Journalistic Integrity (?) - September/October 4, 2020

 

I originally wrote this on September 4, 2020, but held back because something felt off. That reason is at the end.

In many local town newspapers this week, an article appeared (look on page six), which is a travesty on numerous levels. First, it's awful from a journalistic perspective. Start with the headline: "Guess What May Be Coming Back". It's beyond vague. I don't know. Is it poodle skirts? Base six math? Jesus? In today's COVID-19 climate, is it local business? In-person schooling? The possibilities are endless. Then let's look at the fact that there is no byline. To be fair, half of the articles in the paper have no byline, but it's not exactly a confidence builder when we have no idea where the information we're reading comes from. And the tone of the article is not exactly objective. Rarely do news articles resort to all caps (these changes are coming "in a VERY BIG way!"). And this article has six exclamation points, another sign that we should be wary about the lack of objectivity. 

But here's part of the problem. This is not journalism; it's an advertisement for an estate planning firm. The article professes to be in our best interest by letting us know about potential changes in the estate taxes, but it preys on fear. While they admittedly don't know what will happen in the November election, they "do need to let you know what may happen if Democrats wind up winning" control of the executive and legislative branches. They even want us to be aware of what others have said could happen: "For example, here's an article that appeared this summer in the New York Times, entitled 'Tax the Rich and Their Heirs'." One problem: there is no article from the Times included here, only a title. Also missing is the fact that this is an op-ed piece, not a news story (it's here if you want to read it).

The article discusses the federal Estate Tax exemption of $11.58 million dollars (possibly doubled for a married couple), and then they write a paragraph discussing the Massachusetts exemption of one million dollars. The opening line of the following paragraph claims that "that exemption may be significantly reduced at any time." This brings us back to the poor writing in this article. "That exemption" appears to refer to Massachusetts exemption referenced in the prior paragraph. If that's the case, the Democrats winning the federal elections in November has nothing to do with it; they have no control over state law. If they're referring to the federal rate, the previous paragraph about Massachusetts rates serves zero purpose.

The sidebar at the end of the article doesn't even try to hide its purpose. It's a blatant call for people to contact them to protect their wealth and do it now as "[it's] likely that any Estate Tax change is likely to made effective retroactively to January 1!" It's not even subtle. Call us now! NOW! And let's not overlook the poor writing with the repetitive use of "likely".

And despite all that, I come back to my biggest issue. This is an advertisement, plain and simple. Why not take out an actual ad, saying "Estate Taxes might go up. Call us for help."? Same message, less subterfuge, more efficacy. 

UPDATE: October 4, 2020:

I did some research to see if this article made it anywhere beyond the ten towns this publisher services. Turns out that this "article" was taken, almost word-for-word from a webpage/blog from a California estate planning firm. This accounts for some of the original problems I had. The article that was referenced but never provided? It's linked in this original publication. That paragraph about Massachusetts estate taxes that had nothing to do with the federal election? It's not in the original blog. The sidebar at the end that's not even pretending to be journalism? It makes sense in its original context. 

I made a couple of phone calls when I found this. The California firm has no association with the firm that put this in my local paper. I emailed the local firm asking if they have any association, but they never responded. I also emailed the publisher of my local papers to let them know. Given the number of plagiarism stories in recent years both national (Melania Trump copying Michelle Obama's speech) and local (a superintendent getting fired for plagiarizing an Oprah Winfrey story), this should never happen, regardless of the limited reach of these town papers. At the least, I plan to make my students aware that someone is always watching.