Letters.

Bought and Paid For

As a reporter at a travel trade magazine who frequently takes fully expense-paid press trips, I was very pleased to discover Elizabeth Austin's article "All Expenses Paid" (July/August 1999). Finally, someone has said what I cannot. A fellow travel reporter and I constantly joke about being "travel whores" ourselves and we both admit to feeling dirty after writing blatantly "advertorial" articles, which happens here more than it should, but this is simply the way it works in the travel business.

All trade magazines, and to a lesser degree consumer travel magazines, are a product of their advertisers. It is a symbiotic relationship and the travel industry especially is a very insular community. A good example of how things are not supposed to work comes from a big article in the August issue of Conde Nast Traveler on how the Caribbean has dealt with the rise in crime. It was actually a fairly benign article, but the Jamaican Tourism board immediately released a statement saying that because of the article, they were strongly considering pulling their advertising from Conde Nast.

At my particular publication, editorial space is sold against advertising, and if a section sells above and beyond its news worthiness, that's just the way it is. Yes, we write a hard-hitting article every so often to keep travel executives on their toes, but in the end, they know they have the upper hand and they control us.

NAME WITHHELD

New York, N.Y.

Winner Take Oil

Eric Umansky's article in your September 1999 issue, "Shooting the Whistle-blower," was an excellent piece of work. Truly, oil companies have been cheating the federal government (and many states) of billions for many years. I have been active in the area of stolen oil and gas royalties since around 1983. I have long documented that delay in reform is the name of the game. That ridiculous "investigation" of the two whistleblowers is exactly the diversionary farce that Umansky described.

In late July, officials from 32 organizations (including major educational and union groups, conservation groups and public interest groups) jointly signed a letter to all U.S. Senators asking that the barriers to the new royalty regs be lifted. (Note that federal oil royalties shared with some states routinely go to education.) That letter also noted that one company has offered to pay almost $100 million in "back" royalties. There is a lot of money being lost each month by not implementing the new oil regulations. Interior's estimate of $66 million per year in recoverable losses (which I believe to be low) means that we're losing over $5.5 million each month while the regs are frozen ... and that doesn't include gas royalties. Keep up the good work.

BILL ROBINSON

Takoma Park, Md.

Case Not Closed

Re.: David Ignatius' review of Venona ("A Father and a Spy," July/August 1999): The issue with Venona is the number of Americans identified as spies for the Soviets. The biggest issue is whether Alger Hiss was or was not a spy, the "Ales" identified in the Venona intercepts. The National Security Agency folks, who are a pretty careful bunch, said Hiss could only be termed a "probable" because a firm link between Hiss and "Ales" could not be made. After the Venona intercepts were made public a few years ago, I spent two years working on intercepts and cryptographic material for a paper I did for a group here, and in my own mind believed Hiss was Ales, but I had to admit NSA could only list him as a "probable."

A couple of months after I gave the Venona paper, a fellow named Weinstein and a young KGB operative published a book claiming Hiss was indeed Ales, and their access to KGB files from 1993-5 proved it. The problem is Weinstein has long believed Hiss was a spy and frankly I do not trust him. Also Hiss is said to have worked for the GRU, the Soviet military intelligence group, not the KGB. The material Weinstein quoted was not convincing.

Hatnes and Klehr, the authors of Venona, quote Weinstein to affirm Hiss was a spy, but from an earlier Weinstein work. They then imply they have seen Weinstein's latest book reporting his access to KGB files, but give no citation. Without a bibliography it is impossible to know what Hatnes and Klehr have read in the field and what they have not. In any event, it struck me as very sloppy scholarship, and certainly, in fairness, does not confirm whether Hiss was or was not a Soviet spy.

GORDON BEYER

Lexington, Va.

I enjoyed Mr. Ignatius' review (A Father and a Spy," July/August 1999), but I was horrified to see him repeat the story that British authorities "allowed" the WW II bombing of Coventry to protect the "ULTRA secret" (Allied penetration of the German Enigma cipher).

