Ask Your Doctor

Ask Your Doctor About TV Ads
Nicholas Johnson
The Gazette, January 16, 2024, p. A5
It’s outrageous that Big Pharma keeps filling our living rooms with TV commercials for pharmaceuticals. Profits for Pharma, profits for TV industry, bad for your health.

All of the United Nation’s 193 countries forbid this manipulation – except the U.S. and New Zealand.

Over 7 billion people agree with me.

Why? As Elizabeth Barrett Browning once put it, “Let me count the ways.”

Examples for starters: Healthcare costs. Generics suppression.

Pressures on doctors. Costs of advertising. Unnecessary prescriptions. Off-label use. Side effects confusion.

For detail on a couple more:

1. One of the most effective ways of increasing Big Pharma’s global sales of $1.48 trillion, while decreasing Americans’ health, is to pound away on our television screens the message that only pills will enable our tiptoeing along the tulips-lined path to health. What a bucket of toenail clippings that is!

The law requires recitation of side effects. But coming at you with the frequency of a crazed woodpecker attacking a tree, amidst the deliberate diversions of dozens of scampering squirrels on the screen? How many side effects can you remember, let alone understand -- except perhaps “can be fatal”? [Photo: screenshot of one frame of pharmaceutical TV commercial. ("Fair use" because: Not of financial benefit to blog; tiny portions of drug commercial and of blog post; not used for art, but for news reporting and commentary; product not identified.) "Can be fatal" mentioned as possible side effect in sound track, but not in scrolled text of side effects on screen.)

Google “What will reduce your chances of getting cancer, a heart attack, high blood pressure, diabetes, dementia or other serious diseases -- while increasing years of quality life?”

Notice how few answers involve pills? Notice the overlap in recommendations – regardless of the disease?

You and I hold the keys to our pill-free longevity, health and happiness. Foods like fruits and vegetables (rather than sweet grease and salty grease), movement and exercise (150 minutes a week rather than recliner hours), regular sound sleep (7-8 hours rather than all-nighters), vaccinations, weight control (track your BMI), social time (face-to-face, smart phones pocketed), stress reduction, no tobacco and little alcohol.

It's not the law, it’s your choice.

Only take what your doctor prescribes. Ignore Pharma’s pricey pills promotions. Save your money.

Create your own health.

2. Why does Big Pharma spend a billion a month advertising pills to people who can’t legally buy them?

Ever thought about that? We can’t buy this stuff without a doctor’s prescription.

It’s like manufacturers putting TV commercials for toys in children’s programs. Few children in that audience can afford them. But manufacturers profit off the free child labor that will pester parents.

Similarly, Big Pharma’s TV ads are the drug pushers’ effort to profit off free adult labor pestering doctors.

3. “It’s all about the money.”

There are many providers of products and services, capitalist competitors with prices regulated by “the market,” who well serve the public. But there are essentials, such as housing and health care, for which charging an unregulated, profit-maximizing price is unacceptable. Especially when Americans must pay for a drug 8 times the price charged in Turkey, as taxpayers pay half the total pharmaceutical research costs, and Big Pharma keeps all the profits.

In the spirit of “All the News That Fits We Print,” this is only a sample. Want more? Ask your doctor.

Nicholas Johnson was former co-director of the Iowa Institute for Health, Behavior and Environmental Policy. Contact mailbox@nicholasjohnson.org

SOURCES 193 countries; 191 forbid TV pharmaceutical commercials.

“Who are the current members of the United Nations?” Dag Hammarskjold Library, United Nations, Dec. 5, 2023, https://ask.un.org/faq/14345 (“There are currently 193 UN Member States. Each of the Member States of the United Nations has one seat in the General Assembly.”)

Ziad F. Gellad and Kenneth W. Lyles, “Direct-to-Consumer Advertising of Pharmaceuticals,” National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3967783/ [Am. J. Med., 2007 Jun.] (“Direct-to-consumer advertising emerged from relative obscurity in 1997 to become a potent force shaping the future of health care, and the United States and New Zealand are the only countries in the world at present to allow it.”)

7 billion in 191 countries (world minus U.S. and New Zealand).

“World Population 1950-2024,” macriotrends, https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/WLD/world/population (“The current population of World in 2024 is 8,118,835,999, a 0.91% increase from 2023.”)

“U.S. and World Population Clock,” U.S. Population, U.S. Census Bureau, https://www.census.gov/popclock/ (“The United States Population on Jan. 9, 2024 was: 335,921,625)

“New Zealand Population,” worldometers, https://www.worldometers.info/world-population/new-zealand-population/ (“New Zealand Population (LIVE) [Jan. 10, 2024], 5,250,254)

(US + NZ = 341,171,879)

(World – US & NZ = 7,777,664,120)

Elizabeth Barrett Browning “count the ways”).

Elizabeth Barrett Browning, “How Do I Love Thee?” (Sonnet 43), poets.org, https://poets.org/poem/how-do-i-love-thee-sonnet-43 (“How do I love thee? Let me count the ways. I love thee to the depth and breadth and height My soul can reach,. . ..”)

Examples for starters.

See, “Reasons to oppose TV pharmaceutical commercials,” below.

$1.48 trillion.

“Global pharmaceutical industry - statistics & facts,” statista, https://www.statista.com/topics/1764/global-pharmaceutical-industry/ (“The market has experienced significant growth during the past two decades, and pharma revenues worldwide totaled 1.48 trillion U.S. dollars in 2022.”)

FDA regulation of TV pharmaceutical commercials.

“Direct-to-Consumer Prescription Drug Advertisements: Presentation of the Major Statement in a Clear, Conspicuous, and Neutral Manner in Advertisements in Television and Radio Format,” U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Nov. 21, 2023, https://www.fda.gov/about-fda/economic-impact-analyses-fda-regulations/direct-consumer-prescription-drug-advertisements-presentation-major-statement-clear-conspicuous-and (“This final rule implements a statutory requirement that in human prescription drug advertisements presented directly to consumers in television or radio format (DTC TV/radio ads), and stating the name of the drug and its conditions of use, the major statement relating to side effects and contraindications must be presented in a clear, conspicuous, and neutral manner.”)

Alternatives to pills.

Meghan Rosen, “When it comes to physical activity, every bit counts; There’s no such thing as “the best exercise.” Rather lots of things — big and small — can help,” Science News, Jan. 2, 2024, https://www.sciencenews.org/article/physical-activity-exercise-health-benefits

Talk to your primary care physician – or browse the Mayo Clinic site (https://www.mayoclinic.org/). Mayo says “Regular exercise can help you control your weight, reduce your risk of heart disease and certain cancers, and strengthen your bones and muscles.” https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/fitness/basics/fitness-basics/hlv-20049447

https://diet.mayoclinic.org/us/motivational-tips/weight-loss-calculator/

https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/fitness/basics/sports-nutrition/hlv-20049447

“Can You Lengthen Your Life? Researchers Explore How To Stay Healthy Longer,” NIH News in Health, June 2016, https://newsinhealth.nih.gov/2016/06/can-you-lengthen-your-life [https://newsinhealth.nih.gov/]

https://www.mayoclinic.org/healthy-lifestyle/ (Healthy lifestyle topics Birth control - Healthy lifestyle topics Birth control Consumer health - Healthy lifestyle topics Consumer health Fitness - Healthy lifestyle topics Fitness Nutrition and healthy eating - Healthy lifestyle topics Nutrition and healthy eating Quit smoking - Healthy lifestyle topics Quit smoking Sexual health - Healthy lifestyle topics Sexual health Stress management - Healthy lifestyle topics Stress management Weight loss - Healthy lifestyle topics Weight loss)

“Prevent Heart Disease,” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, https://www.cdc.gov/heartdisease/prevention.htm (fresh fruits and vegetables; healthy weight; physical activity (150 minutes/week))

Exercise and chronic disease: Get the facts

Mayo Clinic https://www.mayoclinic.org › in-depth › art-20046049 Exercise can improve the quality of life for people who've had cancer. It ... For people with type 2 diabetes, exercise can lower the risk of dying of heart ...

It's Never Too Late: Five Healthy Steps at Any Age

Johns Hopkins Medicine https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org › health › its-never-... Exercise lowers your risk of heart disease, type 2 diabetes, high blood pressure ... to reduce the risk for heart disease, diabetes, some cancers and dementia. ‎Be Active More Often · ‎Improve Your Diet · ‎Challenge Your Brain

Promoting Health for Older Adults

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (.gov) https://www.cdc.gov › publications › factsheets › pro... Aging increases the risk of chronic diseases such as dementias, heart disease, type 2 diabetes, arthritis, and cancer. These are the nation's leading drivers of ...

Big Pharma’s advertising budget.

“Pharma advertising spending in the United States from October 2022 to January 2023,” statista, https://www.statista.com/statistics/1407234/pharma-ad-spend-us/ (Oct. 2022 and Nov. 2022 $1.2 billion each month; Dec. 2022 and Jan. 2023 $1.1 billion each month)

ICYMI: NEW STUDY FINDS BIG PHARMA SPENT MORE ON SALES AND MARKETING THAN R&D DURING PANDEMIC; AHIP Study Finds Top Drug Companies’ Sales and Marketing Budgets Swamp R&D Budgets,” Campaign for Sustainable Rx Pricing, https://www.csrxp.org/icymi-new-study-finds-big-pharma-spent-more-on-sales-and-marketing-than-rd-during-pandemic/ (“In case you missed it, America’s Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) released a new study Wednesday that found Big Pharma continued to spend more advertising and selling its products than investing in research and development (R&D) even amid unprecedented focus on the development of new treatments as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic.

The study found that ‘Of the 10 drug manufacturers examined, 7 of them spent more on selling and marketing expenses than they did on research and development.’”)

Reasons to oppose TV pharmaceutical commercials.

