Gold Coast Gambling

Should a paper put its money where its mouth is?

Southern Florida's Gold Coast, a narrow strip of sun-drenched sand and aging hotels that stretches north from Miami Beach, has fallen on bad times: the beaches have been slipping into the Atlantic and the tourists are slipping north to Disney World and south to Caribbean casinos. So some of the area's businessmen have been pressing hard for the legalization of casino gambling, a matter voters will decide in a Nov. 7 referendum.

The measure is opposed by Governor Reubin Askew, clergymen, parimutuel operators--and many of the state's leading newspapers. But instead of merely editorializing against the threat of corruption and organized crime, the papers have become major contributors of money to the antigambling efforts. Their role raises thorny questions of ethics and propriety.

According to campaign spending reports filed late last month, Florida news organizations have paid or pledged some $175,000 to No Casinos Inc., the principal antigambling lobby. Big spenders included the St. Petersburg Times, Jacksonville's Florida Times-Union, the Chicago Tribune Co. (Orlando Sentinel Star, Fort Lauderdale News), the Cox Newspapers (Miami News, Palm Beach Post and Times), the Tampa Tribune and Wometco Enterprises (Miami's WTVJ-TV--each of which gave $25,000. The Knight-Ridder chain's Miami Herald, largest paper in the state, gave $10,000.

The newspapers have no immediate financial interest in opposing casino gambling. Indeed, papers around the Gold Coast would probably gain from any casino-induced economic revival. So why did the publishers ante up? "We want to participate on the local level with other Florida businesses that see the serious social and economic dangers of casino gambling," says Miami Herald President Alvah Chapman Jr., who was designated by Governor Askew to be a chief fund raiser for the fight. Says Orlando Sentinel Star Editor James Squires, "This just happens to be a case of a newspaper putting its money where its mouth is for once."

So far, the contributions do not appear to have affected news coverage of the casino gambling. One small exception: participating papers neglected to reveal their financial stake until forced to by last month's disclosure of campaign spending. Still, the Gannett Co.'s four Florida dailies declined to contribute, despite a personal appeal from Askew to chain President Allen Neuharth. The Miami News last week printed a letter from 47 employees objecting to the paper's contribution. "Nobody is censoring our copy," says Miami Herald Reporter Pat Riordan, "but this whole thing raises the appearance of a conflict of interest."

Perhaps more troublesome is an attempt by pro-gambling forces to make the financial role of the press a major issue. Spokesman Sanford Weiner has questioned the objectivity of contributing news organizations, and has charged that a number of Florida television stations have refused pro-casino ads. (Though broadcasters are required by law to air opposing sides of a "controversial" public issue, the Federal Communications Commission has rarely forced stations to accept "controversial" advertising.)

Late opinion polls show that Florida voters are split about even on the issue. Some election handicappers think that if the proposition is defeated, the newspapers' financial help may be the deciding factor. Does that really matter? Because the press in many places is reticent about covering its own affairs, no one really knows how common it is for a news organization to lobby behind the scenes or support a controversial cause financially. Yet a number of papers and journalists' groups have codes of ethics that ban such involvement. Whether or not Florida's press succeeds in defeating casino gambling, news organizations that intend to unmask conflicts of interest among public figures may find it prudent to avoid potential entanglements themselves.

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so viewer discretion is required.