Subscribe in a reader
Follow La Vida Locavore on Twitter - Read La Vida Locavore on Kindle

NYT Fails to Substantially Cover Meat's Impact on the Climate

by: Jill Richardson

Mon Mar 30, 2009 at 14:16:59 PM PDT

It's not news to anyone here that Big Food just might be the new Big Tobacco. So why isn't the NYT doing a better job exposing them? The New York Times presents the meat-is-bad-for-the-climate argument alongside Center for Consumer Freedom's response in its post Meat vs. Climate: The Debate Continues. Sort of. They certainly COULD do a better job exposing who funds CCF and why its "facts" aren't very factual.

In this episode, it's a he-said-she-said match between a Professor of Nutrition at UNC (Barry M. Popkin) and David Marosko of Big Food front group CCF.

Mr. Marosko says that Mr. Popkin is "stretching the truth beyond recognition."
"Eating less meat isn't going to move the dial, at least not in this country. Go buy the hybrid. Pay a premium for alternative energy sources, but eating tofu instead of sirloin? It's not gonna make a difference," he said.
Mr. Popkin, when asked about the Center for Consumer Freedom's assertions, said he stood by his claims.
"This is what the food industry always does - just like the tobacco industry," he said. "They obfuscate without ever looking at facts."

So who's right? I know the answer, but not because the New York Times provided it along with any information backing up the conclusion. This is a lot like election coverage that focuses on polls without ever educating the public about either candidate's platform. NYT, you can do better.

Jill Richardson :: NYT Fails to Substantially Cover Meat's Impact on the Climate

Tags: Front Groups, Center for Consumer Freedom, (All Tags)

Print Friendly View

Send As Email

NYT Fails to Substantially Cover Meat's Impact on the Climate | 4 comments

in my view (4.00 / 2)

it seems as though a very similar thing is happening with the MSM in regards to both food and climate change. which is to say, not a lot. or at least, not doing a great job at attempting to illuminate the public regarding the actual situations. a researcher at a university and a spokesperson for a lobbying group are not the same thing and they do not have the same amount of "worth" in the conversation. an article does not need to quote "both sides" of the debate to be impartial. to be truly impartial, an article needs to show the TRUTH, which often involves a bit of research and may just offend some entrenched interests.

by: Emily Best @ Mon Mar 30, 2009 at 22:41:56 PM UTC

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

You just summed up what went wrong with MSM (4.00 / 2)

They lost their grounding on the truth, and decided to take a grounding on the middle. Unfortunately the middle is only decided by the actors on either side, and the business interests of the media. Thus their chances of finding the middle when it = the truth is very low.

by: Curtis Abbey @ Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 02:08:23 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

This seems to be part of the journalism ethic: (0.00 / 0)

to present all deserving sides. But of course most journalists have no real expertise, they are just high-falutin' gossip mongers, repeating what ever gossip or talking points that have been fed to them. [And a lot of bloggers, too, I suspect. No, not Jill!] And is this something they learn in their college journalism classes?

by: DennisP @ Tue Mar 31, 2009 at 23:07:00 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Passing on the CCF's bogus arguments (0.00 / 0)

The treatment of the misinformation from the food industry reps in that post was quite poor. CCF made a claim that was verifiable and false -- attacking the U.N. report that 18% of greenhouse gases come from livestock with an EPA report that shows that only 6% of greenhouse gases in the U.S. are from agriculture. But the author didn't realize that the U.N. report was referring to the entire world, while the EPA report covered only the United States. (For what it's worth, commenters on the post pointed out CCF's mendacity.)

With our tremendous use of fossil fuel for electricity generation and transportation (1/4 of the world's consumption?), our agricultural outputs are proportionally lower than places with far less fossil fuel combustion, like Africa or Asia. It would be interesting to convert our agricultural emissions into a per capita level and compare it to the rest of the world. Also, I doubt that the EPA report included GHG emissions for imported food, like seafood from far-off oceans, beef from Argentina, rice from Asia, and so on.

by: mental_masala @ Sun Apr 05, 2009 at 15:54:23 PM UTC

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

NYT Fails to Substantially Cover Meat's Impact on the Climate | 4 comments