“A Perilous Prescription: The Dangers of Unregulated Drug Ads; Drug advertising policies need to be updated to protect public health,” Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health,” March 2, 2023, https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2023/the-dangers-of-unregulated-drug-ads

Natasha Parekh and William H. Shrank, “Dangers and Opportunities of Direct-to-Consumer Advertising,” J Gen Intern Med. 2018 May; 33(5): 586–587; NIH, National Library of Medicine, National Center for Biotechnology Information, May 2018, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5910355/ (“The average television viewer in the United States (US) watches as many as nine drug advertisements per day and about 16 hours per year, far exceeding the time an average individual spends with his/her primary care physician.1 Since 2012 [2013-2017], spending on drug commercials has increased by 62%, and $5 billion were spent on drug commercials last year.2 Given their ubiquity, the article by Klara, et al. in this issue of JGIM offers one more piece of evidence to indicate that this medium is not operating as intended, and to force us to consider alternatives to the status quo.3 . . . the FDA has won substantial law suits and enforced penalties against pharmaceutical companies. For example, in 2012, Glaxo Smith Kline paid $3 billion and Abbott paid $1.6 billion in penalties for miscommunicating information in DTC advertising, while Eli Lilly paid $1.4 billion and Pfizer paid $2.3 billion in 2009.5 . . . DTC ads have been shown to misinform patients by over-emphasizing treatment benefits, under-emphasizing treatment risks, and promoting drugs over healthy lifestyle choices.1, 6 DTC advertising may also lead to overutilization and inappropriate prescribing.6 . . . Patients who requested drugs received them significantly more often than those who did not, suggesting patient requests have a dramatic effect on physician prescribing.7 Furthermore, critics argue that DTC advertising can impose strains on the patient-physician relationship and limit already limited appointment time with patients.1, 6 Perhaps the most significant critique of DTC advertising is its effects on rising drug costs due to over-prescribing of both inappropriate and brand name drugs (especially when cheaper generics are available). According to the Department of Health and Human Services, prescription drug spending in the US was about $457 billion in 2015.8 . . . The authors found that among 97 advertisements reviewed by authors, the quality of data presented was low—26% provided quantitative information for efficacy and benefit, 0% provided quantitative information on risks, and 13% promoted off-label use of medications (which is banned by the FDA). . . . How can we optimize the benefits of DTC advertising in empowering and engaging patients while minimizing the attendant risks of poor-quality DTC advertising? One option supported by the American Medical Association is banning DTC advertising.9 [9. American Medical Association. AMA Calls for Ban on DTC Ads of Prescription Drugs and Medical Devices. Published November 2015. Available at: https://www.ama-assn.org/content/ama-calls-ban-direct-consumer-advertising-prescription-drugs-and-medical-devices. Accessed January 1, 2018.] It is notable that, outside of the US, DTC advertising is banned in all other countries except New Zealand.”])

Examples of drugs, commercials (text and videos); Ineffective recitation of side effects.

Google: 2023 TV pharmaceuticals commercials

YouTube: 2023 TV pharmaceuticals commercials

Specific YouTube search: https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=2023+TV+pharmaceuticals+commercials

Paxlovid Jardiance (4) Ozempic Otezla Chantix Pfizer vaccine Mounjaro “Pharmaceutical Ads – View Full Playlist” Dupixent “Find Pharma Ads – Browse Our Wide Range of Results”

TIME – Deceptive Drug Ads, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7FGtYVQMFc

Amount Big Pharma spends on TV ads.

Julia Faria, “Pharma and healthcare industry advertising in the U.S. - statistics & facts,” statista, Dec. 18, 2023, https://www.statista.com/topics/8415/pharma-and-healthcare-industry-advertising-in-the-us/#topicOverview (“Prescription drug expenditure in the United States from 1960 to 2021,” $378 billion in 2021; “Pharma advertising spending in the United States from October 2022 to January 2023,” each month from Oct. to Dec. of 2022, and Jan. 2023, Pharma advertising was between $1.1 and $1.2 billion per month)

TV audience can’t legally buy product (without prescription).

“Prescription Medicines,” Healthy Living; Use Medicines Safely, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, https://health.gov/myhealthfinder/healthy-living/safety/use-medicines-safely (“Prescription medicines are medicines you can get only with a prescription (order) from your doctor. You get these medicines from a pharmacy. These medicines are only safe to use if your name is on the prescription.”)

“Prescription Drugs Fast Facts,” U.S. Department of Justice, https://www.justice.gov/archive/ndic/pubs5/5140/5140p.pdf (“Yes, it is illegal to use prescription drugs without a valid prescription or to distribute them.”)

Advertising children’s toys to children.

“Money Sense for Your Children – The Pressures of Advertising,” Areas of Interest, Extension, University of Nevada, https://extension.unr.edu/areas-of-interest.aspx (“Children and Advertising According to the Federal Trade Commission, in 2004 children ages 2 to 11 saw 25,600 total TV ads and 2 1/4 hours of ad-supported TV a day.1 . . . Many of the things that children request are things they want because of high-pressure advertising on TV, the Internet, radio and billboards and in movies, newspapers and magazines. Children who haven’t learned to read yet can recite TV commercials. Exposed to the highly developed sales techniques used in most media, our children are constantly pressured to buy. Advertisers specifically tailor their work based on research. Companies start early creating brand-loyal customers. Groups of 3- to 5-year-olds were able to identify logos for fast food, retail stores and TV icons when shown “flash cards.”2 Celebrities and program icons encourage youth to identify happiness with possessions and endlessly urge the buying of expensive clothes and branded foods. . . . “But First This Important Message . . .” Are those words familiar to you? They should be. The website for the Children’s Advertising Review Unit of the Better Business Bureau includes this comment: “It is estimated that children in this nation watch an average of 3.5 hours of television every day, the equivalent on an annual basis of a 50-day marathon of TV viewing.” Forty percent of infants are regular TV and DVD viewers, and that number jumps to 90 percent for 2-year-olds.5”)

Where “the market” well serves the public.

“How the U.S. Economy Works,” U.S. Department of State, https://usa.usembassy.de/etexts/oecon/chap2.htm (“There are limits to free enterprise, however. Americans have always believed that some services are better performed by public rather than private enterprise. For instance, in the United States, government is primarily responsible for the administration of justice, education (although there are many private schools and training centers), the road system, social statistical reporting, and national defense. In addition, government often is asked to intervene in the economy to correct situations in which the price system does not work. It regulates "natural monopolies," for example, and it uses antitrust laws to control or break up other business combinations that become so powerful that they can surmount market forces.”)

Housing prices.

Mike Bebernes, “Rent control is making a comeback,” Yahoo News 360, Jan. 31, 2023, https://news.yahoo.com/rent-control-is-making-a-comeback-201559070.html (With rental prices still up significantly from where they stood before the pandemic, a growing number of cities across the country are dusting off an old solution to keep housing costs affordable: rent control. During November’s midterm elections, voters in Santa Monica, Calif., Portland, Maine, and Orlando all approved ballot measures that would place new limits on annual rent increases. Boston’s progressive mayor recently released a rent control proposal for the city. In early January, a group of 50 Democrats in Congress sent a letter urging the Biden administration to take action to address “historically high rental costs and housing instability” in the U.S., including “anti-rent gouging” measures. . . . But the new wave of rent control proponents . . . argue that housing has become such an unmanageable expense for millions of Americans that allowing prices to rise without any limitations is a recipe for widespread displacement, higher poverty and homelessness.”)

Prices for U.S. drugs in U.S. are 8 times prices in Turkey.

Katharina Bucholz, “U.S. Drug Prices Sky-High in International Comparison,” Statista, Aug. 9, 2022, https://www.statista.com/chart/27932/us-prescription-drug-prices-in-international-comparison/ (“Depending on the country of comparison, U.S. residents are paying twice as much, three times as much or even more for their prescription drugs. Research by Rand Corporation has found that U.S. prescription drug prices surpass those in 32 other countries by around 150 percent on average. U.S. patients are even paying triple the price for Rx drugs as Koreans, Portuguese and Australians and 3.5 times as much as Slovakians, Greeks and residents of some of the Baltic countries. Turkey saw the cheapest prescription drug prices in the comparison, with Americans paying almost eight times as much as residents there.”)

Taxpayers pay half of pharmaceutical research costs.

Ekaterina Galkina Cleary, Matthew J. Jackson, Edward W. Zhou, “Comparison of Research Spending on New Drug Approvals by the National Institutes of Health vs the Pharmaceutical Industry, 2010-2019,” [American Medical Association] JAMA Health Forum. 2023;4(4):e230511. doi:10.1001/jamahealthforum. 2023.0511; https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama-health-forum/fullarticle/2804378

(“Conclusions and Relevance The results of this cross-sectional study found that NIH investment in drugs approved from 2010 to 2019 was not less than investment by the pharmaceutical industry, with comparable accounting for basic and applied research, failed clinical trials, and cost of capital or discount rates. The relative scale of NIH and industry investment may provide a cost basis for calibrating the balance of social and private returns from investments in pharmaceutical innovation. . . .

In this cross-sectional study, evidence suggests the public sector makes substantial contributions to the foundational knowledge on which drug approvals are based,1,2,4,6-8,41,42 but less to patents6,9 or development.2,3,37,43 Conversely, the industry is primarily responsible for product development and sponsored more than 99% of the product launches in this data set.6

The objective of this work was to compare NIH investments in recent drug approvals with reported investment by the industry. This required an accounting for NIH spending with costs for basic research on the targets for these drugs, applied research on the approved products, phased clinical trials of failed products, and the recommended discount rates for government spending.30,31 This accounting adheres closely to methods used to estimate industry investment,19,20 while also recognizing fundamental differences in the nature of public and private sector investment in prevailing economic theories.10

These analyses suggest that NIH project costs for basic or applied research associated with the products approved from 2010 to 2019 were significantly greater than reported industry spending. Costs for the NIH were also higher than industry costs when both included spending on failed clinical trials of candidate products. Including clinical failures, NIH investment (calculated with either a 3% or 7% discount rate) was not less than industry investment calculated with a 10.5% cost of capital. Investment from the NIH calculated with clinical failures and a 3% or 7% discount rate was also not less than industry investment calculated with clinical failures, additional costs of prehuman research, and 10.5% cost of capital. These results suggest that NIH investments in pharmaceutical innovation are comparable with those made by industry.”)

