Stolen Debit Card Leaves Writer No Recourse
Steve Lopez of the LA Times has a don't-miss personal anecdote about his travails dealing with his bank after his debit card number was stolen. His bank ultimately decided that the charges were his responsibility, leaving him short over two grand. The bank's unwillingness to discuss his claim has left him with little recourse. A phone rep told him his previous conversations weren't able to be reviewed because the rep "can't always get access to those tapes," and John Hall of the American Bankers Association told him, in essence, to keep calling until he got it resolved, despite the fact that that's exactly what Lopez has been doing.
But which bank? Lopez declines to mention who exactly he's dealing with.
The reason I'm not divulging my bank's name as much as I would love to is that it wouldn't be right for me to use the influence of the newspaper to get my money back. The average Joe can't do that. And besides, I want to see if in the end, my bank (a large national operation that will no longer have my business when this is over) does the right thing for the right reasons.We dig his rationale and it's one that we, as editors who are also consumers, have considered.
What do you think? Should The Consumerist avoid detailing our personal complaints because of the potential conflict of interest? (Thanks, KR!)
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Nam malesuada commodo erat et molestie. Duis pellentesque aliquam bibendum. Suspendisse venenatis lobortis eleifend. Mauris id est sed lectus convallis aliquam.
Post a comment
Comments:
Reading an article like this is endlessly frustrating. I'd rather know what bank to avoid. Screw being fair. We're all getting fucked over.
Not sure there is a universal rule that can be applied here. In the case of this website, its stated mission is to "guide you through the delinquencies of retail and service organizations. The Consumerist will highlight the persistent, shameless boners of modern consumerism - and the latest hot deals, discounts, and freebies around."
That doesn't work if you don't "name names," in my opinion. So no, I don't think this site should adopt a philosophy of anonymity. It would seem to defeat the purpose.
But I do respect Lopez's choice. I'm a regular reader of his column, and I believe that he didn't name the bank because he didn't want to abuse -- or appear to abuse -- his forum as a columnist for one of the largest daily papers in the country to settle what is definitely a personal dispute. If anything, Lopez is usually happy to call people/governments/organizations to the mat. (Actually, he seems to relish it.) So I respect his call here.
There's a difference between the LA Times and The Consumerist. If this site made a practice of leaving out company names in "gripe" posts, I guess I wouldn't see the point.
I would say that it is his duty to call attention to their practices. That is what reporters are supposed to do. Does it matter if it happened to him? Yes. I would say, if it were me and I were a professional reporter, I would co-author a piece with an objective source to make sure that my writing was not subject to my anger (which can be a force to be reckoned.)
I agree that he should be careful of the situation, but he should still report in full. Possibly after his resolution he could outline the situation and the resolution, researching to find if there are other similar complaints against this company.
Michael A. B.
Since this a consumer advocacy site, naming names is entirely appropriate.
But Lopez is acting responsibly by not naming the bank (even though I'd love to know), and for exactly the reasons he specified. The risk is that other banks or any other company may seek to gain favor with Lopez or other writers in the hopes that they won't write negatively about them. Lopez could easily use the "If you don't resolve this, I'm going to write about you" approach, but to do so would also not be reporting objectively about the process. Even without the threat, the bank would likely see their name appear in the article and resolve the problem for Lopez, but not the average customer.
I will consider myself guided, then. The trick will be to make sure I don't abuse my privileges when writing about personal issues, but that's sort of part and parcel when writing about such things anyway.
Thanks for the input, guys!
I'm ready to weigh in after Joel appears sufficiently guided. I'm not usually up at this ungodly hour so I want a little proof that I was once moving before 8am.
I Lopez is most likely viewing himself as a journalist reporting on a process. In order to report on a situation (in which he is an actor) in the way least likely to disturb the situation as it would occur otherwise. He's reporting not advocating.
This site doesn't hold itself out as straight journalism. This will be made all the more clear when Joel has bamboo shoved under his fingernails to force him to reveal his sources for the daily woot and the journalism shield law is found not to apply. We need to keep naming names; if not for us, for the children.
PS. How easy is the job of the "consumer advocate" on your local news station? I'm pretty sure that I could force any roofer in the Tri-State area to admit selling beer and PCP to the teens in your neighborhood while replacing your roof with fire promoting materials using cuban nationals as a work crew if I had a camera man and 5 minutes 2x per week during the 11'oclock news.
Beg to disgagree: unless names are named how is someone else to avoid those very same pitfalls? Plus it is only tit for tat: if you make a mistake or are late with a loan or credit card payment, the banks are awfully quick to share your name with the rest of the world - see your credit rating. What is really missing in the US is a "Dutch Treat" - where such episodes go on a publicly accessible "Bank Rating" list. Fair is fair, n'est pas?