Is the press overworked or uninformed?

Over the weekend, cheese got beat up over higher consumption. It seems that our consumption is up due to government paid advertising.  .......and cheese is bad for you...... You have to really read to see that the ad funding actually comes from a producer paid fee. Were I a dairy farmer, I would EXPECT that my checkoff fees would go to effective advertising.
 
I have no choice but to pay a fee/tax when I sell lamb. As sheep producers, we have far less $$$$ to spend than the dairy industry, but I hope our ads are effective.  Every few years we have a nationwide vote to keep/drop the fee. I'm sure that the dairy people have a similar system.
 
How many of you that were exposed to the cheese story learned what I just told you???

Never saw the cheese story, but I know cheese is good for me, both physically and mentally.  As to the market order fee/tax on producers - it is designed to promote products that individual small producers could never afford to do on their own - I don't see anything wrong with that.
 
Cheers, John 

Discussion of food production costs MAY be ok, but arguments regarding the political organization and directions of the agencies representing the parties involved should not be presented here.
Be careful of the direction this thread takes.

Mayor Al posted the message directly above this one as I was in the middle of composing mine.
 
Al's comments made me realize that this is a political issue, although the original poster is right that the New York Times article that appeared over the weekend does not effectively cover the issue. So, I have edited out most of my post.
 
People interested should google "Dairy Checkoff". I found other message boards where people can discuss this hose job.

This subject is a worthwhile one, but I don't see what any of it has to do with a "liberal" press.  I think whether or not the discussion stays away from politics, the thread title itself is unnecessarily politically provocative and serves as an anti-liberal billboard.  It needs to be changed.

Didn't mean to be political...... The story said that Domino's increased sales a lot by following marketing advice to improve quality by using more/better cheese. I don't go to Domino's because there are better places close by to me, but if I lived in a pizza desert, I'd be glad to see them improve quality. Like most people I'll react to good marketing once, but it is a good experience that makes me a repeat customer.

Cheese, in moderation, is fine for most people. What this government board did (and this is as apolitical as anything can get) was attempt to jack up the amount of cheese eaten without regard to health, with just the producers in mind, which is as it should be.
 
FYI: I love cheese, and despite the knowledge that I should not eat as much cheese as I do I continue my unhealthful ways. Commodity producers, as far as I know, all pay fees, much of the money from which is used to promote the commodities.
 
What I learned from the "cheese" story was that Dominos has some sort of new cheese topping. The fact that commodity producers pay fees seems to me to be pretty well known, and to this undereducated in terms of farm production consumer it seems like a pretty good idea.

I think the changes in the title of the thread did what was requested to make the theme acceptable for discussion.
 
   I must say that I don't go to Dominos (or have them come to me) because I do not care for their product!

Folks, you've all missed the point of this story.
 
First, the press is neither exclusively liberal or conservative.  In addition to selling and promoting my Barbecue Sauces, I happen to be a news writer for WGN here in Chicago.  My personal views skew to the left, but I can assure you our newsroom is filled with  people whose attitudes span the entire political range from right to left and everything in between.  We all work together nicely and manage to have reasonable discussions when we actually have time to talk (more on that later).
 
Second, we are not uninformed.  In fact, if the original poster had done his/her full research and been better informed, this thread either wouldn't have started, or it would have had a very different focal point (more on that later).
 
Third, we are overworked.  Media owners, who tend to be wealthy white guys (so guess which way their politics run), are always looking for ways to cut costs.  As such, production crews in all areas of the news, whether it is print, video, or radio, have been drastically cut, leaving the same amount of work to be done by much fewer people.  With deadlines constantly looming, a situation is created wherein the people who write the actual stories that the public reads or hears, are unable to do as much research on individual stories as we might like.  We do the best we can with the time and research resources available to us.  If you're unhappy with that situation (and I promise you, we are), you should complain to those rich white guys (again, guess which side of center they lean towards).
 
Finally, when I first saw this thread, I was really confused about what exactly the original poster's gripe was all about.  I wasn't sure if he/she was upset about the article itself or the fact that there were contradictory statements made, or what exactly the problem was.  Fortunately, as I was driving around today doing some errands, I was listening to NPR (figures, right?) and they started discussing this very issue.
 