Dr. Ekaterina Galkina Cleary, Dr. Matthew Jackson and Dr. Edward Zhou, “New study shows NIH investment in new drug approvals is comparable to investment by pharmaceutical industry,” Newsroom, Bentley University, https://www.bentley.edu/news/new-study-shows-nih-investment-new-drug-approvals-comparable-investment-pharmaceutical

“All the news that fits we print.”

“Adolph Simon Ochs,” Britannica, https://www.britannica.com/biography/Adolph-Simon-Ochs#ref754367 (To set his paper apart from its more sensational competitors, Ochs adopted the slogan “All the News That’s Fit to Print” (first used October 25, 1896) and insisted on reportage that lived up to that promise.)

Judy Flander, “All The News That Fits We Print,” Personally Yours, Medium, Oct. 13, 2020, https://medium.com/personally-yours/all-the-news-that-fits-we-print-76c73e50439c

# # #

What Happened to Radio?

Right-Wing Takeover of Radio
Nicholas Johnson
The Gazette, February 8, 2023, p. A6 NOTE: For space constraints, text [in brackets] was removed by editors; text (in parentheses) was added by editors.

How did millions of Americans come to believe that the components of authoritarian dictatorships will better protect their “freedoms” than our democracy?

The answers fill a long list. I’ve selected one: radio.

[Radio? That’s right, radio.]

Before radio, political consensus emerged from conversations, meetings, newspapers, and the occasional political speech on the village square.

With radio, a station owner could speak to the hundreds or thousands within the station’s signal area.

The 1920s and 1930s increased public awareness of the manipulative power of advertising and political propaganda. [After TV, Harvard economist Ken Galbraith declared radio and television to be “the prime instruments for the manipulation of consumer demand.”]

Ironically, the 1920s Members of Congress were more aware of the potential dangers of radio than their successors have been.

As Texas Congressman Luther Johnson [(no relation to President Johnson)] put it to his colleagues in 1926, “American thought and politics will be at the mercy of those who operate these stations. . . [If] placed in the hands of a single selfish group then woe be to those who dare to differ with them.”

The Radio Act of 1927, Communications Act of 1934, and FCC regulations constrained this potential threat to democracy. The public owned the airwaves, not broadcasters. Broadcasters needed an FCC license to use a frequency – initially limited to six months.

The granting and renewal of licenses turned on whether the station’s programming served “the public interest.” Specific FCC requirements gave meaning to those words.

The Fairness Doctrine required stations seek out local “controversial issues of public importance” and provide, not “equal time,” but a range of views. If stations gave one political candidate free time it triggered a right in opponents to an “equal opportunity.” Anyone attacked had a right of reply.

Other regulations encouraged diversity of views. Limitations on the number of stations one licensee could operate in a single market – or throughout the country. Restrictions on common ownership of newspapers and stations, or concentration of station ownership within a state or region.

This lasted roughly 60 years.

[So, what happened?]

What happened (then) was that Rush Limbaugh and other right-wing radio talk show hosts, and station owners carrying their programs, saw the Fairness Doctrine and ownership restrictions as a barrier to their goal of a nationwide, constant flow of unchallenged right-wing programming. (If there be doubt about Limbaugh's conservative credentials: "In an unusual departure from protocol, Rush Limbaugh was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by President Trump during the State of the Union address. [It is] the country’s highest civilian honor." NY Times, Feb. 4, 2020, https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/04/us/politics/rush-limbaugh-medal-of-freedom.html Photo credit: Golfing buddies, Trump and Limbaugh, at Trump's Golf Club; White House, Joyce Boghosian)

They successfully persuaded enough FCC commissioners and Members of Congress of their position, (and) the Fairness Doctrine was repealed, along with most ownership restrictions. Soon Clear Channel owned 1,207 stations in 201 of 287 radio markets, and the top 15 right-wing conservative radio talk show personalities were putting out 45 hours of unanswered assertions every day.

Millions of Americans, whose occupations were consistent with all-day radio listening, were getting an overload of a conservative perspective on America in workshops and kitchens, factory floors and restaurants, tractor and semi-truck cabs.

[That’s what happened.]

As the more moderate radio star Paul Harvey would say, “And now you know the rest of the story.”

Nicholas Johnson served as a Federal Communications Commission commissioner, 1966-1973. maiilbox@nicholasjohnson.org

# # #
SOURCES January 6 Attack. Brian Duignan, “January 6 U.S Capitol Attack; Riot, Washington, D.C., U.S. [2021],” Britannica, Jan. 7, 2023 update (“Because its object was to prevent a legitimate president-elect from assuming office, the attack was widely regarded as an insurrection or attempted coup d’état. The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and other law-enforcement agencies also considered it an act of domestic terrorism. . . . [Trump’s] false accusations were indirectly endorsed by several Republican members of Congress who expressed uncertainty about the election’s outcome or who simply refused to publicly acknowledge Biden’s victory. Their calculated reticence helped to spread false doubts about the integrity of the election among rank-and-file Republicans.”)

Radio Act of 1927. Stuart N. Brotman, Communications Law and Practice, 1995, 2006, Law Journal Press, https://www.google.com/books/edition/Communications_Law_and_Practice/FKnhFoQykdgC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=radio+act+of+1927&pg=SA1-PA9&printsec=frontcover

Luther Johnson. “Luther Alexander Johnson,” Wikipedia, (“American thought and American politics will be largely at the mercy of those who operate these stations. [If] a single selfish group is permitted to ... dominate these broadcasting stations throughout the country, then woe be to those who dare to differ with them." [67 Cong. Rec. 5558 (1926).”)

See generally, Nicholas Johnson, “Breaking Through Power: The Media; Harnessing Progressive Reform to 21st Century Media,” FromDC2Iowa.blogspot.com, May 24, 2016, https://fromdc2iowa.blogspot.com/2016/05/breaking-through-power-media.html (“Lord Reith’s preference for public over private ownership was reflected in the House floor debate about the Act. As Congressman Luther Johnson warned his colleagues, ‘American thought and . . . politics will be . . . at the mercy of those who operate these stations. . . . [If] placed in the hands of . . . a single selfish group . . . then woe be to those who dare to differ with them.’”)
Quoted from, Nicholas Johnson, “Forty Years of Wandering in the Wasteland; The Vast Wasteland Revisited Essays,” note 31, Federal Communications Law Journal, May, 2003, 55 F.C.L.J. 521 (2003), https://www.nicholasjohnson.org/writing/masmedia/55FCL521.html [Full Congressman Johnson quote in footnote 31: “American thought and American politics will be largely at the mercy of those who operate these stations. For publicity is the most powerful weapon that can be wielded in a Republic, and when such a weapon is placed in the hands of one, or a single selfish group is permitted to either tacitly or otherwise acquire ownership and dominate these broadcasting stations throughout the country, then woe be to those who dare to differ with them. It will be impossible to compete with them in reaching the ears of the American people.”]

Fairness Doctrine. Matt Stefon, “fairness doctrine,” Britannica, Aug. 16, 2017, https://www.legis.iowa.gov/docs/publications/ICRC/32.pdf (“In 1949 the commission promulgated a report, In the Matter of Editorializing by Broadcast Licensees . . . to promote ‘a basic standard of fairness’ in broadcasting. Licensees had the duty to devote airtime to fair and balanced coverage of controversial issues that were of interest to their home communities. Individuals who were the subject of editorials or who perceived themselves to be the subject of unfair attacks in news programming were to be granted an opportunity to reply. Also, candidates for public office were entitled to equal airtime.”)

“FCC Fairness Doctrine,” Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine (“The demise of this FCC rule has been cited as a contributing factor in the rising level of party polarization in the United States.[5][6]”

Origins
In 1938, a former Yankee Network employee named Lawrence J. Flynn challenged the license of John Shepard III's WAAB in Boston, and also lodged a complaint about WNAC. . . . [I][n 1941, the commission made a ruling that came to be known as the Mayflower Decision which declared that radio stations, due to their public interest obligations, must remain neutral in matters of news and politics, and they were not allowed to give editorial support to any particular political position or candidate.

In 1949, the FCC's Editorializing Report[8] repealed the Mayflower doctrine, which had forbidden editorializing on the radio since 1941, and laid the foundation for the fairness doctrine . . ..

In 1969, the United States courts of appeals, in an opinion written by Warren Burger, directed the FCC to revoke Lamar Broadcasting's license for television station WLBT due to the station's segregationist politics and ongoing censorship of NBC network news coverage of the U.S. civil rights movement.[15]

Conservative talk radio
The 1987 repeal of the fairness doctrine enabled the rise of talk radio that has been described as "unfiltered" divisive and/or vicious: "In 1988, a savvy former ABC Radio executive named Ed McLaughlin signed Rush Limbaugh — then working at a little-known Sacramento station — to a nationwide syndication contract. McLaughlin offered Limbaugh to stations at an unbeatable price: free. All they had to do to carry his program was to set aside four minutes per hour for ads that McLaughlin's company sold to national sponsors. The stations got to sell the remaining commercial time to local advertisers." According to The Washington Post, "From his earliest days on the air, Limbaugh trafficked in conspiracy theories, divisiveness, even viciousness" (e.g., "feminazis").[44] Prior to 1987 people using much less controversial verbiage had been taken off the air as obvious violations of the fairness doctrine.[45]

. . .

