May 16, 2010, 8:33 pm
Report on Lobbyist Commissioned by Humane Society
By JOSEPH PLAMBECK, New York Times Blog
It reads much like a newspaper article.
For 3,500 words, the report details the workings of Richard Berman, a lobbyist in Washington and a regular foe of the Humane Society of the United States.
But in fact, the report was commissioned by the Humane Society itself and published on its Web site last week.
The author, Ian T. Shearn, 56, is a longtime newspaperman who spent 10 years at The Star-Ledger in New Jersey, where he was part of a team that won a Pulitzer Prize. He left the paper in 2008.
The dearth of available journalism jobs has since left him, like many underemployed journalists, chasing freelance jobs and doing some consulting. Read More
Last week I shared how the HSUS had hired a former journalist to start attacking people who disagree with them. Today we find out that the author of the article had been out of work. So when he was hired to do this “independent” investigation I’m sure he wanted to keep his new employer happy. In order to do that, some of the facts had to go out the window. I’ve never met anyone involved in this story, but from the outside looking in, this was a very obvious and desperate attempt by the HSUS to deflect criticism. It certainly doesn’t fit into their stated goal of helping animals. Besides that, the things being said about the HSUS by the Center for Consumer Freedom must be true or else they would be attacking the message rather than the messenger. It’s another unfortunate example of a journalist giving up his chosen profession to be a paid activist.
Showing posts with label biased journalism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label biased journalism. Show all posts
Monday, May 17, 2010
Thursday, September 3, 2009
K-State Journalism Student Misinformed About Ag
Vegetarianism: More than just a lifestyle
By Beth Mendenhall
Published: Wednesday, September 2, 2009
Kansas State Collegian
Bacon is delicious. I know it, you know it, even the pigs probably know it. Despite its tastiness, however, eating meat is bad for the environment and human health and causes billions of animals to suffer needlessly.
Albert Einstein once said, “Nothing will benefit human health and increase chances of survival for life on earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet,” and he was right. This is especially true today as mechanized industrial farming has become the norm for poultry and swine production, and cattle feedlots have increased drastically in size and number.
Livestock agriculture is the leading cause of soil and water pollution, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. This is due in part to over fertilization of food crops — there is simply too much excrement and not enough land to absorb it without causing massive runoff into the water table. Waste from processing facilities, like Tyson’s meatpacking plants, adds to the problem. A U.N. report also identified factory farms as the leading cause of anthropogenic (human-caused) greenhouse gas emissions, more so than all modes of transportation combined. Simply put, our environment was not meant to handle the massive amounts of waste produced by industrial livestock operations or the fossil fuel emissions required to ship meat from rural communities to cities. Read More
Here’s another great example of “google journalism”, which has replaced actual research that used to require stepping away from your desk. This reporter is entitled to her own opinion, but not her own facts. It’s apparent that she is relying on Hollywood movies and anti-animal agriculture biased books for her information. The biggest, most glaring mistake that she makes is that she never actually talks to the people that she is attempting to vilify. The most disappointing aspect of this situation is the fact that some journalism professor probably signed off on this article for it to be published in the university newspaper. That person is obviously not doing their job in teaching the next generation about this profession that is losing credibility on a daily basis.
By Beth Mendenhall
Published: Wednesday, September 2, 2009
Kansas State Collegian
Bacon is delicious. I know it, you know it, even the pigs probably know it. Despite its tastiness, however, eating meat is bad for the environment and human health and causes billions of animals to suffer needlessly.
Albert Einstein once said, “Nothing will benefit human health and increase chances of survival for life on earth as much as the evolution to a vegetarian diet,” and he was right. This is especially true today as mechanized industrial farming has become the norm for poultry and swine production, and cattle feedlots have increased drastically in size and number.
Livestock agriculture is the leading cause of soil and water pollution, according to the Environmental Protection Agency. This is due in part to over fertilization of food crops — there is simply too much excrement and not enough land to absorb it without causing massive runoff into the water table. Waste from processing facilities, like Tyson’s meatpacking plants, adds to the problem. A U.N. report also identified factory farms as the leading cause of anthropogenic (human-caused) greenhouse gas emissions, more so than all modes of transportation combined. Simply put, our environment was not meant to handle the massive amounts of waste produced by industrial livestock operations or the fossil fuel emissions required to ship meat from rural communities to cities. Read More
Here’s another great example of “google journalism”, which has replaced actual research that used to require stepping away from your desk. This reporter is entitled to her own opinion, but not her own facts. It’s apparent that she is relying on Hollywood movies and anti-animal agriculture biased books for her information. The biggest, most glaring mistake that she makes is that she never actually talks to the people that she is attempting to vilify. The most disappointing aspect of this situation is the fact that some journalism professor probably signed off on this article for it to be published in the university newspaper. That person is obviously not doing their job in teaching the next generation about this profession that is losing credibility on a daily basis.
Friday, August 28, 2009
More On Walsh
Quittin’ TIME
8/26/2009
By AgWeb
If you’ve been by the magazine stand at your local supermarket or library, you’ll note that one of the nation’s major weekly magazines has as this week’s cover story a blistering attack on conventional agriculture. [And I see fellow AgWeb blogger Matt Bogard has beat me to the punch, but as most fighters know, a 1-2 combination is most effective].
