Reporting on Consumer Fraud and Questionable Health Care

Two case studies that I have read are about businesses or organizations being misrepresented to the public. The first is an owner who is looking for salespeople to advertise and sell his product, and the second is an organization that is dancing on the line of malpractice.

In the first case study, the reporter sees an advertisement in the classified section of his own paper, promising high payment for direct commission sales for people experienced in the negative sales pitch. Thomas Dowling, the general assignment reporter, was curious because the advertisement gave no clue as to what they were selling.

Dowling called the number on the advertisement and was hung-up on because he did not show enough experience, but still did not know what was being sold. After investigating recent consumer frauds, Dowling found the same name and number on an advertisement for a new retirement community. He called the number and reached the same man he had spoken with earlier, and was invited to a dinner meeting.

As it turned out, the man was selling property in the desert, telling the audience that they had to sign a contract that same night to be considered. He promised that they would have a year to visit the property and the down payment would be paid back if, for any reason, they did not like it after seeing it. The deal sounded legitimate, but still sounded a little fishy to the reporter.

Dowling contacted and questioned a spokesperson for the attorney general in Arizona. The spokesperson told him that they have designed a complete community, but didn’t say they were actually going to build it. After the purchasers move in, the spokesperson told him, they would have to put up the money to build the schools and parks and even pave the streets.

Dowling thought the plan still seemed legitimate, but the spokesperson said that few people will ever make the trip to the property, and after a year, they are locked in to buying. If they do decide they don’t want the property before they year is up, the company tells them their property is worth twice as much and they will either give them their money back or list it for sale at twice the price. They have no buyers, the year expires and the contracts become fraudulent. They are selling the lots to each other and can be sued.

Dowling got an interview with a victim of this scheme and wrote his story, resulting in more people coming forward to tell their story.

The second case study was about a reporter who got a tip about a new cancer clinic that opened in an old municipal hospital. The place looked just like a medical hospital, but not one licensed doctor worked there. Great Forks Retreat was already suing a newspaper in Coastal City that had reported a negative story about them, and the reporter who received the tip was warned from several others to watch what she does.

The reporter contacted the Doctor of Unencumbered Methodology and was given the sugar-coated rundown of the retreat. She took a tour of the facility and was shown the miracle machine, which had the name scraped off the side. She did a national search of lawsuits that several complaints had been brought against the doctor by family members of patients who have died. She contacted attorneys and patients, and then learned that her competition was working on a story about the retreat and was printing it the following day.

The reporter continued working and found that the miracle machine was really a soil tester. She paid one more visit to the doctor, seeing him enter the building with a greasy burger and fries, which went against his strict diet. She gave him one more chance to explain and when he said nothing, she ran the story.

The competition ran their story the same day, but it only had one interview and it glorified the operation and the miracle machine. The reporter was one step ahead of the attorney general, who closed down Great Forks Retreat.