On August 22, 2011, the FCC voted to remove the rule that implemented the fairness doctrine, along with more than 80 other rules and regulations, from the Federal Register following an executive order by President Obama directing a "government-wide review of regulations already on the books" to eliminate unnecessary regulations.[4]”)

Ownership. “The FCC’s Rules and Policies Regarding Media Ownership, Attribution, and Ownership Diversity October 27, 2004 – December 16, 2016,” Congressional Reference Service, https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/R43936.html

https://www1.udel.edu/nero/Radio/pdf_files/T&A_%20Media%20Ownership.pdf (“Clear Channel leads in radio broadcast station ownership with 1,207 stations reaching 201 out of 287 markets in the United States.”)

Right-Wing Radio. Google search: right wing domination of talk radio stations

Paul Matzko, “Talk Radio Is Turning Millions of Americans Into Conservatives; The medium is at the heart of Trumpism,” New York Times, Oct. 9, 2020, https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/09/opinion/talk-radio-conservatives-trumpism.html (“By the early 2000s, it [the conservatism of talk radio] had embraced a version of conservatism that is less focused on free markets and small government and more focused on ethnonationalism and populism. It is, in short, the core of Trumpism — now and in the future, with or without a President Trump. . . . [J]ust the top 15 shows are putting out around 45 hours of content every day. . . . [T]he dedicated fan can listen to nothing but conservative talk radio all day, every day of the week, and never catch up. . . . Talk radio listeners make up a group at least three times as large as the N.R.A. and are just as committed to a particular vision of America. [Google search: “How many members in the NRA?” 5 million in Dec. 2018; = talk radio listeners  15 m]

Paul Matzko, “When Conservatives Forget the History of the Fairness Doctrine,” CATO Institute, Sept 2, 2021, https://www.cato.org/blog/when-conservatives-forget-history-fairness-doctrine (“But dedicated broadcasters like Limbaugh knew that imposing a rigorous Fairness Doctrine regime would demolish their core operating model. It is no accident that Limbaugh’s show did not receive national syndication until a few months after the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine.

That wariness about the effects of the Fairness Doctrine on conservative broadcasting extended to President Reagan. He might be better known for his screen presence, but Reagan was an old radio hand. Indeed, he delayed formally announcing his presidential candidacy for 1980 so that he could keep his daily radio show Viewpoint on the air on 286 stations nationwide as long as possible.

Their skepticism paid off. Repealing the Fairness Doctrine in 1987 enabled the rise of conservative‐dominated talk radio with vast political consequences. Without talk radio, it’s hard to imagine the success of Newt Gingrich’s “Contract with America” in 1994 or the impeachment of Bill Clinton. And the tens of millions of regular talk radio listeners created a coherent audience that could be targeted later by conservative media entrepreneurs like Rupert Murdoch and Roger Ailes. For good or for ill, the conservative movement would look dramatically different today if the Fairness Doctrine had not been repealed.

. . . talk radio had become a key pillar of conservative political success.”)

Al Tompkins, “How Rush Limbaugh’s rise after the gutting of the fairness doctrine led to today’s highly partisan media; Limbaugh’s success after President Reagan declawed the doctrine, gave rise to others and provided encouragement for Fox News’ 1996 launch,” Poynter, Feb. 17, 2021, https://www.poynter.org/reporting-editing/2021/how-rush-limbaughs-rise-after-the-gutting-of-the-fairness-doctrine-led-to-todays-highly-partisan-media/ (“Rush Limbaugh was more than a talk radio host. He was a key element in the development of the highly partisan journalism and other media that envelop us today.

Limbaugh’s talk radio program was not possible until the Federal Communications Commission relaxed the fairness doctrine.”)

Kevin M. Kruse and Julian Zelizer, “How policy decisions spawned today’s hyperpolarized media; The demise of the Fairness Doctrine played an underappreciated role in fomenting media tribalism,” The Washington Post, Jan. 17, 2019. https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/01/17/how-policy-decisions-spawned-todays-hyperpolarized-media/ (“In 1987, the FCC announced that it would no longer enforce the Fairness Doctrine. . . . Almost overnight, the media landscape was transformed. The driving force was talk radio. In 1960, there were only two all-talk radio stations in America; by 1995, there were 1,130.”)

Repeal of ownership limits.

Google search: right-wing conservatives pressed FCC to repeal ownership limits

Nikki Finke, “FCC Ownership Rules Blamed For Total Dominance By Right-Wing Talk Radio,” Deadline, June 21, 2007, https://deadline.com/2007/06/fcc-ownership-rules-blamed-for-overwhelming-dominance-of-right-wing-talk-radio-2626/ (“The Center for American Progress and Free Press just released the first-of-its-kind statistical analysis of the political make-up of talk radio in the United States. It confirms that talk radio, one of the most widely used media formats in America, is dominated almost exclusively by conservatives. The new report entitled “The Structural Imbalance of Political Talk Radio” blames the FCC for the current imbalance, in particular . . . the relaxation of ownership rules. . . .

Americans listened on average to 19 hours of radio per week in 2006. Among radio formats, the combined news/talk format leads all others. Through more than 1,700 stations across the nation, it reached 50 million listeners each week.

Of the 257 news/talk stations owned by the top five commercial station owners this spring, 91% of the total weekday talk radio programming was conservative, and only 9% was progressive.”)

Eric Boehlert, “Former FCC chairman: Deregulation is a right-wing power grab; Reed Hundt says Monday's historic vote was ‘the culmination of the attack by the right on the media,’" Salon, May 31, 2003, https://www.salon.com/2003/05/31/fcc_4/ (“In a historic session on the future of the U.S. news media, Republicans on the Federal Communications Commission voted Monday to ease long-standing rules so that more and more of the nation's newspapers and broadcast stations can be concentrated in fewer and fewer hands.

Underlying that agenda, Clinton-era FCC chairman Reed Hundt saw something more primal unfolding: an extraordinary conservative power grab that could shape the political landscape for generations.

For all the philosophical conflict over diversity in the media and the efficiency of the free market, Hunt told Salon, the vote is really about an alliance of interests between the political right and the corporate media. ‘Conservatives,’ he said, ‘hope ... that the major media will be their friends.’" . . .

The FCC has long had rules regulating media ownership, based on the assumption that the number of broadcast frequencies is limited. The regulations were designed to ensure that radio and television stations remained diverse, independent voices and could withstand predatory conglomerates. But on Monday the FCC dumped those rules.

. . .

At the time, Hundt was among the few to warn of the consequences. The new laws would allow "a few companies to buy all the radio licenses in the country," he said then. "I don't believe that's good for this industry or for this country."

His words proved prophetic. Since the law's passage, Clear Channel Communications, which in 1995 owned approximately 40 radio stations, has expanded to approximately 1,200 outlets, nearly 1,000 more than its closest competitor.

[Reed Hundt during interview:] “When Newt Gingrich was running the House of Representatives, effective in the fall of 1994, he called all the media owners together in a room down on Capitol Hill, and according to what people who were there told me, he told them he'd give them relaxed rules allowing media concentration in exchange for favorable coverage. Now I wasn't there, but that's what they said they understood he meant.”)

Jeffrey M. Berry and Sarah Sobieraj, “Understanding the Rise of Talk Radio,” Political Science and Politics, Cambridge University Press, Oct. 18, 2011, https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/ps-political-science-and-politics/article/abs/understanding-the-rise-of-talk-radio/25394FEA4F469026712C17BE514A786C (“The number of radio stations airing political talk shows—predominantly conservative talk radio—has surged in the past few years. This massive change in the radio industry says something about the demand for such shows, but attributing the rise of talk radio to a corresponding rise in conservative popular opinion is misleading. We argue that this remarkable growth is better explained by the collision of two changes that have transformed the radio business: deregulation and the mainstreaming of digital music technologies. Regulatory changes have shifted much of radio production and control from local to mass production (managed by industry giants such as Clear Channel Communications) and created a context ripe for nationally syndicated hosts such as Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and Mark Levin.”)

Rest of the story. “The Rest of the Story,” Wikimedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Rest_of_the_Story (“The Rest of the Story was a Monday-through-Friday radio program originally hosted by Paul Harvey.[1] . . . The broadcasts always concluded with a variation on the tag line, ‘And now you know...the rest of the story.’")

And see, “Paul Harvey,” Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Harvey

# # #

Selling Toothpaste and Presidents

Selling Toothpaste and Presidents
Nicholas Johnson
The Gazette, September 22, 2022, p. A4
When travelling the lecture circuit decades ago, I would occasionally get off on a rant regarding advertising’s manipulation of consumer demand.

I would ask the audience to look at the labels on the products in their bathroom cabinet for any that were not heavily advertised on television.

At that time Procter & Gamble’s Gleem toothpaste was widely advertised as “the toothpaste for people who can’t brush after every meal.”

After such lectures audience members would come forward to dispute my assertions. One especially agitated adult with red face, fiery eyes, and a forefinger in my chest asserted, “Other people, maybe; but I’m sure not influenced by commercials.”

As if to politely change the subject, I asked, “What toothpaste do you use?”

“What does that have to do with anything?”

“Just curious,” I said.

“I use Gleem.”

“With all those toothpastes to choose from, why did you happen to pick Gleem?”

“Well, it’s just, … it’s just …, well I just can’t brush after every meal.”

Since many of the lectures were at academic institutions, my ongoing toothpaste survey revealed that most academics used Crest. (Part of my reason for following up with the Gleem fan.)

Since my dentist believed that brushing and flossing twice daily with water – or if one insisted on a dentifrice, baking soda – was adequate, why would academics use Crest?

It’s only a guess, but it turns out the American Dental Association had endorsed Crest. Perhaps dentists’ research revealed it did less harm than other toothpastes. I don’t know. Perhaps it was only natural that academics would go with the toothpaste choice of their fellow professionals.

Apparently by 2014 consumers had discovered another way to brush after every meal, or otherwise manage their dental hygiene without Gleem. With rapidly declining Gleem sales P&G took it off the market.

What does this have to do with the United States’ and other nations’ current slide from democracies into dictatorships?

