Advertising For Free On The Back Of A Tragedy

by tristero

By now, many of you have already read this fantastic piece of investigative reporting by Michael Moss of the New York Times, about how seriously lax the inspections are for ground beef products in this country, and the terrible consequences. If not, please read the entire article: it really is that good.

While there is much that you will find far more immediately important, and enraging, I want to focus on two parts of the story that probably won’t get much attention elsewhere. They point to an issue that goes far beyond the immediate subject, as important as it is, and to the reform of a mainstay of the ever more inadequate he said/she said model for objective journalism. Cargill is the manufacturer of the burger Stephanie Smith ate that contained E. Coli (which means that feces were permitted to touch the meat which then wasn’t adequately sterilized ). Greater Omaha is one of the major suppliers of the meat that went into that burger:

Cargill, whose $116.6 billion in revenues last year made it the country’s largest private company, declined requests to interview company officials or visit its facilities. “Cargill is not in a position to answer your specific questions, other than to state that we are committed to continuous improvement in the area of food safety,” the company said, citing continuing litigation.

…

Greater Omaha did not respond to repeated requests to interview company officials. In a statement, a company official said Greater Omaha had a “reputation for embracing new food safety technology and utilizing science to make the safest product possible.”

There are several ways to read these remarks, but I look at the publishing of them primarily as free advertising. They are hyping their company’s quality; that is all these statements are saying.* And they are hyping their company in direct response to a tragedy in which they are implicated and to which they will not respond, for whatever reason.

When you think about it that way, there really is no reason why any news organization should provide free advertising to an organization that deliberately refuses to discuss plausible charges of wrongdoing. Yet, the Times felt obligated to include them because they are the only official response they could get. And thus, they inadvertently did the company’s bidding.

This goes on all the time but it should stop. If a company won’t officially address an issue, that does not give them the right to say anything and have it published. In this case, I would suggest handling the denials thus:

Cargill, whose $116.6 billion in revenues last year made it the country’s largest private company, declined requests to interview company officials or visit its facilities. The company citing continuing litigation, issued a statement that did not directly respond to any of the specific issues in this case.

…

Greater Omaha did not respond to repeated requests to interview company officials. In a statement, a company official did not address the specific issues related to Stephanie Smith’s E. Coli-related illness.

At the very least, a “no-free advertising” policy for corporations that won’t talk to the press would make it far more difficult for them to pollute our discourse with mealy-mouthed propaganda when serious, and tragic, issues are at stake.

*Yes, of course, I regret the necessity of giving them more free advertising by reproducing their bullshit here; hopefully the context and the point being made outweighs the hype issue ).