Suddenly it all became clear.  I mean crystal freakin' clear to the point where if you really understood what you were griping about, a liberal or uninformed press would be the absolute least of your worries.  Because whether you all realize it or not, liberal and conservative mean nothing any more.  We all want the same things; a decent job so we can provide for our families, safe neighborhoods for same, a sense of pride in ourselves and our communities, and good, honest leaders, regardless of whether they are in the public or private sector.
 
Now, here's where you're really gonna get ticked off.  Because I will now reveal to you what this story is really about.  The press didn't report that cheese story incorrectly because everything they said was true.
 
This whole thing starts with the United States Department of Agriculture.  The problem is, and you should really read this next part very carefully, the Department of Agriculture serves two masters.  On the one hand, they are working for farmers and the people who grow and produce all the products we consume as private citizens.  The Department of Ag helps the agricultural community develop and grow commercially.  Everything from new technological developments that will give farmers a better yield on their harvest, to new, safer (we hope) pesticides, to marketing ideas that will make us consumers want to buy more of their products.
 
That's where the whole Domino's Pizza thing comes in.  The D of A actually worked with the cheese producers and Domino's to create those "cheese in the crust" products (among others you will see soon), and helped them promote them in the name of serving the dairy famers.  So far so good.
 
Now, here's the other side of it: A different arm of the same Department of Agriculture is working to protect us, the individual consumers, from some uncaring or ineffective farmers who would introduce tainted meats, dairy, and produce (e coli, salmonella, etc.) to the market.  They also take an interest in public issues like the obesity epidemic, high cholesterol, high blood pressure, and diabetes--all things that can be caused or effected by over consumption of the very products that the first arm of the Department of Agriculture is trying to promote!
 
This has been true for decades and has nothing to do with whether we have a liberal or conservative president or a Democratic or Republican congress.  It is government inefficiency, plain and simple.  Instead of working together to determine the best ways to help both the agricultural community and the consumers they serve, we have different departments of the same agency telling us two different things.  In the process, they create so much confusion that the public they serve ends up believing none of what they say, even when it truly is in their best interests.
 
So, if you thought you were ticked off before, how do you feel now?  BTW, you can thank all those dang liberals at NPR for bringing the truth to light.
 
Sorry if this amps up the political tone of the thread.  It really shouldn't.  Government inefficiency is something we can all agree to hate, regardless of which way we lean.  If, after reading this post carefully, anybody still wants to stick a liberal or conservative label on it, they've missed the point completely.
 
Buddy

well said Buddy!!!!

Buddy took this in the direction where I hoped it would go.
 
I wish that I had listened more to my Grandad. Buddy from what I remember of him, and what little I know of you, you would have liked each other. He was a Yale graduate who went off to WW1 as a Private, and fought in the trenches as an infantryman. After the war he went into the newspaper biz, where he spent almost his entire career with one medium sized paper. The only job he didn't enjoy was as Editor in Chief, a job he had to step into during WW2.  His favorite job was writing editorials, where he had to put into words the group thinking of a diverse editorial board.
 
He loved working for a "rich white guy", because the rich white guy didn't bleed the last bit of profit from a very profitable paper. There were resources for deep reporting, and no sleep was lost over "wasted" staff time when a story went nowhere. They were able to hire the very best and brightest, and even bring on a few extra when an especially good crop of new grads sent "over the transom' resumes.
 
I remember Grandad saying that when a newspaper story was read by someone who knows the subject, that person should say,"Well, they got it 90% right". I think of that when I read a story where I have some knowledge, and where I often think to myself "60 to 70%" .
 
I'm of a generation that subscribes to a newspaper. I fear for the future of a country that depends on recycled/unvetted soundbites for it's news.
 
BTW, if Buddy had reported the original story, I'd have not made the original post.

Just keep in mind typecasting rich white guys as leaning to the right is profiling. After all, the two richest are Warren Buffett and Bill Gates.