Advertising isn’t new. One of the earliest ads (for “fine quality needles”) was printed from a copper plate during China’s Sung dynasty (960-1276). Advertising later began claiming its products raised one’s social status. But industrialization provided the products, and boost in advertising, from $200 million in 1880 to $3 billion in 1920.

This was soon followed by the use of psychological techniques, such as appealing to potential customers’ emotions of love, hate and fear. The economy grew by creating millions my late friend, Molly Ivins, described as people believing “more is better, and too much is not enough.”

As Adolph Hitler discovered, these same techniques had the power to flip a country noted for its educational system, creative literature, painting, poetry, music, theatre, and architecture into a Nazi state. (Photo credit: Danzigers Cheer Hitler, Sept. 19, 1939, wikimedia commons.)

Reflect on that, and then think about our current political campaigns' use of social media, the role of MAGA and its leader, in flipping a political party. As media critic Professor Rose Goldsen observed, from toothpaste to presidents, “Even though we know we are being taken, we are still being taken.”
_______________
Nicholas Johnson is the author of "Test Pattern for Living." mailbox@nicholasjohnson.org

SOURCES Gleem. “Do Crest Toothpastes Have the ADA Seal of Acceptance?” Crest, https://crest.com/en-us/oral-care-tips/toothpaste/do-crest-toothpastes-have-the-american-dental-ada-seal (“Has Crest Pro–Health Toothpaste received the Seal of Acceptance from the American Dental Association? Yes. In fact, Crest Pro-Health Gel Toothpaste - Clean Mint, Crest Pro-Health Toothpaste - Clean Cinnamon, Crest Pro-Health Night Toothpaste, and Crest Pro-Health Whitening are the toothpastes that have received the ADA Seal of Acceptance for protecting against all these areas: cavities, gingivitis, plaque, sensitivity, stains and bad breath. They also help prevent tartar buildup and freshen breath.”)

“Gleem … the toothpaste for people who can’t brush after every meal,” image and text in LIFE magazine Sept. 9, 1957, http://gogd.tjs-labs.com/show-picture.php?id=1210555662

Rudy Sanchez, “Procter & Gamble Resurrects Gleem As An Electric Toothbrush, Nov. 11, 2019, https://thedieline.com/blog/2019/11/11/procter--gamble-resurrects-gleem-as-an-electric-toothbrush? (“Many consumers may not have heard of Gleem, which, despite being only recently retired, has long been bested by toothpaste competitors like Colgate and Crest. Although parent company Procter & Gamble shelved Gleem in 2014, they rebranded the product as Crest Fresh and White, forced to wear the livery of a one-time market rival.”)

History of Advertising. “History of Advertising,” Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_advertising (“A copper printing plate dated back to the Song dynasty used to print posters in the form of a square sheet of paper with a rabbit logo with "Jinan Liu's Fine Needle Shop" and "We buy high quality steel rods and make fine quality needles, to be ready for use at home in no time" written above and below.[3] It is considered the world's earliest identified printed advertising medium.[4]” … “Total advertising volume in the United States grew from about $200 million in 1880 to nearly $3 billion in 1920.[43]” … “The former chair at Johns Hopkins University, John B. Watson was a highly recognized psychologist in the 1920s. After leaving the field of academia he turned his attention towards advertising where he implemented the concepts of behaviorism into advertising. This focused on appealing to the basic emotions of the consumer: love, hate, and fear. This type of advertising proved to be extremely effective as it suited the changing social context which led to heavy influence of future advertising strategy and cemented the place of psychology in advertising.[57][58]”)

“China in 1000 CE; The Most Advanced Society in the World,” 2022, http://afe.easia.columbia.edu/songdynasty-module/ (“During the Song (Sung) Dynasty (960-1276), technology was highly advanced in fields as diverse as agriculture, iron-working, and printing.”)

Germany. “The Weimar Renaissance,” Britannica, https://www.britannica.com/place/Germany/The-Weimar-Renaissance (“Amid the political and economic turmoil of the early 1920s, Germany’s cultural and intellectual life was flowering. … In 1919 Gropius became the founder and first director of the Bauhaus school of design in Weimar, the most important institution in Germany for the expression of Modernism’s aesthetic and cultural vision. Bauhaus artists believed that they were creating a new world through their painting, poetry, music, theatre, and architecture.”)

Rose Goldsen quote. Nicholas Johnson, “Forty Years of Wandering in the Wasteland,” Federal Communications Law Journal, 55 F.C.L.J 521 (2003), https://www.nicholasjohnson.org/writing/masmedia/55FCL521.html (“[FN22]. (“The latest organization of media educators was announced as this paper was being written. See Action Coalition for Media Education, at http:// www.acmecoalition.org (last visited Mar. 2, 2003). However media-savvy one may be, a search of cupboards and cabinets may provide illustrations of an insight Rose Goldsen [author of “The Show and Tell Machine,” 1977] once shared with the Author: ‘Even though we know we are being taken, we are still being taken.’") And in Nicholas Johnson, “Your Second Priority,” (2007/2008), p. 83.
# # #

Marianne Williamson’s Questions and Answers

Reading from latest book, #CatfishSolution, next Saturday, Aug. 24, #IowaCity's #PrairieLights, 4-5PM. Hope to see you there.
____________
Trump Won't Be Beat With Plans Alone

Nicholas Johnson
The Gazette, August 17, 2019, p. A5
Where the column as submitted differs from the column as published the submission is indicated in [brackets] and italics.

Marianne Williamson may not have “the answer.” But she’s the only one who has framed the right questions [– the essential first step to finding answers.] Whether or not that qualifies her to be president, it clearly qualifies her to be a [Democratic Party] campaign strategist. Those who trivialize and mock her do so at their party’s and America's peril.

Here are the questions: "What strategy is President Donald Trump using?" and "What strategy does that require of Democrats?" [One might modify Williamson’s answers, but she's correctly answered the first question and pointed us in the right direction on the second.]

At the June 27 Democratic Debates, she warned the Party that plans are not enough: “Donald Trump … didn’t win by saying he had a plan."

She doesn’t advocate abandoning 20th Century political strategies. Democratic Party candidates still need to meet party members who now stay home or vote Republican – especially the ones living in the 80 percent of American counties that Trump carried in 2016. The candidates must show up, really listen to voters’ challenges and needs, and propose plans that at least outline solutions. [Photo credit: By Supearnesh - Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=80914139]

But Williamson closed that Debate by posing and answering the first question: "Donald Trump is not going … to be beaten just by somebody who has plans. He is going to be beaten by somebody who has an idea what this man has done. This man has reached into the psyche of the American people and he has harnessed fear for political purposes."

She’s right about that. Trump won, and may win again, by personally utilizing the same strategy in speech [and tweet] that he and the Russians use in their social media campaigns.

Trump may or may not believe in climate-change science, but he sure believes in the neurological science of the amygdalae, limbic cortex and brain stem, some of the most phylogenetically primitive regions of the brain. He believes in the science of reward and addiction that increase smart phone, videogame and slot machine players’ TOD (time on device); advertisers manipulating consumers into buying things they don't need, with money they don't have, to impress people they don't like; gaslighting, social psychology’s findings regarding groups’ influence on individuals; and the science behind propaganda [and the big lie.] [Photo credit: public domain, http://lbc.nimh.nih.gov/images/brain.jpg (found on page http://lbc.nimh.nih.gov/osites.html).]

In short, he understands the role of fear, anger and hatred of "the other" [in successful campaigns.] He knows the [2020] presidential election will be won more by targeting the most primitive regions of the brains of [140 million or more] voters than by what’s aimed at their cerebral cortices.

So, "What strategy does that require of Democrats?"

Williamson says, "I have had a career harnessing the inspiration and the motivation and the excitement of people." And in her closing statement said that Trump has "harnessed fear for political purposes and only love can cast that out. . . . I’m going to harness love for political purposes."

Her use of the word “love,” with its romantic associations, was neither a precise nor helpful choice in this political context. The Greco-Christian term “agape” would have been only marginally better.

The challenge is much more complex. Trump is strategically increasing the emotions of hate and fear. [In this contest on a playing field in the most primitive regions of Americans’ brains,] what can Democrats do to excite even greater emotional responses involving compassion, empathy, and feelings of community [necessary to our “more perfect union”]?

Marianne Williamson’s questions are a major contribution that deserves understanding and appreciation. Now it’s up to Democrats’ candidates to craft and apply the answers.
__________
Nicholas Johnson is a native Iowan and three-time presidential appointee; his latest book is "Columns of Democracy." [Nicholas Johnson, a native Iowan and former FCC commissioner, will be doing a reading from his latest book, Catfish Solution, at Iowa City’s Prairie Lights, Aug. 24, 4:00-5:00. Contact:: mailbox@nicholasjohnson.org]

# # #

UI Rips-Off Students Because . . . "Revenue is Needed"

September 25, 2007, 3:15 p.m.

The Good News and the Bad News
Last Sunday, September 23, brought both good news and bad news.

Oh, you want the bad news first? OK.

"Revenue is needed" has reared its ugly head again in academia. It's the basis for one of the best investigative stories in any of the Iowa papers since this blog began 16 months ago. More -- actually much more -- on this story further down in this blog entry.

The Good News

. . . Shaner Magalhaes: MBAs, They're Not Just in For-Profits Anymore. The first good news story is selected because it illustrates (a) the application of MBA skills to non-profits, and (b) the selection of employment on the basis of doing what you love rather than what will pay the maximum income.

The Johnson County Historical Society has a new Executive Director. His name is Shaner Magalhaes. That's a story for the reasons it's important to him and his family, and those who support or otherwise care about the Historical Society -- and that the local papers found worth prominent mention. Rachel Gallegos, "Mixing Business with History," Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 23, 2007, p. A1; Emily Heiden, "All Work and All Play; New Historical Society Director Brings Wealth of Experience to the Job," the Gazette, September 23, 2007, p. J3.

