Fair And Balanced?
A number of our readers pulled no punches in hammering away at what they perceived as our less than "fair and balanced" coverage of the Bush-Kerry presidential race in last week's edition.
In our cover story "Kerry Victory Would Put Insurance Industry 'On The Defensive'" we reported that on a host of issues dear to industry lobbyists, from tort reform to terrorism reinsurance to taxation, President George W. Bush would get a "thumb's up" over Sen. John Kerry.
"I was quite disappointed to see that your historically fine magazine has become a cheap rag for the Republican Party," e-mailed one Connecticut agent. "You might find it interesting to know that all insurance people do not share your narrow views on tort reform, estate taxes, etc. If these were the only issues, perhaps one could frame a discussion on them alone. However, you would have to be brain dead not to be aware that there are much more long-term questions and issues to be resolved."
I also received an angry fax from an agency president in Michigan. "I am an independent agent, but an American first," he wrote, slamming President Bush both for the "runaway federal debt" brought on by "huge tax cuts" benefiting the wealthy, as well as the war in Iraq over weapons of mass destruction "that were never proven to exist."
"The insurance industry has been good to me," he concluded, "but I would rather vote for what's good for my children and grandchildren in the long run than to vote on what's good for our industry in the short run."
The president of a second Connecticut agency took issue with our article, "in which you in effect endorse George Bush," charging that in our "head-to-head" comparison, "you left out a few categories where [President] Bush does not stack up so well."
For example, this agent contends that the presidents "fiscal irresponsibility, record-breaking deficits and borrow-and-spend philosophy will inevitably drive up interest rates, hastening the return of the soft market" while driving up the cost of capital to expand his firm. In addition, he said the president's "arrogance and go-it-alone policies have increased resentment of and hostility to America throughout the world," thereby raising the risk of terrorism-related losses.
Finally, he said global warming will lead to "increased frequency of catastrophe losseswith all the implications that has for the insurance industry. [President] Bush has done zero to tackle this problem, and in fact has sabotaged the efforts of the rest of the world."
In conclusion, he wrote: "Even limiting the Bush-Kerry debate to the short list of issues you mentioned, I would like to think insurance people are capable of putting the long-term interests of their nation, their children and their planet above a perceived self-interest for their industry."
These readers make an excellent point there are far more important issues at stake than tort reform in this election. In addition to those cited above, there is job growth (or lack thereof), abortion rights, the fate of the Patriot Act, the makeup of the Supreme Court, health care, the future of Social Security, and many, many other critical distinctions between the candidates.
We in no way meant our article to represent an endorsement. It was simply a narrow look at the key issues championed by the industry we track. I am grateful some readers rushed forward to remind me that while we cover the world of insurance and risk management for a living, there is a much bigger world out there to consider.
Sam Friedman
Editor-In-Chief
Reproduced from National Underwriter Edition, August 19, 2004. Copyright 2004 by The National Underwriter Company in the serial publication. All rights reserved.Copyright in this article as an independent work may be held by the author.
© Arc, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to TMSalesOperations@arc-network.com. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.