Per Buddy, The press didn't report that cheese story incorrectly because everything they said was true. 
 
The NPR story that Buddy heard over the radio is also online (with audio):
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=131168900
"The Press" in this case seems to be one story by one reporter, Michael Moss of the New York Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/07/us/07fat.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1
although lots of bloggers and columnists have rewritten parts of the story. Michael Moss is even interviewed in the NPR program.
I'd like Buddy's comments on the Moss story. Farmers like tmiles may not be happy with the story. I am not happy with the Moss story since it doesn't give a Who, What Where, When, and How of Dairy Management.

 

David_NYC
 ....... Farmers like tmiles may not be happy with the story......... /quote]
 
Being a farmer (part time) has nothing to do with me not liking the story.  I just thought that the story was poorly reported, especially the soundbite portions that I got on the radio. Using the word "liberal" was a mistake in my original post.....I'm as guilty as anyone in jazzing up a story. As for opinion, you will note that I didn't tell you if I voted for/against my own checkoff program.

I don't see what the controversy on the reporting of the story is about here.  The story that was reported in the New York Times is about the irony of the fact that one arm of a govt agency is charged with helping the dairy industry thrive, in this particular case by encouraging companies like Dominos to use more cheese, while at the same time another arm of that same agency is charged with educating the public about health isuues, in this case by discouraging the consumption of high-fat cheese.  The story made its point.

I'm about to embark on a one day roadtrip, so cannot reply at the level I would like to.  So, this will wait until another day.
 
See ya,
 
Buddy

Bruce Bilmes and Susan Boyle
 
The story that was reported in the New York Times is about the irony of the fact that one arm of a govt agency is charged with helping the dairy industry thrive,.........

Dairy Management's full name is Dairy Management, Inc. and is headquartered in Rosemont, Illinois. It sounds to me something similar to the old, original Comsat Corporation.
Michael Moss is a pretty bright guy, and recently won a Pulitizer prize. But after watching this video of him:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWxVYd-ZQaA
I wonder if the story being discussed here had the benefit of being edited by one of the Times' top notch editors, or if it went straight to the readers like the posts here on Roadfood.

David_NYC

I wonder if the story being discussed here had the benefit of being edited by one of the Times' top notch editors, or if it went straight to the readers like the posts here on Roadfood.

Why?  I'm missing your point.

I agree with Bruce here. The irony is pretty obvious...much like the years of Tobacco support payments to farmers for growing the crop, while also spending millions to stop the spread of the use of the product .

While the irony is pretty obvious, what is not clearly explained is that the lower-level people who are promoting sales of dairy products are NOT Federal Government Employees and the majority of this promotion effort is not funded by the Federal Government.

David_NYC


While the irony is pretty obvious, what is not clearly explained is that the lower-level people who are promoting sales of dairy products are NOT Federal Government Employees and the majority of this promotion effort is not funded by the Federal Government.

That may well be but it's beyond the point of the story.  It's not a description, or an indictment, of all the ways dairy product consumption is encouraged.  It's about just the government part of that equation, and only because it's speaking with two voices.  Whether the government should or shouldn't be working at cross-purposes with itself is a question that is not answered by the NYT story, which is as it should be.  That's for each of us to decide.  I don't know how I feel about it.  It doesn't surprise me, or outrage me, though.

Golly there's a lot of ground to cover and it's 1:30am, so let's get started.
 
Davydd,
You're absolutely right about not all rich white guys being right leaning, heartless, money grubbing SOBs.  You picked two stellar examples, Warren Buffett in particular.  If everyone in the wealthy class conducted their business and personal lives the way Mr. Buffett has, this country would be in much better shape.
 
On the other hand, and I have absolutely no statistical evidence to back this up, just personal prejudice, it is my impression that the overwhelming majority of the upper 1% do not follow Mr. Buffett's life examples.  For those who do subscribe to his philosophy, I salute you.  To those who don't, the guillotine awaits; don't trip over that little old lady with the knitting needles on your way up the steps.
 