I'm not disinterested in such factors. But it's not why I select this story as an example of "Good News."

It's because I've long advocated to public interest organizations and other non-profits on the one hand, and business students and business colleges on the other, that they get to know each other better. Non-profits need what MBAs have to offer. They're different from for-profits, of course, but both have far more in common than what differentiates them. Both need business plans, human resources, governance models, budgets and accounting, management information reporting systems, insurance, and so forth.

The late Molly Ivins once wrote about Texans for whom "too much is not enough." How many college graduates -- and not just MBAs -- select jobs on the basis of pay alone, or what they will "be" rather than what they will "do," without regard to what they're best at, most enjoy doing and gives them the most satisfaction?

Like the medical student who decides to specialize in "diseases of the rich," it's not uncommon for individuals to choose professional specializations that will permit them to bill the wealthiest Americans at the highest rates. This option is particularly difficult to resist among the MBAs who are offered jobs in the financial community that may ultimately pay millions of dollars a year.

It takes awhile, but many find that the old adage about money not buying happiness is true -- and that it is not necessary to have "too much" in order to have "enough" -- as they try to figure out where life went wrong. And so I've encouraged those with an aptitude for organizing and running institutions to think about the advantages of jobs with non-profits: looking forward to going to work every morning, an ability to sleep soundly at night -- and usually a salary that provides "enough."

As Magalhaes is quoted as saying, "My wife and I love this area. I really love history. I really believe in what the State Historical Society is doing. . . . I thought this would be a great thing to do."

The next Magalhaes story, a year from now, should be: "so what?" What difference did it make for the Johnson County Historical Society? Under the "but for" test, how different did it become from what it would have been without an MBA running it? Did he apply the John Carver -- or other -- approach to the activities of the board, and its relations with the CEO? Was there a better focus to the organization's day-to-day activities as a result of the board's equivalent of Carver's measurable "ends policies"?

Hopefully we'll get the answers to those kinds of questions a year from now if Gallegos and the Press-Citizen will do that interesting follow-up story.

Meanwhile, Sunday's story contains two lessons I consider "good news."

. . . Lonny Pulkrabek: Thinking Outside the Jail Cell. Rachel Gallegos has another story in last Sunday's (September 23) paper that is, by my standards, good news because it illustrates the possibilities when research, analysis and rational thought are brought to bear by public officials in the formulation and execution of public policy.

As with the Shaner Magalhaes story, the Pulkrabek story is also one that is, among other things, important to him and his family, and those who support or otherwise care about the Johnson County Sheriff's office and the current sheriff and his re-election. That's primarily (I'm guessing) why the Press-Citizen assigned a good reporter to write it. Rachel Gallegos, "Pulkrabek announces bid for re-election; Says he has some unfinished business," Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 23, 2007, p. A3.

Those aspects of the story are also of interest to me. But the reason it came to my attention as "good news" is for what it reports of his creative thinking about crime and punishment.

The story reports one supporter as emphasizing "Pulkrabek's role in creating more solutions for working with people with substance abuse problems, rather than just locking them in jail," and continues, "If re-elected, Pulkrabek said he wants to see through the work on a joint dispatch center and continue tracking the jail alternative programs that have been implemented in the past three years, especially the mental health diversion program."

I wrote an op ed in the Press-Citizen a year ago, when he was under attack for such innovative ideas, suggesting that we need to encourage, rather than attack, that kind of thinking by public officials. Nicholas Johnson, "Shooting Our Messengers," Iowa City Press-Citizen, March 3, 2006.

(Not incidentally, this story shares something more with the Magalhaes story than the existence of "good news." Pulkrabek also enjoys what he's doing: "it is a job," Gallegos reports, "that he 'really, truly enjoys. I've just really enjoyed doing it.'")

I'm not writing about the merits -- either of any of Pulkrabek's proposals or, indeed, the whole of his performance in office. That's not the point of this blog entry. Frankly, I don't know the details of Pulkrabek's day-to-day performance in office, and it's not my area of expertise. I see by the story that he's still pushing a "new and larger" jail. Are there more alternatives that could still be pursued, or has he truly exhausted all of them? I don't know.

What I do know is that we have altogether too much "shoot from the lip" in public policy discussions and political decisions. Some officials who are quite willing to invest three days in a conference -- 72 hours away from the office -- are "too busy" to spend 72 minutes researching a local issue on the Internet.

As is often said, "We have more problems than we deserve and more solutions than we have ever tried."

It is highly unlikely that there is any challenge confronting our County, City, University or School Board (among other institutions) that has not existed elsewhere -- existed, been identified, researched, resolved, with the solution implemented, written up, and made available for us to read (at no cost for "consultants") on the Internet.

Whether it's the creation and preservation of Eastern Iowa's green spaces, deciding on the most appropriate number of Iowa City police officers (a "peak-load" analysis, among other things), the arming of campus police, students' binge drinking, the most appropriate way to help those children who have been "left behind" in our School District, for the City of Iowa City to deal with economic development, or alternatives to the ever-escalating building of "newer and larger" prisons as a national response to the "crimes" of mental illness and substance abuse -- there are answers out there.

Lonny Pulkrabek has found a couple of them. And that's why this story was, for me, an example of "good news."

. . . Richard Doak: Almost Always Good News. The Des Moines Register's Richard Doak, former editorial page editor and continuing columnist, sort of combines both of the two prior elements of "good news" -- he clearly loves his work, and he's committed to research and innovative thinking. So I just selected the latest in his life's work of columns: Richard Doak, "Iowa Isn't Enough; Sell the Best Region in the Nation: The Midwest," Des Moines Register, September 23, 2007.

This time, in addition to the suggestion in the title -- that we should emphasize promotion of the "Midwest" rather than going it alone as "Iowa" -- he also reminds us once again of Richard Florida's advice:

Florida recognized the emergence of a new driving force in economic growth, "the creative class."

This new class is made up of people who make their livings by thinking, creating, innovating and independent problem solving - people such as engineers, scientists, designers, architects, educators, artists, musicians, writers and others.

. . .

Florida's great discovery was that economic growth occurs in regions that are most inviting to creative people. That's what revolutionized thinking about economic development.

The old model of development was that you create jobs and the people will follow.

The new model is that you attract creative people and the jobs will follow.

. . .

Iowa has not entirely embraced the new thinking. There's still a strong element of bribe-the-companies-and-they-will-come in the state's development strategies.

Nevertheless, Iowa communities increasingly seem to realize that their best hope for growth is to become the kinds of places that creative-class people would find attractive.

. . .

The smart thing to do would be to take all the money wasted on business incentives and plow it into education and quality-of-life improvements. . . .

Doak is right. "Money can't buy love," and bribing businesses can't buy economic growth. The good news is that Iowa can have both: economic growth and improved quality of life. Indeed, that's the only way we can have either.

The Bad News
I may not have seen it all, but I've seen much of it in my lifetime.

And yet even I was simply not prepared for the page-one story in last Sunday's Des Moines Register. Clark Kauffman, "U of I, Iowa State use student data to sell credit cards," Des Moines Register, September 23, 2007, p. A1. (You might also want to take at look at the 42 comments -- as of the afternoon of September 25 -- entered by readers of the story, most of whom, it turns out, responded as I did.)

(To remind: Last week was also when UI professors were told they could no longer refer to students by name in class out of respect for the students' privacy, and the laws and regulations protecting it. (The suggestion was subsequently rescinded.) Now it appears the UI thinks it's perfectly appropriate to sell students' personal information -- and that of their parents -- to banks for the purpose of marketing credit cards!)

As I have written before, "Once 'revenue is needed' is the Polestar for a university's financial decisions its moral compass begins to spin as if it was located on the North Pole." Nicholas Johnson, "UI Loves Gambling" in "UI Held Hostage Day 410 - March 7," March 7, 2007.

"Revenue is needed" is why politicians accept the bribes called "campaign contributions;" why "non-commercial" educational radio stations run commercials; why K-12 schools subscribed to "Channel One" and continue to sell sugared soft drinks to their students, knowing they will increase obesity, dental caries, and diabetes; why the UI's athletic program becomes a partner with the organized gambling industry's casino in Riverside; and why universities provide advertising on their buildings, and in naming their colleges, that promotes their corporate "donors."

But the Regents' universities have really set their moral compass to spinning with this one.

You have to read the full 2300-word Register-copyrighted story to become totally outraged, but these fair use excerpts will get you started:

Iowa's two largest public universities are aggressively marketing credit cards to their students as part of an arrangement that generates millions of dollars for the schools' privately run alumni organizations.

Publicly, the University of Iowa and Iowa State University have expressed concern over the debt of their students, many of whom graduate with $25,000 to $30,000 in bills to pay. The schools say they are trying to reduce that debt load.

At the same time, however, the two schools have signed deals with their alumni associations in which they have agreed to endorse, promote and profit from Bank of America credit cards marketed directly to students.

Records obtained by The Des Moines Register also show that the U of I has agreed to give the bank access to databases that include the mailing addresses, telephone numbers and e-mail addresses of students, parents and people who buy tickets to Hawkeye football and basketball games. The university has also promised to provide its biggest-spending cardholders with exclusive access to university facilities, coaches and even student athletes.

. . .

In Iowa and most other states, the financial details of those partnerships are often shrouded in secrecy, despite the involvement of public universities that rely on taxpayers to provide a substantial portion of their operating revenues.

. . .

Consumer advocates . . . contend the schools are also facilitating on-campus marketing aimed directly at students who have limited income and are struggling with debt from student loans. They say public assets are being used to enrich corporate lenders . . ..

. . .

U of I alumni officials declined to say how much they are paid through their arrangement with Bank of America. Also, the bank declined to comment on its partnerships with Iowa schools.

But federal records show the University of Iowa Alumni Association was collecting $550,000 per year from MBNA, now Bank of America, through 2005.

Under the terms of the association's newest contract with the bank, the school is guaranteed at least $200,000 per year - all of which is to go to the athletics department.

