Los Angeles Times

Letters to the Editor
Los Angeles Times
Times Mirror Square
Los Angeles, CA 90053

Dear Editor:

With seven months to research a topic, it’s astounding that your paper would produce such a cursory examination of the gaming industry [“Going for Broke,” Dec. 13-15]. Instead of a balanced assessment, you simply recycled the same discredited, undocumented claims by industry opponents with a single agenda: the elimination of gaming as an entertainment choice for the millions of Americans who enjoy it.

Not only does the series parrot the so-called “facts” perpetuated by critics of the industry, its tone suggests there is something sinister about the American Gaming Association (AGA) acting to protect the interests of our employees, customers and stockholders. Like any other business, the casino gaming industry represents its members in Washington, D.C., to ensure that no unfair federal legislation or regulations are enacted. One piece of unfair legislation was the original bill to create a federal commission to study gaming. Written by vocal enemies of the industry, the bill specifically called for a study of only the negative aspects of gaming. The AGA and our member companies opposed the approach. How could we do otherwise? We have never opposed a fair and balanced study, and, after 18 months of hearings and research, we do believe the commission has been exposed to not only the negative but also the positive aspects of gaming.

One of the strongest examples of the cursory nature of the reporting for this article is the suggestion the gaming industry controlled appointments to the commission. Even a modicum of research would have shown that the first appointment to the commission was Dr. James Dobson, a leader in the Christian conservative movement and a vocal critic of the gaming industry. It was his appointment that set the tone for the remainder of the selections to the panel.

If opponents of gaming make unfounded claims about our business, it is our role to respond to their criticisms. We do that through credible third-party academic institutions or consultants with an expertise in a specific area. Unfortunately, your report immediately tagged with a “bias” label any study commissioned by the industry, with little regard for its content. We encouraged your reporters - and continue to encourage you - to check the validity of the studies we’ve commissioned. All we ask is that you do the same for those conducted by our critics. If your reporters had examined the so-called research disseminated by our opponents, they would have uncovered a vast web of disinformation - undocumented claims that have been circulated for years and until recently have gone unchallenged. Unfortunately, they failed to question the motives, training or conclusions of these “independent” scholars, despite seven months of “in-depth” research.

Despite the cynical shadow cast in this series, the casino gaming industry has made significant contributions to address problem gambling, unlike any other segment of the gaming industry. In establishing the National Center for Responsible Gaming, an independent, nonprofit organization dedicated exclusively to funding research on disordered gambling, the industry stepped up to the plate financially while also taking great pains to ensure the credibility of the research. An independent advisory board composed of leading researchers, academics and other noted scholars makes decisions about grant recipients and the type of research to be conducted. The National Center’s peer review of grant applications is modeled after the National Institutes of Health, a rigorous procedure that ensures the integrity of the research. As a result, the 2-year-old National Center, which awarded more than $1.5 million in grants in its first year of operation and expects to award another $1.2 million in 1999, is attracting applications from leading researchers throughout the United States and Canada.

Although the National Center’s rigorous grant-making procedures have been praised by critics and supporters alike, your reporters failed to consult with any of these leading authorities. If they had, they would have been able to demonstrate the widespread support this institution has received throughout the academic and research community in its short history. Instead of challenging assumptions, this series reinforced commonly held but undocumented claims by moral opponents of this industry - hardly a feat of journalism.

The series’ purported hard look at the social impact of gaming also failed to report that there are two sides to social impact. In new casino gaming venues such as East St. Louis, Ill.; Tunica, Miss.; and Bossier City, La., thousands of new jobs have been created, many of which have gone to minorities and women. The number of people on public assistance has dropped significantly. And hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes have helped stimulate construction, boost retail sales, improve schools, develop local infrastructure, and strengthen law enforcement efforts, among numerous other community improvements. The casino profession provides more than 300,000 stable, well-paid jobs, with another 400,000 created indirectly. All told, more than 1 million people in the United States are employed today because of the gaming industry.

What was presented in your elaborate three-part series was a rehash of old myths about the gaming industry. It diminished the significant accomplishments of this industry and attributed the industry’s success to anything but widespread public support, while giving credence to undocumented claims by moral opponents of gaming. Responsible journalists - especially those who have seven months to conduct their research - would not have produced such a biased outcome.

Sincerely,

Frank J. Fahrenkopf, Jr.