YOU BE THE CRITIC: Sales-tax editorial handled poorly?

Friends:

Here's a little journalism ethics challenge, should any of you care to tackle it. On Friday, I met with an aggrieved group of about 14 Myrtle Beach tourism leaders, mainly hoteliers, golf course reps, restaurant reps and real estate folks. They didn't like it that, without listening to their story first, we editorialized against the legislative proposal to allow local governments to raise the sales tax a penny for tourism marketing. (See my March 20 post Horry pockets would be picked for tourism marketing below; it's an early version of the editorial, which we published last Saturday)

Their view was that if I had listened to their rationale for lobbying local legislators to allow local governments to authorize and collect the tax, I might have come to a different conclusion about what the editorial should say. Their rationale is that the legislation in question is a jobs bill. They're worried, with justification, that the state's impending decision to cut out spending on tourism marketing could drive down 2009 tourist visits, forcing them to lay off more hard-working local folks and further impoverishing our communities.

They see a local sales tax for tourism marketing as a chance to break free of the state's on again-off again attitude toward tourism. (That ninth penny, by would be collected only in municipalities, not unincorporated Horry County, as the bill has been amended. It would be up to local city councils to actually enact the tax.)

They noted that the more the MB Chamber, MB Golf Holiday and other local marketing organizations spend attracting visitors to the Strand, the more visitors actually come. As a result of increased visits, more local jobs are created or saved, and more money circulates through the local economy, benefiting even those residents who aren't part of the tourism industry. They say their already spending deeply out of their own pockets but it just isn't enough to offset marketing spending by competitors, such as Orlando and Virginia Beach.

There's little question they're right about the power of destination-specific tourism marketing. It works. So the folks who came to talk to me yesterday were exercised that the newspaper editorial board (a) didn't support the bill instead of opposing it, and (b) wrote snarky editorial depicting the bill as a pocket-picking measure with no justification.

I still think we took the right position -- though, with the luxury of perfect 20/20 hindsight, I wish I'd toned it down a bit. As I told the group, the sales tax is regressive in that it bears more heavily on lower income folks than on folks with higher incomes. (They don't buy this, by the way, but it's true: The poorer you are, the less able you are to shield income from the sales tax via savings; for low income folks, those extra pennies add up.) I also told them I think raising taxes in a recession is wrong -- no matter how noble the purpose.

But even though I was my usual charming self during this meeting, they left feeling as though the newspaper had treated them unfairly. They felt that in writing the editorial, I was not fully informed about the meaning and purpose of the bill. And they felt that my negative focus on the Horry legislative delegation for even opening this can of worms was unfair, that the elected folks were merely doing what they think is best for the local economy..

So here's the challenge, with which I could use your help: Should I have waited to hear their "side" of the story before publishing the editorial? Was it unethical to proceed with the piece before hearing them out? 

One of the group did leave me a message (after the advance piece had already appeared on Opinion Blog) requesting that I do so until he and others could talk to me this week. While it's unlikely that hearing their side would have changed out mind about the sales-tax legislation, they at least would have felt they'd had some input. And perhaps the tone of the piece would have been more measured.

Waiting would have delayed the publication of an editorial at least until the following Tuesday (March 24), possibly longer. My internal argument for getting the piece into the paper last Saturday -- the day after our story on the matter appeared -- was that a Senate hearing into the matter was coming up on the 24th and perhaps the editorial could influence the outcome. The piece, don't forget, also urged readers with a view on the bill (positive or negative) to call the lead senator on the bill, Luke Rankin of Myrtle Beach.

I await your thoughts on this matter. Thanks, dc

Comments?

Their view was that if I had listened to their rationale for lobbying local legislators to allow local governments to authorize and collect the tax, I might have come to a different conclusion about what the editorial should say. Their rationale is that the legislation in question is a jobs bill. They're worried, with justification, that the state's impending decision to cut out spending on tourism marketing could drive down 2009 tourist visits, forcing them to lay off more hard-working local folks and further impoverishing our communities.

They see a local sales tax for tourism marketing as a chance to break free of the state's on again-off again attitude toward tourism. (That ninth penny, by would be collected only in municipalities, not unincorporated Horry County, as the bill has been amended. It would be up to local city councils to actually enact the tax.)

They noted that the more the MB Chamber, MB Golf Holiday and other local marketing organizations spend attracting visitors to the Strand, the more visitors actually come. As a result of increased visits, more local jobs are created or saved, and more money circulates through the local economy, benefiting even those residents who aren't part of the tourism industry. They say their already spending deeply out of their own pockets but it just isn't enough to offset marketing spending by competitors, such as Orlando and Virginia Beach.

There's little question they're right about the power of destination-specific tourism marketing. It works. So the folks who came to talk to me yesterday were exercised that the newspaper editorial board (a) didn't support the bill instead of opposing it, and (b) wrote snarky editorial depicting the bill as a pocket-picking measure with no justification.

I still think we took the right position -- though, with the luxury of perfect 20/20 hindsight, I wish I'd toned it down a bit. As I told the group, the sales tax is regressive in that it bears more heavily on lower income folks than on folks with higher incomes. (They don't buy this, by the way, but it's true: The poorer you are, the less able you are to shield income from the sales tax via savings; for low income folks, those extra pennies add up.) I also told them I think raising taxes in a recession is wrong -- no matter how noble the purpose.

But even though I was my usual charming self during this meeting, they left feeling as though the newspaper had treated them unfairly. They felt that in writing the editorial, I was not fully informed about the meaning and purpose of the bill. And they felt that my negative focus on the Horry legislative delegation for even opening this can of worms was unfair, that the elected folks were merely doing what they think is best for the local economy..

So here's the challenge, with which I could use your help: Should I have waited to hear their "side" of the story before publishing the editorial? Was it unethical to proceed with the piece before hearing them out? 

One of the group did leave me a message (after the advance piece had already appeared on Opinion Blog) requesting that I do so until he and others could talk to me this week. While it's unlikely that hearing their side would have changed out mind about the sales-tax legislation, they at least would have felt they'd had some input. And perhaps the tone of the piece would have been more measured.

Waiting would have delayed the publication of an editorial at least until the following Tuesday (March 24), possibly longer. My internal argument for getting the piece into the paper last Saturday -- the day after our story on the matter appeared -- was that a Senate hearing into the matter was coming up on the 24th and perhaps the editorial could influence the outcome. The piece, don't forget, also urged readers with a view on the bill (positive or negative) to call the lead senator on the bill, Luke Rankin of Myrtle Beach.

I await your thoughts on this matter. Thanks, dc

Comments?