. . .

Chris Bavolack, vice president of the U of I alumni association, declined to comment on the revenue-sharing deal that results in the association collecting additional money as cardholders' debt loads increase. . . .

The sales pitch that arrives in students' mailboxes in Iowa City is written on alumni association letterhead that includes the trademarked logo of the U of I.

The letter is signed by Vince Nelson, president of the U of I Alumni Association.

It begins: "Imagine the convenience of being able to purchase supplies for your classes without worrying about carrying a lot of cash. You could pay for your books - or get quick cash in an emergency - and put it on one easy-to-use account. That's the kind of flexibility every student can appreciate and it can be yours with the University of Iowa credit card."

Nelson's pitch also includes this postscript: "Bank of America helps support the University of Iowa with every account opened, and for every purchase made with the card. All at no additional cost to you."

[T]he alumni association . . . has signed a contract with the school committing the university to "creatively and aggressively" marketing the Bank of America card.

As part of that agreement with the association, the university has promised to provide Bank of America with lists of all people who purchase season or single tickets to athletic events - a list that would include students, parents and other supporters [as well as] for Bank of America's use, electronic lists containing the phone numbers, e-mail addresses and mailing addresses of students and their parents . . ..

In return for every new account opened as a result of the university's sales pitches, the school collects $50.

The agreement obligates the university to help sell the credit cards through public-address announcements during games at Kinnick Stadium and Carver-Hawkeye Arena. Card applications are mailed to buyers of sporting-event tickets, and the cards are promoted in advertisements during the coaches' weekly TV shows.

. . .

The [Iowa State] athletics department agreed to exclusively endorse the credit card program at athletic events and agreed to give the bank, free of charge, the names and contact information of season- and single-game-ticket holders.

. . . The company could set up booths and tables [at athletic events] to sign up cardholders at football and basketball games. To help with the "Charge it to Cy" campaign, the school authorized the bank to give T-shirts, hats and bobbleheads as gifts to new card applicants.

. . .

Robert Manning, a professor of consumer finance at the Rochester Institute of Technology, has testified before Congress [that] such programs increase the likelihood of students failing to complete school. He faults school administrators for having a "greater interest in increasing credit card royalties than in fulfilling their responsibility to ensure the graduation of their students with the lowest possible level of financial debt."

Using a credit card to pay for textbooks and class supplies can be risky, too. The U of I card offered to students has an interest rate that can balloon to 29.99 percent in the event of a single late payment. . . .

Governor Bill Richardson says he has been nominated four times for the Nobel Peace Prize. Well, I think this story of Clark Kauffman's should be nominated at least four times for a Pulitzer Prize.

It's eligible for any one of the first five (of fourteen) categories "for excellence in journalism work."

This is the kind of "investigative reporting" that serves to remind us of what newspapers used to be and should continue to be today.

That's the "good news."

The bad news is what he found, and needed to report.

What a sad commentary on what happens "Once 'revenue is needed' is the Polestar for a university's financial decisions."

# # #

Press-Citizen Wins Wendy

September 5, 2007, 6:00 a.m.



"The Most Important News Stories in the World!"
MSNBC's Keith Olbermann has a daily feature he calls "The worst person in the world."

The Iowa City Press-Citizen has a weekly feature each Saturday it calls "Our Quick Take on Last Week's News Stories" -- its version of what Keith Olbermann might call "The Most Important News Stories in the World!"

I have a feature called a "Wendy."

Newspapers and television, constitutionally protected as the citizen's watchdog on government and other major institutions, need a watchdog of their own. In many communities it takes the form of a "journalism review" -- such as the granddaddy of journalism reviews, the Columbia Journalism Review.

So far as I know, we don't have a journalism review in eastern Iowa -- or anywhere else in the state, for that matter. And I'm certainly not inclined to take on that more-than-full-time role myself.

But I do award the Wendy.

What's the Wendy?

Newspapers (and television) are for-profit enterprises funded, for the most part, by advertisers. I understand that.

But there has historically been a wall, as high and strong as the old Berlin wall, between the advertising department and the news department. Reporters were free to do investigative journalism, revealing faults of local corporations that were also major advertisers -- over the objection of the advertising department, and occasionally resulting in the loss of a major account. Promotion of products on television took the form of commercials, not "product placement." Not only was advertising kept out of newspapers' stories -- let alone editorials -- it was kept off the front page.

With the merger of media firms into five or six major owners of most of our major media outlets -- and corporate decisions being driven by stock prices and the Wall Street financial community more than the nostalgia of "the public interest" and a democracy's need for news -- the mice have been gnawing away at that wall, leaving it in less stable condition than many of our nation's bridges. [Although the Society of Professional Journalists' Code of Ethics still contains the admonition, "Distinguish news from advertising and shun hybrids that blur the lines between the two," it was last revised in 1996 and needs to be brought up-to-date with the deletion of that long-forgotten standard.]

The original Wendy was awarded to The Gazette. (So it's only appropriate the Press-Citizen should get one, too.) The Gazette won for a full news story -- with pictures -- promoting the delights of a new imitation milk shake: Wendy's Vanilla Frosty. Nicholas Johnson, "Mr. Editor, tear down this wall!" August 8, 2006. (Not incidentally, the story was hyped by the paper on its front page.)

So how and why has the Press-Citizen achieved this distinction?

Because two of the three "most important news stories in the world" turned out to be Panchero's $1.00 burritos, and Dunkin' Donuts' new donut formula. (That issue of the paper also gave over news space to an ad on page one.)

The paper gets extra points toward its Wendy award for the fact that this information about Panchero's and Dunkin' Donuts was provided to readers, not as advertisements, not even on the news pages, but in an editorial!

Here are the excerpts from that editorial, as they appeared, followed by some suggestions for possible alternative stories that might have been selected instead as "The Most Important News Stories in the World!":

Standing in the heat for burritos

The local chain Panchero's Mexican Grill celebrated its 15th anniversary Tuesday by selling $1 burritos and handing out free T-shirts at its Iowa City downtown location at 32 S. Clinton St. ("Panchero's notes 15 years; Hundreds wait in long line for $1 burritos," Aug. 29). The line stretched almost an entire block as hundreds of students waited in 90-degree heat for their turn. In two hours, workers doled out 1,500 burritos and gave out 1,500 black-and-gold T-shirts.

Panchero's opened at the corner of Clinton and Washington streets in 1992. It quickly became a staple downtown, and in particular, for University of Iowa students. Since its opening, the eatery has expanded to more than 45 locations in 13 states. There are plans this year to open about 25 new locations.

We're glad that Panchero's remains firmly rooted in Iowa City as its branches keep extending outward.

None vs. zero

Dunkin' Donuts announced last week that it has developed an alternative cooking oil and reformulated more than 50 menu items -- doughnuts included -- so that its 5,400 U.S. restaurants will go "zero grams trans fat" by Oct. 15. In no way are company officials suggesting that they are making healthy donuts, but they are making their confections less unhealthy by phasing out the artery-clogging trans fat. Baskin-Robbins, another unit of Dunkin' Brands Inc., plans to be "zero grams trans fat" by Jan. 1.

Anyone concerned with his or her trans fat intake, however, needs to know the difference between "no" and "zero" trans fat. The first indicates that there is no trans fat at all in the food. The second indicates that there is less than a half-gram of trans fat per serving -- and those near half-grams can add up quickly.

Editorial, "Our Quick Take on Last Week's News Stories," Iowa City Press-Citizen, September 1, 2007.

What were some of the alternative choices for "Most Important News Stories in the World"?

International news, in addition to the GAO report on the failure of Iraq's government to meet the benchmarks, and the increased levels of violence in Pakistan, might have included significant political shifts -- of great relevance to Americans -- in Pakistan, Turkey and Iran.

Don't want to look abroad?

National news -- much of which occurred in, or affected, Iowa, and would have had local news pegs -- might have included the boost to Senator Dodd's campaign from the endorsement of Iowa City's fire fighters; the declaration of all the Democratic candidates that they will skip states that try to leapfrog Iowa's caucus date; the expected entrance of Fred Thompson; some shift in public reaction following the Republicans throwing Senator Larry Craig under the bus; Alberto Gonzales' resignation; new revelations regarding insurance companies' performance in New Orleans; the delays and decline in quality of airline service; the significance of the housing and mortgage markets stumble to the future of the American economy; and the record $87.1 billion in national net farm income.

Other Iowa, even Iowa City, stories would have included the unprecedented three UI campus bomb threats; the census report on median income and poverty (and Iowa's rank); the court case declaring Iowa's ban on gay marriage to be unconstitutional; and the bacteria warnings at six state park beaches (some of which were found to be 30 times levels thought safe for swimming).

The Register and Gazette gave at least a little, back-page coverage to the UNI faculty's thoughtful, analytical rejection of an armed campus police. The Press-Citizen mentioned it not at all -- anywhere that I noticed, not just in its Saturday round-up. That omission may well have contributed -- at least in some small way -- to this morning's news that it looks like the UI faculty is going to support an armed campus.

[Not incidentally, if you're truly interested in understanding the armed campus issues -- given that the reports circulating in Iowa are primarily simply advocacy briefs for bringing guns on campus -- one of the most thoroughly researched, and balanced, reports I've seen is the recent SUNY Courtland, "Report of the University Police Arming Task Force."]

For ignoring these stories, for helping tear down the iron curtain between advertising and news (and in this case even editorials), and for exalting the news value of Panchero's burritos and Dunkin' Donuts' sweet and greasy dough -- we proudly award a coveted Wendy to the Iowa City Press-Citizen.

# # #

The Corporate College of . . .

