can only be healthy for America in the long run.

Resources from Resources for Life Conference Now Online

I earlier mentioned "Resources for Life." Presentations at the Resources for Life Conference, held in Iowa City July 7 and 8, are now in streaming audio available here (scroll down to "200707" and then "Resources for Life Conference 07-07-07" and then click on a presenter's name).

# # #

Resources for Life - Fairness - Updates

July 7, 2007, 7:15, 8:15, 9:30, 10:40, 11:40 a.m. [times reflect additions to the entry -- for the benefit of those few individuals who check back occasionally during the day -- as well as reflecting the fact that what is called "life" occasionally interrupts blogging]

Resources for Life Conference Today. You might want to consider attending the Resources for Life Conference, 10:00 a.m.-6:00 p.m., today July 7, Iowa City Public Library, Meeting Room A. From 3:15 to 4:00 p.m. I'll be speaking and moderating a discussion with those in attendance on what the conference organizer has titled, "Activism: Having a Positive Impact on the World." You can find more details about the conference here.

The way I think about Resources for Life, which primarily exits as a very extensive Web site, is as a non-commercial, non-partisan, non-denominational, free offering of a range of online and other resources dealing with virtually every aspect of living -- as reflected in the links from that opening Web page. It is the production of Gregory Johnson (who works -- and teaches a free course at the Public Library -- as a computer consultant) and is best known in other circles as the president of the Small House Society.

His small house movement has been the subject of features in -- among a great many other media -- the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Australian Broadcasting, Time Magazine, Better Homes and Gardens, National Public Radio, Oprah Winfrey -- and locally in the Iowa City Press-Citizen, and The Gazette, as well as numerous local television stations. He doesn't sell the houses, but will probably be saying something about his house, and approach to simpler living generally, during the conference.

(Full disclosure: Gregory Johnson is my son.)

The Fairness Doctrine Today's a slow enough news day that I can finally turn to State29's request. A week or so ago State29 asked my opinion about what he calls the "unfairness doctrine" of the FCC (State29, "Who Decides What's Fair?" June 27, 2007) ("Considering that Iowa's own Nicholas Johnson was the FCC Commish during part of the Johnson and Nixon years, I'd be interested in reading his current opinion on a possible revival of the Unfairness Doctrine").

I started by Googling "Nicholas Johnson" and "fairness doctrine" just to see what I've written about it over the years. There were 422 hits on things I either didn't know about or had long since forgotten. I only looked at a few before finding what I thought was the best short answer -- though longer than what I'm going to write here this morning. It's contained in Nicholas Johnson, "With Due Regard for the Opinions of Others," California Lawyer, vol. 8, August 1988, pp. 52-55. If State29 is still interested, or there is anyone else reading this who is, I'd suggest starting with that. It's short, and yet pretty thorough.

For the views of U.S. Supreme Court justices in an 8-0 decision invoking an analysis of the issues and law similar to that which I set forth a year earlier, see Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 367 (1969). It's very readable; take a look at it, you'll see.

Meanwhile, here are some summary points; most are spelled out in that piece.

I believe "with great power goes great responsibility" and that none has greater power in our time than those controlling the mass media. The "great power" I described in Nicholas Johnson, "The Media Barons and the Public Interest: An FCC Commissioner's Warning," The Atlantic, June 1968 (still maintained 40 years later on The Atlantic's Web site, though available only to subscribers) has multiplied many fold since then.

Even if one ignores, or believes no longer applicable, the earlier rational underpinnings of the Fairness Doctrine -- "the public owns the airwaves" (i.e., station "owners" are limited-term licensees, licensed to serve "the public interest, convenience and necessity"); the government's intrusion into the allocation system makes the licensee's station the equivalent of a "public forum" open to all views; the relative shortage of frequencies (there are still more people who would like to broadcast than there are available frequencies) results in a First Amendment requirement that some provision must be made for a range of views -- the requirements of a democratic society, and the moral obligations of those sitting astride a democracy's mass media, still require some equivalent of the Fairness Doctrine.

The Fairness Doctrine requires no more than what a profit-maximizing media owner, or responsible professional journalist, would do anyway. Its requirements are but two: a licensee must make some effort to deal with "controversial issues of local importance" (i.e., it cannot just be "a jukebox with commercials"), and when presenting controversial issues it must make some effort to present a range of views. "Controversy" sells papers and attracts viewers. Presenting a range of views is what creates, or perpetuates, the controversy. It was never much of a problem for responsible broadcasters, and news directors often actually welcomed it as a defense against aggressive sales managers (wanting to preserve advertising revenue by killing stories advertisers wouldn't like).

