What especially bothers me about the New York Times article I discussed yesterday is that I know the wording was no accident. I can point out how unprofessional the Podunk Post is in printing news releases from a state agriculture department without seeking comment from the farmer accused of selling contaminated milk, and know that the problem is likely a combination incompetence, carelessness, and cheapness.
But newspapers like the New York Times employ professionals who carefully edit feature articles like the one yesterday on raw milk. They question reporters about their phrasing and their sources. The editors extensively revise if they don’t think an article is logical or interesting or substantial enough. They make reporters re-report and re-write their stories if gaps are perceived.
If anything, the scrutiny has become more intensive in recent years, as major newspapers like the New York Times and the Washington Post have been embarrassed by reporters who have concocted and/or plagiarized major features.
I know how it all works, because I’ve reported and written for a number of major publications and have been through all the gymnastics. I’ve been questioned about my sources and have had to rewrite stories. Usually, this is a positive experience, resulting in a more solid and readable report. But sometimes, it’s a way for biased or uninformed editors to make sure they give space to "the other side" or a view from "the experts" who are being paid by major industry interests.
There’s actually a second major story this week about raw milk—this other one from a food columnist in The Washington Post, entitled “Raw Milk—Udderly Foolish?” I don’t have the energy or patience to go through all its problems and inaccuracie. (Maybe we should have a contest to see who can identify all the inaccuracies, kind of like the picture games for kids.) But, most unforgivable, it contains one of those phrases like the Times’ kissoff (“ science has never found any evidence that it was more beneficial than pasteurized milk”) , with the Post quoting a Penn State professor emeritus of dairy science as follows: “‘There can be all kinds of speculations based on people’s hopes and wishes,’ he says, noting that studies have yet to prove raw milk’s safety.” The emphasis on that last part is mine. What does that phrase, “studies have yet to prove raw milk’s safety,” really mean?
Remember, this is the Washington Post. An editor, or two or three, read this closely. Does it mean that studies are ongoing, but haven’t been completed? That studies intended to prove raw milk’s safety have been conducted, but failed to accomplish their goal? These are basic editor questions that such phrasing should stimulate. If such phrasing got through the editors there, I can only assume it was intended to mislead, confuse, obfuscate…or smear.
One last point: Dave Milano’s decision to take early retirement from the editor/reporter questioning business is a smart move. The editors of major publications like the New York Times hate to hear from readers. Try finding their emails and phone numbers online, or try calling the main number of the New York Times and asking for an editor or reporter by name, and you’ll see what I mean. In their view, readers are a nuisance, and meant to be avoided at all costs. (At some metropolitan papers, this is gradually changing, with a few providing reporter email addresses within articles.) That is one of the big unstated reasons these publications are losing readers in droves—they avoid their customers, and their customers have found other sources of information.
***
Well, I had “the conversation” with the farmer providing the inconsistent meat. I placed my milk order via phone, and then told her I had generally enjoyed the meat I bought from her, but of late, felt it had been inconsistent in quality—while some was great, other pieces were tough and/or full of gristle.
She seemed genuinely surprised, and at a loss for words. “I have no idea why that’s happened,” she said. "My other customers all say it’s the best meat they’ve had.” (I forgave her this dig.)
When I inquired as to whether it might be the grass feeding that makes the meat leaner, and tougher, she said that’s a possibility. But she didn’t really seem interested in inquiring a lot further. “Maybe one steer is a little more tense than the other,” she offered. (Not enough love?)
I told her I wanted to try another small order, and cook it more slowly, and see if that made a difference.
I’m not sure my inquiry had much impact on her, but I definitely feel more responsible for having brought the matter up.
Recent Comments