 |
 |
 |
|
To The Point The media touch A short assessment of media coverage of the insurance industry By Emanuel Levy The insurance business has hardly been ignored by the news media; however, despite the involvement of insurance in every aspect of life and commerce, there appears to be no general newspaper that devotes a special section to reporting insurance events. Unlike real estate, investments, the arts, sports and other subjects, insurance likely is seen as lacking public interest and being difficult to write about. Although day-to-day insurance events are seldom publicized, insurance becomes the center of attention when disasters arise, such as Hurricane Katrina or 9/11. Whenever such events result in disputes over payment of claims or resistance to providing coverage, reporters swarm, probing for the drama—the possible failure of insurers to fulfill their promises, the individual suffering, regulators and legislators assuring swift intervention, and legal practitioners demanding reimbursement for injured clients. Getting information to the public is necessary, and the newspapers, electronic and other media have generally done their jobs with speed and integrity even if coverage is sometimes repetitious and not entirely accurate. The industry’s own information facilities have always been immediately available to respond to press questions and to offer background data to the media. Those sources include the news specialists of the independent agents and brokers associations, as well as the associations of insurance companies and especially the Insurance Information Institute (I.I.I.). As an indication of how much reporters seek out the experts, the I.I.I. was called upon many times by news services seeking all kinds of information on the disasters of 2005. The Institute, considered by the media countrywide as the principal source of insurance information, responds to more than 6,000 questions each year. It also answers approximately 50,000 questions from consumers, which seems to indicate that the media get it wrong about public disinterest in insurance. While the heavy load of questions may be disaster-driven, the media also have many other story interests that induce contacts. Robert P. Hartwig, Ph.D., CPCU, president and chief economist of I.I.I., said in a recent telephone interview that many members of the press are repeat inquirers and are often pretty well-informed. Dr. Hartwig noted that some reporters have little or no knowledge of insurance rates and regulation; but with guidance, he said, they do get it right most of the time. When they don’t, he said, “We call them on it.” I.I.I. also sends out more than 3,700 news stories each year including features about financial results of the nation’s property and casualty insurers. I.I.I. also provides videotapes on insurance for network use. Keeping the record straight With respect to keeping the record straight, the press offices of many agent and insurer associations use the letters to the editor columns of the media to provide both corrective information on news stories and editorial comment. Of course, these associations also respond to press inquiries and offer their own news releases covering legislation, litigation and industry events. How much of all this makes it into print or onto the airwaves is not really catalogued and is academic. The real question is whether it influences public attitudes about the integrity of the insurance business and its segments, including, of course, insurance brokers and agents. Over many years, my own experience with family, friends and acquaintances is that they have rarely seen the industry in a positive light. For the most part, the business is viewed as taking premiums and resisting the payment of claims, as sitting on piles of money guarded by unresponsive claims staffs and insensitive corporate lawyers. Those feelings are often exacerbated by news stories of jury awards of fantastic sums for an insurer’s unwarranted and/or unprincipled resistance to a claim. The fact that insurers pay out multi-billions of dollars every year doesn’t bring more than a shrug. The general public is not aware of the scope of insurance coverage for business and commerce, because it is not part of their lives. Perhaps, for the business as a whole, it is of no great significance how the rank and file consumer views the business, but it is never a good idea to have detractors at any level. Certainly, brokers and agents who serve that segment of the business do their best to present welcoming attitudes and guidance. Some media stories and headlines unintentionally create an adverse effect. For example, an article with the headline “Insurance Fails to Meet Needs,” referring to a health insurer that declines to cover a special surgical procedure, may be perceived by readers as a general criticism of the entire business. Nothing much can be done about such situations, except to emphasize the positive whenever possible. Such references do not imply that the media have an insurance bias, even though there is a tendency to apply such an onus. I asked two experienced publicists how they view the media attitude toward the industry. Both have the credentials to make such a judgment because they were reporters for news media prior to joining producer associations as public relations specialists. Ted Besesparis of the National Association of Professional Insurance Agents told me in a telephone interview that news stories covering insurance subjects are often written by people without a basic understanding the of the subject. He said that is when perception problems begin. The source of a story is also relevant, Besesparis citing as an example the “bid rigging” story based on releases and contacts with New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer. The result often was a widely dispersed press reporting alleged illegal and reprehensible behavior. The stories left a negative taste that did not stop with the broker/insurer participants. But Besesparis said directly that there is no inherent bias in the news media toward insurance as an institution. However, he acknowledged that there are inaccuracies in the reporting of official overstatements inimical to the interests of the Main Street broker/agent. He also made reference to editorial positions laced with a lack of understanding about specific issues. In such instances, he said, it is essential to make contact with editors to ask for corrections or explanations. Speaking for the Independent Insurance Brokers & Agents of America from Washington, D.C., Cliston Brown said that the industry should never hesitate to ask media to take another look at a published story that may be inaccurate or misleading. He said the challenge can be made in a letter to the editor or the offer of an op ed piece offering rebuttal to an adverse story. But he emphasized the need to make any protests in a respectful manner, understanding that reporters and editors may not know the business or how it works. He indicated that he found the media receptive to information about the other side of a story and that the overwhelming majority want to set it right. He said that he did not accept any suggestion that reporters as a whole write biased stories, or that they are assigned a story with instructions that they pursue a particular point of view. A change in mindset An example of how to gain a change in mindset by an organization that may have an anti-insurance bias was offered by Besesparis of PIA National. He cited an article in the January 2005 issue of Consumer Reports magazine titled “Have hidden payments raised your household insurance bills?” The writer said that consumers “may be overpaying for insurance purchased through independent insurance brokerages,” based on special commissions paid to them for high-volume sales. The article said it was better to buy from State Farm, where “bid rigging” did not take place. The story and headline undoubtedly were based on the Spitzer probe of the “bid rigging” scam, and on what were inaccurately described by the attorney general as “contingent commissions.” Obviously, Consumer Reports’ editors did not understand the meaning of the Spitzer probe or, if they did, chose to distort it in favor of touting State Farm. Besesparis said PIA National wasted no time in telling Consumer Reports that the story in its magazine was “highly irresponsible” and asking for a retraction. Subsequently, for its January 20 issue, the National Underwriter sought an explanation from Consumer Reports’ management but was met with indifference and a comment by the organization that the statement about independent producers “says what it says.” Protest to Consumer Reports was also strongly voiced by IIABA’s Cliston Brown, who said the advice offered by the consumer organization “really sells short independent agents and brokers and the values they offer to consumers.” The protest to Consumer Reports did, however, produce positive results. Besesparis reported that while the magazine did not print PIA’s “set the record straight” letter, the editors did accept the association’s offer of assistance on subsequent articles. The PIA spokesman said that the association received a call asking for help with an upcoming article on homeowners insurance. Besesparis said that PIA National and all its state affiliates monitor the media in order to challenge material that is unfair or incorrect in references to independent producers or the industry in general. That is probably true of many, if not most, of industry organizations. That makes sense, because the industry, and brokers and agents specifically, are charged with protecting the public from the vagaries of life. * The author |
|
|||||
| ||||||
