Monday, January 25, 2010

A new way to use frequent flier miles!

Nordstrom Hospital, Helsinki, Finland
www.nordstromhospital.fi
info@nordstromhospital.fi

Description
A Finnish hospital specialized entirely in plastic surgery. One of the pioneers in aesthetic and reconstructive surgery. Experience brings assurance - professor Nordström is the only internationally well-acknowledged plastic surgeon of this level in Finland, who also operates in the field of aesthetic surgery.

Use Points
Breast augmentation with the best implants and top methods, voucher value €7,950. Capsule warranty for an extra fee of €600 (brief) or €890 (extensive).

Please note, that before ordering the voucher a consultation visit to the clinic (consultation fee €95) has to be made to ensure that the client is operable.

Breast augmentation, value €7,950, valid for a year after the date of purchase.

The Nordstrom Hospital for Plastic Surgery; www.nordstromhospital.fi; info@nordstromhospital.fi; tel. +358 (9) 612 6363

This benefit can not be combined with other benefits. Valid on new reservations only

Tuesday, January 19, 2010

The Public Editor The Sources’ Stake in the News

By CLARK HOYT
Published: January 16, 2010

WHEN The Times interviewed Michael Chertoff about airport security after the underwear bomber tried to blow up a passenger jet on Christmas Day, he said full-body scanners should be deployed at airports. Chertoff, the former secretary of homeland security, did not volunteer that he is a consultant to a company that makes such equipment, and though they spoke to him twice, reporters never asked if he had a financial stake in the matter.

Peter Galbraith, a former diplomat, wrote several Op-Ed columns a few years ago supporting a strong and independent Kurdistan. The editors who published his pieces learned only in November — from a front-page article — that Galbraith’s business ties to a Norwegian oil company operating in Kurdistan positioned him to earn millions.

Jonathan Gruber, a prominent M.I.T. health economist, wrote an Op-Ed column and was quoted frequently in other Times columns, news articles and blogs on health care reform before it came to light that he had a contract worth nearly $400,000 to analyze health proposals for the Obama administration.

Neil Sadick, a famed Manhattan dermatologist, was quoted in a Skin Deep column discussing electronic devices for the home treatment of acne, but the article did not say that Sadick has a business relationship with a company that makes one of the devices.

These examples have resulted in five embarrassing editors’ notes in the last two months — two of them last week — each of them saying readers should have been informed of the undisclosed interest. And on Thursday, the standards editor sent Times journalists a memo urging them to be “constantly alert” to the outside interests of expert sources. The cases raised timeless issues for journalists and sources about what readers have a right to know and whose responsibility it is to find it out or disclose it.

The ideal expert source is entirely independent, with no stake in an outcome. But in reality, the most informed sources often have involvements, which is why they know what they know. Readers are entitled to disclosure so they can decide if there is a conflict that would affect the credibility of the information.

But each recent Times case showed how tricky it can be to navigate the ethics of disclosure.

Chertoff, who championed full-body scanners as head of the Department of Homeland Security, long before he went into private business, said it was no secret that he had become a consultant to corporate clients through the Chertoff Group, a risk-management firm he formed in March. He said that when two Times reporters, Eric Liptonand John Schwartz, called and the subject turned to scanners, it was up to them to ask whether he had ties to that industry. “I always answer when I’m asked,” he said. “But I don’t think it is my obligation to put myself in the head of a reporter” to decide what the reporter needs to know.

Chertoff did tell NPR and CNN interviewers when they asked.

Lipton and Schwartz agreed that they should have asked Chertoff, but both expressed disappointment that he did not volunteer obviously germane information. Bob Steele, a professor at DePauw University and a journalism values scholar at the Poynter Institute, said, “I believe a source does have an affirmative obligation to reveal any competing loyalties, even if the source isn’t sure they create a direct conflict of interest.”

Interestingly, Chertoff wrote an Op-Ed article for The Washington Post, published New Year’s Day, that carried a one-sentence biography divulging that his clients included a scanner manufacturer — a note he said he volunteered.

“If I’m affirmatively getting out there,” he said, as opposed to being called by a reporter, “I make it my business to disclose.” That’s a distinction I don’t buy. What difference does it make whether a source seeks a forum or a reporter happens to call? Knowing Washington’s culture of revolving doors and news spin, the Times reporters should have asked the obvious question. But if Chertoff had a connection he thought the public needed to know in one instance, he should have made it clear in the others.

Galbraith said he regretted not telling Times editors that he had business interests in Kurdistan when he wrote Op-Ed columns published in 2005 and 2006. He did provide a vague disclosure for one in 2007. But he disputed the November editors’ note that said he could have benefited from an independent Kurdistan because he had a stake in an oil field there.

He said his support of an independent Kurdistan was against the interests of DNO International, the oil company with which he had a relationship, because it had invested $300 million in Iraq, expecting it to remain unified. “I did not promote or discuss matters of specific interest to my clients and, indeed, my generally pessimistic view of Iraq’s future was not consistent with the interests of companies trying to attract investors for projects in the country,” he said.

Galbraith asked where the line was if an Op-Ed contributor was writing about political issues in a country where he also had economic interests. Because politics and economics so often go hand in hand, I would say someone in his shoes should disclose all interests to editors and discuss whether any pose a conflict that needs to be disclosed to readers. That is what The Times requires of all Op-Ed columnists, in plain, written language.

Gruber, the health care economist, wrote an Op-Ed column in July supporting an excise tax on so-called Cadillac health plans. Not long before, he had signed a contract with the Department of Health and Human Services to analyze the economic impact of various health care proposals in Congress. He did not tell Op-Ed editors, nor was the contract mentioned on at least 12 other occasions when he was quoted in The Times after he was consulting for the administration. After a blogger reported on Gruber’s government contract on the Daily Kos Web site, Gruber did volunteer it to Steven Greenhouse, a Times reporter interviewing him for an article on the excise tax. Greenhouse said he included the fact in a draft but struck it because the article was too long. Greenhouse said that Gruber’s views on the tax were so well-known that he did not think they would be influenced by a consulting contract. But had he realized how large the contract was, Greenhouse said, “I would have stood up and paid lots more attention.”

Gruber said, “I guess it never occurred to me that the fact that I was doing technical modeling would matter.” He said he has long supported the tax and that the administration opposed it when he wrote his column, so he was hardly bending his views to a government paymaster.

Sometimes, there can be misunderstandings even when a reporter asks. Camille Sweeney, the freelancer who interviewed Sadick about acne treatments, said she asked the dermatologist a specific question: Had he been paid by any manufacturer for tests he performed on the products? He said he had not. But after the article was published, a Times editor recalled seeing an endorsement by Sadick for a hair removal product by one of the manufacturers.

What is the lesson from all this? Lipton said, “I do need to ask whenever I call a person for comment as an expert if they have any financial relationship with the topic.” He said he has posted a reminder on his computer: “Ask if hired gun.”