Double-standard at work in TIME articles

Page 5

Medium Rare

A lot of Native Americans, as Indians in the United States prefer to be called, have been pouring abuse upon a couple of TIME Magazine reports from last month. TIME, one of the world's most influential and powerful newsmagazines, published a two-part series on Indian casinos in the U.S. It used the headlines "Dirty Dealing" and "Wheel of Misfortune" to draw readers into the stories. You can guess why Native Americans hit the roof.

In short, the special series, run over two weeks in mid-December, took aim at the money pouring into the casinos, the way that money is spent, the lack of monitoring by the regulatory body overseeing reservation-based casinos, as well as the power and influence these new-found riches afforded a few Indians.

In 1988, the U.S. Congress passed the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act to help tribal governments earn a measure of economic self-sufficiency through gambling profits. Congress then created the National Indian Gaming Commission to regulate this new industry.

Fourteen years later, "290 Indian casinos in 28 states pulled in at least $12.7 billion in revenue," TIME reported. Five billion dollars in collective profit put Indian casinos "among Fortune magazine's 20 most profitable U.S. corporations with earnings exceeding those of J.P. Morgan Chase & Co., Merrill Lynch, American Express and Lehman Bros. Holdings combined."

TIME, however, didn't consider this a success story. Instead, TIME portrayed reservation casinos as out of control, rife with corruption, ruled by greedy, sometimes brutal, Indian politicians and entrepreneurs.

"Casinos were supposed to make Indian tribes self-sufficient. So why are the white backers of Indian gambling raking in millions while many tribes continue to struggle in poverty?"

TIME blames this, and other problems, on gaping loopholes in the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act, as well as accuses a vigorous lobby campaign backed by millions of dollars from Indian gambling for enticing officials to look the other way.

This is where Native Americans disagree with TIME and the Pulitzer Prize-winning journalists who wrote the series. They don't see the TIME story as well-researched, objective journalism. They see a double-standard at work.

"Imagine this news headline: Dirty Dealing: U.S. corporations are making millions for investors and providing little to the poor," retorted Jodi Rave, a Native American reporter for Nebraska's Lincoln Journal Star. "How would the business world react?"

Indian Country Today, a leading national Native American publication, felt the TIME series wasn't really about casinos at all. Rather, the series represented yet another thinly-veiled attack on Native rights and tribal sovereignty by the right-wing agenda.

"A thick layer of anti-tribal attitude permeates this salvo of a story, which is intended to prove, once and for all, that Indian peoples and their self-governance rights are unfair, corrupt and inept. The piece gives such a negative take on tribal reality that it seems strategically intended to directly challenge the positive concept of hard-won tribal gains," charged Indian Country Today.

Yet the TIME stories raise interesting questions. Why don't Native American casinos share their profits? Why is here such disparity between comparatively rich (casino-owning) and poor reservations? Why do they spend so much money lobbying, or buying politicians, as TIME put it?

"In 2000 alone," TIME reported, "tribes spent $9.5 million on Washington lobbying. Altogether they spend more to influence legislation than such longtime heavyweights as General Motors, Boeing, AT&T or even Enron in its heyday."

Native Americans, as a whole, might spend $9.5 million a year on lobbying in Washington, as TIME reports. But it boggles the mind to think that every single tribe participated in some huge conspiracy to grease the wheels on behalf of casinos for more lucrative gambling deals.

As one Jodi Rave wrote, "First, tribes didn't pool $95 million then collectively decide a political strategy. These independent nations hire lobbyists and pursue their own agendas for anything from health to roads to education to teen suicide prevention."

About profit-sharing, Indian casinos in California are looking at similar arrangements such as those that exist in Canada, in Saskatchewan and Ontario.

The Saskatchewan Indian Gaming Authority, which operates four casinos in the province on behalf of the Federation of Saskatchewan Indian Nations, earned $24.8 million during the year on revenues of $77.2 million. About three-quarters of the profits, about $18-million, is split among the 72 bands in the province for local job creation and social programs like suicide prevention.

Under the Saskatchewan Gaming Corporation Act, the other 25-percent of the profits from all casinos in the province, Native and non-Native, goes to the First Nations Fund. Bands and tribal councils can apply to the fund for economic development and social programs such as health, education and justice.

It's similar to the way CasinoRama, located just north of Toronto, splits its profits (naturally after the federal and provincial governments have taken their cuts).

But why, TIME asked, is there so much gambling money and still so many Native Americans living in poverty? Well, why doesn't CasinoRama support the Davis Inlet relocation in Labrador? Why doesn't SIGA build homes for the Lubicon Cree in Alberta? All of a sudden, TIME's simple questions, and proposed solutions, seem simplistic, even laughable.

That's just one of the many problems with TIME's "investigative" expose. The writers have done precious little investigating. For example, TIME insists Indian casinos are rife with corruption despite the fact that after many investigations not a single person with an Indian casino has ever been charged with fraud.

The writers also failed to interview any of the Native American journalists that have covered the Indian gaming story over thepast 14 years. They didn't interview any casino associations. They didn't even interview the national licensing body that they condemn so heartily.

One last question: What does any of this have to do with us in Canada? Sadly, I suspect the TIME articles will be quoted by a lot of people in Canada, such as journalists, right-wingers opposed to Native rights, and anti-Native casino types here in Canada for a long time to come.