Letters

Washington Monthly, Oct, 1999

Bought and Paid For

As a reporter at a travel trade magazine who frequently takes fully expense-paid press trips, I was very pleased to discover Elizabeth Austin's article "All Expenses Paid" (July/August 1999). Finally, someone has said what I cannot. A fellow travel reporter and I constantly joke about being "travel whores" ourselves and we both admit to feeling dirty after writing blatantly "advertorial" articles, which happens here more than it should, but this is simply the way it works in the travel business.

All trade magazines, and to a lesser degree consumer travel magazines, are a product of their advertisers. It is a symbiotic relationship and the travel industry especially is a very insular community. A good example of how things are not supposed to work comes from a big article in the August issue of Conde Nast Traveler on how the Caribbean has dealt with the rise in crime. It was actually a fairly benign article, but the Jamaican Tourism board immediately released a statement saying that because of the article, they were strongly considering pulling their advertising from Conde Nast.

At my particular publication, editorial space is sold against advertising, and if a section sells above and beyond its news worthiness, that's just the way it is. Yes, we write a hard-hitting article every so often to keep travel executives on their toes, but in the end, they know they have the upper hand and they control us.

NAME WITHHELD

New York, N.Y.

Winner Take Oil

Eric Umansky's article in your September 1999 issue, "Shooting the Whistle-blower," was an excellent piece of work. Truly, oil companies have been cheating the federal government (and many states) of billions for many years. I have been active in the area of stolen oil and gas royalties since around 1983. I have long documented that delay in reform is the name of the game. That ridiculous "investigation" of the two whistleblowers is exactly the diversionary farce that Umansky described.

In late July, officials from 32 organizations (including major educational and union groups, conservation groups and public interest groups) jointly signed a letter to all U.S. Senators asking that the barriers to the new royalty regs be lifted. (Note that federal oil royalties shared with some states routinely go to education.) That letter also noted that one company has offered to pay almost $100 million in "back" royalties. There is a lot of money being lost each month by not implementing the new oil regulations. Interior's estimate of $66 million per year in recoverable losses (which I believe to be low) means that we're losing over $5.5 million each month while the regs are frozen ... and that doesn't include gas royalties. Keep up the good work.

BILL ROBINSON

Takoma Park, Md.

Case Not Closed

Re.: David Ignatius' review of Venona ("A Father and a Spy," July/August 1999): The issue with Venona is the number of Americans identified as spies for the Soviets. The biggest issue is whether Alger Hiss was or was not a spy, the "Ales" identified in the Venona intercepts. The National Security Agency folks, who are a pretty careful bunch, said Hiss could only be termed a "probable" because a firm link between Hiss and "Ales" could not be made. After the Venona intercepts were made public a few years ago, I spent two years working on intercepts and cryptographic material for a paper I did for a group here, and in my own mind believed Hiss was Ales, but I had to admit NSA could only list him as a "probable."

A couple of months after I gave the Venona paper, a fellow named Weinstein and a young KGB operative published a book claiming Hiss was indeed Ales, and their access to KGB files from 1993-5 proved it. The problem is Weinstein has long believed Hiss was a spy and frankly I do not trust him. Also Hiss is said to have worked for the GRU, the Soviet military intelligence group, not the KGB. The material Weinstein quoted was not convincing.

Hatnes and Klehr, the authors of Venona, quote Weinstein to affirm Hiss was a spy, but from an earlier Weinstein work. They then imply they have seen Weinstein's latest book reporting his access to KGB files, but give no citation. Without a bibliography it is impossible to know what Hatnes and Klehr have read in the field and what they have not. In any event, it struck me as very sloppy scholarship, and certainly, in fairness, does not confirm whether Hiss was or was not a Soviet spy.

GORDON BEYER

Lexington, Va.

I enjoyed Mr. Ignatius' review (A Father and a Spy," July/August 1999), but I was horrified to see him repeat the story that British authorities "allowed" the WW II bombing of Coventry to protect the "ULTRA secret" (Allied penetration of the German Enigma cipher).

This story was created by F. W. Winterbotham in The ULTRA Secret, and though Winterbotham was a major figure in ULTRA operations, he seems to have invented this story. Peter Calvocoressi was head of the Air Intelligence analysis group at Bletchley Park. In his book Top Secret ULTRA, he stated flatly "ULTRA never mentioned Coventry" Interrogations of captured German air crews disclosed that a major attack was scheduled for the night of the November full moon, code-named "Moonlight Sonata." Analysis of German radio guidance beams pointed to Coventry, Wolverhampton, and London as possible targets. The analysts favored London, and Churchill was warned of a raid on London on the 14th. (He responded by cancelling his usual weekend stay in the country so that he would be "at his post" in the moment of danger.)