This story was created by F. W. Winterbotham in The ULTRA Secret, and though Winterbotham was a major figure in ULTRA operations, he seems to have invented this story. Peter Calvocoressi was head of the Air Intelligence analysis group at Bletchley Park. In his book Top Secret ULTRA, he stated flatly "ULTRA never mentioned Coventry" Interrogations of captured German air crews disclosed that a major attack was scheduled for the night of the November full moon, code-named "Moonlight Sonata." Analysis of German radio guidance beams pointed to Coventry, Wolverhampton, and London as possible targets. The analysts favored London, and Churchill was warned of a raid on London on the 14th. (He responded by cancelling his usual weekend stay in the country so that he would be "at his post" in the moment of danger.)

But on the afternoon of the Nth further beam analysis pinpointed Coventry as the target. (This work was carried out by Professor R.V. Jones.) No countermeasures were withheld to protect any intelligence source. Intruder raids struck German airbases in France, over 100 nightfighters hunted the raiders, and Jones' team tried to jam the guidance beams with countersignals.

These measures failed--the intruder raids were ineffective, the nightfighters had no airborne radar, and the settings for the jamming signals were miscalculated. But there was never any question of "sacrificing" Coventry to protect ULTRA.

RICHARD ROSTROM

New York, N.Y.

Worse Than You Think

Re.: Robert Worth's "The Scandal of Special Ed" (June 1999): Yes, I agree that special education is draining our educational budgets and penalizing our general education students. Parents need to stand up and speak out to stop this appalling drain on our resources. Let me give you some "real life" examples of how IDEA has been manipulated at the hands of expensive lawyers and advocates. A profoundly retarded child, who is non-verbal and non-ambulatory, spends her days strapped into her wheelchair in a third grade classroom. She does not participate in any activities the other third graders participate in because she cannot. Two adults lift her two to three times a day and lay her on a table in a closet to change her diapers and clean her; one is the special education teacher, who must stop teaching other students in order to perform this questionable function. The bus the child is transported on costs the district $30,000 per year and she has her own full-time aide.

When the school district was questioned as to why they put up with this situation and spend thousands of dollars per year on children who have an entirely different set of needs from those addressed in a typical academic public school, they responded that when they tried to take the aforementioned case to a hearing, they were "slapped down" for not giving this a fair trial.

Now, why do we taxpayers and parents have to put up with this nonsense when there is a lovely school ten minutes away that is completely outfitted to serve the educational needs of the severely and multiply handicapped? Our tax dollars have already paid for a new school with extra wide hallways, heated swimming pool, extensive staff, on-site nurse (regular elementary schools here only have a health clerk) and bus service? Why? The answer is that parents can demand this and the schools must comply. No matter how handicapped a child is and ill-fitted to the general education curriculum, the hearing officers and judges won't even consider overturning the parents' decision until we can demonstrate that we have made every effort to make this work. Then, if the school district is willing, the case must be taken to court and thousands more tax dollars spent to try to get a judge to see the foolishness of this whole situation. ANN NAGLE

Rancho Cucamonga, Calif.

Integrity First

Blake Fleetwood's dire tale ("The Broken Wall," September 1999) about the slow, subtle sellout of news judgments to advertiser desires and reader wants sorely needed telling. But he overlooks one of the strongest arguments against subordinating editorial content to business concerns.

There is just one reason for the unique freedom the Constitution accords the press via the First Amendment: Only from a free press can people get the information they need to make democracy work. Accepting the responsibility to supply that information is the quid pro quo the press takes on in return for being free from regulation, legislation, and censorship. The kind of news required to keep the press's side of this bargain is not the kind they purvey when they let polls, focus groups, and advertiser pressure determine content. Reporters, as Mike Meyers told Fleetwood, "have to tell readers what they need to hear," not just what they want to hear. Editors need to demand that kind of reporting. Publishers need to defend the space given that kind of news against all assaults from advertisers, boards and bottom-liners.

ANN THACKREY BERRY

Raleigh, NC