In a dark day for business journalism, "The Insurance Hoax"--a pure hatchet job in the September 2007 issue of "Bloomberg Markets" about the industry's claims-handling practices--won this year's New York Press Club award for consumer reporting.
I thought I had heard the last of this biased piece when I spoke out against it after the Bloomberg cover story was nominated for the prestigious Daniel Pearl Award for Investigative Reporting, given out by the New York City Deadline Club--an affiliate of The Society Of Professional Journalists.
As a member of SPJ (I love their motto: "If the press didn't tell you, who would?), I wrote an e-mail to the group complaining about the nomination, noting that the publication had failed to give insurers a fair shake or a meaningful chance to respond to the allegations raised, while declining to correct the factual errors pointed out by the Insurance Information Institute.
I urged all of you to write as well. I hope you spoke out in defense of your own industry.
I never did hear back from SPJ, but I was relieved to learn that at least the offending article did not, in fact, win. At the time, in my May 16 blog, I wrote that "maybe there is some justice in this world after all."
Maybe not.
One problem is that I did not know the Bloomberg piece was up for a Press Club award, thus never had a chance to protest its nomination. I am not a member of the Club, thus did not receive any e-mails or publicity when the nominations were announced. The Deadline Club, on the other hand, did publicize its award nominations to members, so I heard about it in time to get in my two cents about its flaws.
Like a bad penny, this article keeps popping up to haunt the insurance industry. While insurer performance on claims is anything but stellar--especially when it came to Hurricane Katrina--the Bloomberg article's depiction of the industry as some kind of evil empire was over the top. It reinforced every negative stereotype about the business.
What are you going to do? At least Bloomberg didn't win a Pulitzer Prize...yet...
Comments (3)
The negative comments in the article need to be countered by the industry actually doing more than instituting ad campaigns designed to mask poor claims-handling practices.
Recent media reports indicate that failure to acknowledge, pay or deny claims within specified time frames was among the top-10 complaints seen by insurance regulators.
Accepting premium dollars without delivering top-quality claims services can no longer be tolerated. Even though this specific article contained numerous falsehoods and inaccuracies, faulty claims handling is prevalent.
Posted by Marc Dubois | June 19, 2008 1:54 PM
Posted on June 19, 2008 13:54
I'm 100% with Marc's very well-stated comment.
I actually wrote the Deadline Club in support of the Bloomberg piece despite the inaccuracies, precisely because it put the spotlight on the systemic abuse of customer/claimants--including third-party claimants--by certain large retail insurance companies.
One need be "McKensied" one time to understand the many levels of injustice in having otherwise valid claims denied simply because an insurer knows many people lack the will and/or resources to enforce their claims in court.
SAM RESPONDS:
Beyond the inaccuracies, my biggest complaint about the article was that it suggested the entire insurance industry is guilty of such widespread and systemic abuse, without providing any proof of that.
And to paraphrase Fox News, the article was anything but "fair and balanced." Plus they did not correct their mistakes after they were pointed out in great detail by the Insurance Information Institute, nor give anyone the chance to provide a rebuttal piece.
Any way you slice it, the Bloomberg piece was sloppy, biased journalism--the kind of shoddy work that is earning the news business a reputation as poor as that afflicting insurance.
Posted by Sop81_1 | June 20, 2008 9:40 AM
Posted on June 20, 2008 09:40
Sam, I understand and appreciate the reasons for your discomfort with the Bloomberg piece winning that journalism award.
On the bright side, though, the high level of journalistic professionalism at the National Underwriter is the reason I and many others consider it as the primary source for property and casualty insurance news.
Posted by Sop81_1 | June 20, 2008 11:27 AM
Posted on June 20, 2008 11:27