That the requirements are so minimal is probably a part of the reason that no station ever lost its license solely because of Fairness Doctrine violations. (See California Lawyer article, linked above.)

And what does the Fairness Doctrine prohibit? Essentially nothing.

There are limitations on a broadcaster's speech. They may be subject to a defamation suit. They may violate the copyright laws. They may engage in false and misleading advertising. They may reveal national security secrets. Other agencies and interests may wish to affect broadcasters' speech, but those are not matters for the FCC.

And there are essentially no limitations -- or detailed requirements -- of the Fairness Doctrine. Subject to the non-licensing restrictions mentioned above, a broadcaster can say anything he or she wants; there are no FCC limitations; they can attack others, misrepresent, be outrageously partisan, even be defamatory -- the FCC doesn't care, and the Fairness Doctrine doesn't require anything affecting their speech.

There is no requirement that any given programming be put on the air -- or taken off. There are no requirements as to format. There is not a requirement of "equal time." There is no requirement that each program be balanced; the Fairness Doctrine only addresses the overall programming of the licensee. (To respond to a charge of those opposing the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine, there are two reasons why Rush Limbaugh would not only not be taken off the air but would not be affected in any way by application of the Fairness Doctrine: (1) he is not a licensee, he is a program supplier, and (2) there is no Fairness Doctrine requirement that his program be balanced.) There is no requirement that a particular contrasting view be aired. The Fairness Doctrine does not trigger a right in any given individual to respond. (The station can use its own personnel if it wishes, or anyone it chooses.)

Essentially the only limitation the Fairness Doctrine did impose was that a licensee could not use the public's airwaves as an unrelieved instrument of propaganda for a single viewpoint while censoring all other views.

Our founders believed a "marketplace of ideas" an essential foundation for a self-governing people. I believe they were right. But as I've often said, "the ideas of the marketplace [i.e., advertising-dependent programming] do not make for a marketplace of ideas." Moreover, the more concentration of control of the mass media we have the greater this problem becomes.

This is only a sampling of things I could say -- and have said -- on the subject. Anyone interested in more please check the links, above.

Wellmark's College Since my prior blog entries here even more have joined the chorus of "What were they thinking?!" regarding UI administrators seriously proposing to rename the UI College of Public Health the "Wellmark Blue Cross-Blue Shield College of Public Health."

Editorial, "Honor People, Not Businesses at UI," The Gazette, July 7, 2007, p. A4.

Diane Heldt, "Wellmark naming rejected by faculty; They fear naming college for insurer would affect research," The Gazette, July 6, 2007, p. A1.

Lenni W. Kangas, "Regents Should Junk Proposal," Iowa City Press-Citizen, July 6, 2007.

Brenda M. Cruikshank, "Major Ethical Issue in Renaming School," Iowa City Press-Citizen, July 7, 2007, p. A13.

State29 now has a follow-up on the subject to his earlier State29, "Enron Field," July 3, 2007: State29, "Enron Field, Part Deux," July 6, 2007.

On a related topic (though not having to do with naming rights) the Register takes Wellmark to task for a proposal and secret process that is "not how it should work" and "not in the public's best interest." Editorial, "Public still in dark about hospital plans; Building proposals should get state review," Des Moines Register, July 7, 2007.

And in . . .

. . . Other News One of our boys made it -- deservedly. John Deeth looks good in his raspberry beret on page one of The Gazette. Rod Boshart, "Clogged With Blogs; For Better or for Worse, 1.5 million blogs bring seismic Change to Political Landscape," The Gazette, July 6, 2007, p. A1.

And, to no one's surprise, The Register has come out flatfooted to acknowledge that it really thinks it would be a cool move to shift taxes from those who own property to those who can't afford it. Editorial, "Vote 'Yes' to this Tax Increase; It's an Investment in Region's Quality of Life," Des Moines Register, July 5, 2007 (there has been a consistent drumbeat of opposition to the Register's stories and opinion supporting this tax shift from wealthy to poor, summed up succinctly in the first comment on the page: "The Register must think its readers are stupid"). And see Jeff Eckhoff, "More than $357,250 was spent on consultants for 'Destiny' project," Des Moines Register, July 7, 2007.

But by the next day the paper had redeemed itself a bit with an editorial totally consistent with my earlier comments about Michael Moore's film, "Sicko," and much more positive than its headline suggests. Editorial, "Yes, 'Sicko' is Propaganda, but it Shows Need for Reform," Des Moines Register, July 6, 2007;

and, speaking of "Sicko," in response to requests for how someone in Iowa City can see it, a Rapid Response entry reports:

"According to Michael Moore's website www.michaelmoore.com

Cedar Rapids: Now showing

Wehrenberg Galaxy 16 Theatres at 6840 Council Street NE"

# # #