The dirty little secret tort-reformers' media advisors weren't telling them is this: Having an well-reasoned opinion-editorial published in THE WALL STREET JOURNAL on meritless lawsuits probably was reaching [rapidly] the point of diminishing returns. When I mentioned this to value investor Todd Sullivan, who publishes Value Plays and is frequently quoted in THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, he told me. Look, that op-ed will get the topic on the Sunday talk shows. It will also be noted by the 1.7 million readers of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL. Tort reformers want and need that. End of story.
Buuuuuuuuuuuuuut, wouldn't a larger and more diverse audience be reached and maybe even persuaded of something they weren't committed to before if the same message was on DailyKos.com, which has the same number of readers or maybe even more?
Wouldn't a cover story in Murdoch's THE NEW YORK POST put it more out there than the disembodied voice of the Establishment in what THE WALL STREET JOURNAL used to be. All the recent POST cover stories hammering Eliot Spitzer have certainly had enormous influence on how this one-time hero is now perceived by many millions.
My point? In the Murdoch era of News Corp ownership of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, we supporters of tort reform might have a more provoactive, therefore, engaging platform for our message. Somehow, Murdoch is foxy [pun intended] enough to position and package content in the new version of the old JOURNAL to reach more people whose opinion/influence/power count faster and cheaper.
The real result? That child advocate who once cheered on the lead paint litigation in Rhode Island might say, hey, this isn't what it seemed.
The city fathers in Ohio might figure out that turning their financial problems over to the plaintiff lawyers might not be all that smart.
And government representatives at all levels might think three or four times about approving bills that fatten the plaintiff bar.
Overall, the corporate and legal arguments for tort reform have not kept pace with the tone, content and new media choices of the 21st century. Too much of all that is about as compelling as those 1970s corporate annual reports. We have to change. Otherwise we aren't going to prevent another tobacco. Think climate change. Think pesticides. Think a Motley Rice with a new angle on lead paint litigation.