July 3, 2007, 6:00 a.m., 7:15 p.m. [addition of photos from Senator Biden, and Senator Clinton events], and 8:25 p.m. [addition of response to attached reader comment, and reference to earlier blog entry, "Greed, Conflicts, Cover-Ups and Corruption"]

Other News, below

Wellmark's College of Public Health
The possibility of Wellmark buying the University of Iowa's College of Public Health came up in an exchange of comments added to a prior blog entry, Nicholas Johnson, "Gambling, Taxes and Cats," July 1, 2007. Today the story has moved from the blogosphere into the mainstream press as the lead story in this morning's Press-Citizen, Brian Morelli, "UI College May Get New Name; May be Named for Wellmark Foundation," July 3, 2007, p. A1.

There are a number of issues and concerns regarding the naming of public buildings in general and academic buildings in particular -- and the possibility of a Wellmark College of Public Health raises almost all of them.

* Should buildings be named for anybody?

* If so, should the naming be limited to ancient scholars, inventors, researchers, creative persons, and so forth -- such as the names that surround one of the buildings on the Pentacrest?

* Or, can the naming include more contemporary such individuals -- but only after they have died?

* And, if so, what about naming them for such individuals while they are still alive?

* Is it appropriate that the names of buildings and colleges be "sold off," in effect, to major donors -- with the symbolic consequence that an academic institution appears to be bestowing its greatest honors on wealth in preference to wisdom?

* If an academic institution is going to offer its programs for sale, should there be any individuals whose money should not be accepted for this purpose -- say, convicted felons, those who have made their money in illegal businesses, or from legal but questionable businesses (e.g., prostitution where legal, gambling, or pornography)? If so, how (and by whom) should these standards be established?

* Is there "a difference that makes a difference" between accepting money from an individual donor for these naming purposes, and accepting it in exchange for a name that includes the donor's corporation (or, as in this case, that corporation's foundation), thus putting the name of a business rather than a person on a building or college?

* If it is acceptable to include a corporate name in the name of an academic building or college, are there additional issues raised when that corporation's mission is in some way, directly or indirectly, related to the college's mission? For example, because corporations have their own training centers and "universities" (I once attended one run by IBM) does it risk confusion in the public mind (similar to the concerns in trademark law) to include a corporate name in the name of a university's college or building when its academic mission is similar to that of the corporation? Is this potential problem exacerbated at a university that includes in its mission "economic development" and the provision of space and other resources for the purpose of spinning off for-profit corporations?

* Does it make it better -- or worse -- that there is a commercial relationship between the corporate donor and the college in question? Does Wellmark's purchase of a UI medical college's name somehow compromise the ability of the University of Iowa to negotiate with Wellmark -- something that's already been a little controversial in the past? Will it prevent, or at least substantially impede, the ability of the University to switch providers sometime in the future, should that be seen to be in the University's best interest?

* What if the corporation's mission is actually antithetical to the mission of the college; e.g., what if the company in question had been, say, Phillip Morris, which contributes to one of the leading public health problems in America, rather than Wellmark, which merely profits from one of the leading public health problems in America? Would that have made a difference? (And there's the related question: Would a "Phillip Morris College of Law" be acceptable, although not a "Phillip Morris College of Public Health"?)

* Finally, when corporate money is accepted in exchange for the naming of buildings or colleges, what is the metric, what is the rate card and how is it calculated, in deciding how much to charge? To the extent the naming constitutes a form of advertising, is the advertising market relevant for these purposes? If so, should the fee charged be an annual payment, rather than a one-time payment, as would normally be the case with advertising?

There is a reason why business spends at least $250 billion a year on advertising -- and, since we are talking about public health, a good deal of which involves advertising for tobacco, alcohol and drugs that is viewed by children, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics' report. Advertising works; advertising sells; advertising is an investment that pays returns -- as it will in this case for Wellmark.

Consider what an advertiser gets for naming rights, say, Cellular One's arena in Cedar Rapids (formerly the Five Seasons Center). It's not just its name on a building -- that can be seen for miles around by anyone passing through town. The name is contained in every newspaper ad for a event at the venue. It's on highway signs directing people to the building. It's on the tickets. It's on every piece of stationery.

Wellmark will get the same range of benefits -- and more -- from having its name on a University of Iowa building. And how much more is it worth to gain the reputation and good will of a major university, by association, than just some old conference center?

We've long since decided we're willing to sell off the University's good reputation. If you haven't yet guessed, that troubles me. But accepting the reality of where we are at the moment, shouldn't we at least, as George Bernard Shaw suggested, start "haggling over price"? Don't we have the same obligation to the people of Iowa that we would if we were selling off the state's top soil -- to make sure we get the most for it we possibly can? When we take a lump sum to name a building after a corporation -- forever -- isn't there a great likelihood we're selling out too cheaply?

[There is a related discussion in Nicholas Johnson, "Greed, Conflicts, Cover-Ups and Corruption" in "Conflicts, Cover-Ups and Corruption," June 26, 2007, regarding the challenges confronting our next UI president as she necessarily must balance some of these moral/ethical questions against the fund raising that has been said to be at least one-third of her job. As that blog entry discusses, these potential conflicts go well beyond, of course, those involved in naming buildings and colleges. But in that earlier blog entry I ask,

We've already stopped naming colleges and buildings for scholars and started naming them for donors. Are there any limits? The CEO of Home Depot gave $200 million to the Atlanta museum. Would we, for an equivalent amount, become "The Home Depot University of Iowa"? What if Larry Flynt [publisher of Hustler Magazine] would offer $300 million if we'd change the name to "Flynt University" [or "Hustler University"]? (After all there's a "Stanford University" and a "Duke University" -- named for a guy who made his money from tobacco.) Why not a "Flynt University"? We need his money as much as Barta needs the gambling industry's money.

A comment attached to today's blog entry notes the number of universities -- many quite distinguished -- named for business people who were major donors. This is a useful point, and I appreciate the offering of those examples. The person writing the comment urges no more than an acknowledgment that this names-for-dollars approach is not something new. I agree. However, I would note that:

(a) most of the examples listed -- including the addition of one I earlier noted that is not on the list (Duke; tobacco money) -- are private universities (Harvard, Yale, Dartmouth and Stanford). Admittedly, the University of Iowa -- with something like 13 percent of its budget coming from the State of Iowa -- is now "Iowa" in name only, and ever closer year by year, with its rising tuition and outside funding, to becoming a "private university" named for a state. Private universities are, by definition, with the exception of government grants for research, sustained by private tuition and donors. They have no (or few) alternative sources of funding. "Public universities," by contrast, were for the most part -- at least at their inception -- created with the notion of public funding, and free or virtually free tuition, as a public, non-corporate, institution.

(b) My discussion involves 11 paragraphs. That some universities (for the most part private universities) have been named for donors, and that this has been historically common and accepted, relates at most to the first five. It does not address the issues in the final six -- dealing with the naming of colleges, buildings or universities for corporations -- no examples of which are provided in the list in the comment.]

There are undoubtedly other issues involved as well, but this should be a good start on a few morning thoughts about "Wellmark's College of Public Health."

# # #
Other News:

Gartner praises Fethke; Biden impresses Iowa City yesterday; President and Mrs. President-Aspirant Clinton arrive today; over 40% white males have (or have had) alcoholism or serious drinking problem (and Iowa City's City Council and bars are doing their best to increase those numbers; way to go Iowa City); . . .

and I haven't forgotten State29's request for some commentary about the Fairness Doctrine (the subject of Tom Ashbrook's "On Point" (WBUR-AM) this morning, "Conservative Talk Radio").

Michael Gartner, "Fethke Excelled in Interim," Iowa City Press-Citizen, July 3, 2007.

Rob Daniel, "Biden: Iraq Solution Lies in Confederation," Iowa City Press-Citizen, July 3, 2007.

Shajia Ahmad, "Biden Details Iraq Solution," The Daily Iowan, July 3, 2007.

James Q. Lynch, "Biden Counts Off Qualifications in I.C.," The Gazette, July 3, 2007, p. B5; Associated Press, "30 Percent Have Abused Alcohol," The Gazette, July 3, 2007, p. A3 (both available at The Gazette's main Web site).

Here are the photos on my Picasa Web site for the Senator Biden event July 2 (yesterday), and Senator Clinton event today (July 3).

# # #
[Note: If you're new to this blog, and interested in the whole UI President Search story . . .

This blog began in June 2006 and has addressed, and continues to addresses, a number of public policy, political, media, education, economic development, and other issues -- not just the UI presidential search. But that is the subject to which most attention has been focused in blog entries between November 2006 and June 2007.

The presidential search blog entries begin with Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search I," November 18, 2006. They end with Nicholas Johnson, "UI Held Hostage Day 505 - Next (Now This) Week," June 10, 2007 (100-plus pages printed; a single blog entry for the events of June 10-21 ("Day 516"), plus over 150 attached comments from readers), and Nicholas Johnson, "UI Hostages Free At Last -- Habemas Mamam!," June 22, 2007.

Wondering where the "UI Held Hostage" came from? Click here. (As of January 25 the count has run from January 21, 2006, rather than last November.)

For any given entry, links to the prior 10 will be found in the left-most column. Going directly to FromDC2Iowa.Blogspot.com will take you to the latest. Each entry related to the UI presidential search contains links to the full text of virtually all known, non-repetitive media stories and commentary, including mine, since the last blog entry. Together they represent what The Chronicle of Higher Education has called "one of the most comprehensive analyses of the controversy." The last time there was an entry containing the summary of prior entries' commentary (with the heading "This Blog's Focus on Regents' Presidential Search") is Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search XIII -- Last Week," December 11, 2006.

My early proposed solution to the conflict is provided in Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search VII: The Answer," November 26, 2006.

Searching: the fullest collection of basic documents related to the search is contained in Nicholas Johnson, "UI President Search - Dec. 21-25," December 21, 2006 (and updated thereafter), at the bottom of that blog entry under "References." A Blog Index of entries on all subjects since June 2006 is also available. And note that if you know (or can guess at) a word to search on, the "Blogger" bar near the top of your browser has a blank, followed by "SEARCH THIS BLOG," that enables you to search all entries in this Blog since June 2006.]

# # #