Letters to the editor

Phi Kappa Phi Forum, Summer 2003

BALANCE AND CONTEXT: MAINTAINING MEDIA ETHICS

As a process-assurance director, my job is to ensure the accurate collection and reporting of facts. Errors and omissions disturb me, but I am even more offended by conscious efforts to distort the truth. That's why your recent article by Deni Elliott fell so far short of what it could have been.

In "Balance and Context: Maintaining Media Ethics" ["Professional Ethics," Spring 2003], Ms. Elliott went to significant lengths to chastise the American press, ostensibly because she feels they inadequately supported her views on our current administration. However, these sins of omission are nothing compared with the more blatant efforts of the liberal mainstream press to distort the facts. Where were the mentions of the mainstream media calling the results of the last presidential election before the polls had closed in Florida? This was irresponsible reporting at its absolute worst. Where was the mention of mainstream media parroting the story that George Bush lost the popular vote, when we all know that there is no such thing as a popular vote in our electoral system for the presidency?

There have been dozens, perhaps hundreds of statements happily reported by the major networks indicating that "people in the lowest income levels are cheated out of their fair share of the proposed tax cuts." The underreported reality is that these people pay no income tax. Although one can find conservative bias in some stories, the mainstream media is absolutely rife with a more blatant and pernicious liberal slant.

Ms. Elliott picked a great topic. Clearly, the best reporting on controversial issues includes a real discourse, an active repartee between proponents on both sides. A little more balance in Ms. Elliott's own article would have been a very good thing.

John Thomasson, PhD

Dayton, Ohio

COMBATING CANCER-DRUG RESISTANCE: THE CERAMIDE CONNECTION

I am writing about the article in the Phi Kappa Phi Forum regarding cancer-drug resistance ["Cancer Research," Winter 2003]. On page 24 in the paragraph concerning drugs that decrease GC production, Gregory Vogel refers to "the beta blocker verapamil." However, I wanted to inform you that verapamil is not a beta-blocker and, instead, is a calcium-channel blocker that produces its effects on the heart by blocking the transport of calcium into myocardial muscle cells, thus reducing excitability and contractility of the heart. I just wanted to let Mr. Vogel know so that he may correct this in the future.

Amy Huffman

Lock Haven, Pennsylvania