The Aug. 21st issue of Time magazine is entitled “the Real Cost of Cheap Food.” What’s mostly notable about the piece is how predictable and derivative it truly is. There is not a single new fact or assertion in the article that hasn’t long been trotted out by the various anti- activists. You know the ones: Anti-large farms, anti-antibiotic use, anti-carnivores, anti-change. In reading through the article, I kept waiting for something really provocative to appear, but in truth, it read like a college newspaper article. By that I mean that the author didn’t really sift his facts or consider whether the source of them was pushing their own agenda. He just threw them all in the article, because (in ironic comparison to the article itself, which says that too much cheap food leads to obesity) stuffing all those criticisms in one story makes for a very fattening diatribe. Read More
I believe that one of the most frustrating part of all of these negative articles being printed about agriculture is that they are nothing but opinion pieces yet they are trying to portray it as a factual, researched piece. And this isn’t even up for debate because Walsh interviewed several people actually involved in food production and yet chose not to tell both sides of the story. This blatant attempt to NOT tell both sides of the story probably speaks towards Walsh’s integrity as a whole and his respect for journalism.
8/26/2009
By AgWeb
If you’ve been by the magazine stand at your local supermarket or library, you’ll note that one of the nation’s major weekly magazines has as this week’s cover story a blistering attack on conventional agriculture. [And I see fellow AgWeb blogger Matt Bogard has beat me to the punch, but as most fighters know, a 1-2 combination is most effective].
The Aug. 21st issue of Time magazine is entitled “the Real Cost of Cheap Food.” What’s mostly notable about the piece is how predictable and derivative it truly is. There is not a single new fact or assertion in the article that hasn’t long been trotted out by the various anti- activists. You know the ones: Anti-large farms, anti-antibiotic use, anti-carnivores, anti-change. In reading through the article, I kept waiting for something really provocative to appear, but in truth, it read like a college newspaper article. By that I mean that the author didn’t really sift his facts or consider whether the source of them was pushing their own agenda. He just threw them all in the article, because (in ironic comparison to the article itself, which says that too much cheap food leads to obesity) stuffing all those criticisms in one story makes for a very fattening diatribe. Read More
I believe that one of the most frustrating part of all of these negative articles being printed about agriculture is that they are nothing but opinion pieces yet they are trying to portray it as a factual, researched piece. And this isn’t even up for debate because Walsh interviewed several people actually involved in food production and yet chose not to tell both sides of the story. This blatant attempt to NOT tell both sides of the story probably speaks towards Walsh’s integrity as a whole and his respect for journalism.
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
The Real Deal on Poor Journalism
Alison Rose Levy
Posted March 16, 2009 08:51 AM (EST)
Having a Cow and Eating it Too: The Real Deal on Food Safety
When in the Omnivore's Dilemma, Michael Pollan portrayed agribusiness' unhealthy treatment of livestock animals, some readers suddenly lost their appetite for meat, going vegan overnight.
But others found "the sane food loophole:" Organic, pasture-raised meat and dairy-- the protein complement to the fruits and vegetables First Lady Michelle Obama championed last week.
Livestock farmed in organic, sustainable, and small farm settings, are healthier, and safer from the myriad infections, wounds, and diseases common in agribusiness livestock. That's why many doctors recommend eating organic or locally raised, hormone and pesticide-free meat and dairy.
In contrast, pumped full of hormones and pesticides, herded into cramped and disease-ridden factory farms, and fattened on corn and animal byproducts, (unknown in animal diets before corporations dictated the menu) factory farm animals aren't healthy--and some doctors claim that their consumption may detract from human health via antibiotic resistance, pesticide toxicity, weight gain, endocrine disruption, and other factors. Read More
It’s always disappointing to see such horrible journalism, but when you read things like this, it makes sense why so many newspapers are struggling financially. The author talks of livestock pumped full of hormones, healthier organic food vs conventionally raised, and also tries to convince readers that BSE (also known as mad cow disease to some) is being covered up in this country. All of these are untrue, as is most everything in this article. If you don’t agree with the authors take on agriculture, take the time to leave a comment on their site.
Posted March 16, 2009 08:51 AM (EST)
Having a Cow and Eating it Too: The Real Deal on Food Safety
When in the Omnivore's Dilemma, Michael Pollan portrayed agribusiness' unhealthy treatment of livestock animals, some readers suddenly lost their appetite for meat, going vegan overnight.
But others found "the sane food loophole:" Organic, pasture-raised meat and dairy-- the protein complement to the fruits and vegetables First Lady Michelle Obama championed last week.
Livestock farmed in organic, sustainable, and small farm settings, are healthier, and safer from the myriad infections, wounds, and diseases common in agribusiness livestock. That's why many doctors recommend eating organic or locally raised, hormone and pesticide-free meat and dairy.
In contrast, pumped full of hormones and pesticides, herded into cramped and disease-ridden factory farms, and fattened on corn and animal byproducts, (unknown in animal diets before corporations dictated the menu) factory farm animals aren't healthy--and some doctors claim that their consumption may detract from human health via antibiotic resistance, pesticide toxicity, weight gain, endocrine disruption, and other factors. Read More
It’s always disappointing to see such horrible journalism, but when you read things like this, it makes sense why so many newspapers are struggling financially. The author talks of livestock pumped full of hormones, healthier organic food vs conventionally raised, and also tries to convince readers that BSE (also known as mad cow disease to some) is being covered up in this country. All of these are untrue, as is most everything in this article. If you don’t agree with the authors take on agriculture, take the time to leave a comment on their site.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)