David_NYC,
I'm not sure why you're unhappy with the Moss article.  You say he doesn't give a "Who, What Where, When, and How of Dairy Management".  The article I read via your link clearly says, "And Dairy Management, which has made cheese its cause, is not a private business consultant. It is a marketing creation of the United States Department of Agriculture — the same agency at the center of a federal anti-obesity drive that discourages over-consumption of some of the very foods Dairy Management is vigorously promoting."
 
I'm not sure how much more than that you expect.  I mean, short of listing the names of Dairy Management's board of directors, how much more who, what, where, and when do you want.
 
And while Dairy Management Inc. may not be a government agency in and of itself, it was created by the USDA and the funding that comes from the dairy industry is actually a government imposed levy.  Our public officials have their fingerprints all over this.
 
Not trying to pick a fight here, and I'm not saying you're entirely wrong about whether or not the article is well written.  I'm just not necessarily the best judge.  I'm fairly new to the news writing game and haven't won my Pulitzer yet, so who am I to say whether Mr. Moss covered his bases properly.
 
As far as I can tell, the article is clearly written; it tells the story and exposes the contradiction without passing judgment.  What else are you looking for?
 
Bruce and Sue,
There is no controversy over the article itself, at least not anymore.  tmiles read the article (or some version of it) and (if I understand correctly) thought that the contradiction was (he perceived) in the poor writing of the article itself, not in the cross purposes of the Department of Agriculture.  Based on those contradictions, he made some accusations about the press being either ineffective or politically biased which, as a member of that community, I took personally.  I responded.  tmiles came back with some genuinely heartfelt comments which I appreciate.  We no longer have a problem.
 
On the other hand, I'm surprised that you are not more disturbed by the actual issue.  mayor al has summed up the situation perfectly, comparing it to the government subsidizing of tobacco farmers and the tobacco industry while spending millions telling us how horrible smoking is.  How does that not aggravate the living crap out of you?  This is not a left or right issue (and even if it was, based on what I've read of your political comments, you and I are way closer in our thinking than a lot of other folks on this board).  I'm incensed because the feds are spending my money poorly.
 
I'm not one of these Taxed Enough Already knuckleheads who disconnect on how their taxes actually pay for all the services they get.  I know I need to pay taxes to get better schools, improved roads, and well maintained public spaces like our national parks and forests.  Also, I know that if we're going to get all patriotic and talk about honoring our troops--those brave men and women who are willing to put their lives on the line to preserve our freedoms--then we need to put our money where our mouths are.  When they come back from the battlefield and need the care and attention of the VA, our tax dollars damn well better be there to repay them for their sacrifice.
 
I'm not against paying taxes, but I expect that the money the feds take out of my paycheck every week will be well used and not wasted on contradictory purposes, and that is what we have here.
 
mayor al,
Thanks for the perspective.  Excellent comparison between the tobacco controversy and this situation.
 
And Finally:
tmiles,
Sorry if anything I wrote seemed like a personal attack on you.  I tend to be a little sensitive on the whole "liberal media" thing.  I understand your confusion and concern over the whole matter, and I'm glad I was able to clear up the details.  Just curious--where did you read the article, and was it Michael Moss's original version or a rewrite by someone else?
 
As for your Grandad, he sounds like a helluva man and I understand why you'd be proud of him.  He sounds like the kind of guy a working news organization could trust and rally around for support.  There are darned few people like him left in the news business these days.  Unfortunately, the prevailing attitude in most newsrooms is, "We're lucky to have jobs, so don't rock the boat."
 
That's all I've got folks.  It's been a long day of hiking the trails at Mississippi Palisades State Park with nearly 400 miles driven round trip.  I'm tired, so let's pick it up later today, eh?
 
Buddy

Lots of good points.  Yes, in a perfect world I would like to see all parts of "the government" working toward the same goal.  The thing is, the government does so many things.  It seems to be asking the impossible to ask the entire government to turn on a dime.
 
I mean, let's say one day some agency somewhere is charged with trying to convince Americans to consume less high-fat food.  Can we really expect them to comb through all the other things the government does to find all the government policies that work against that goal?  And do that before beginning their anti-fat campaign?  And, not only identify those contrary policies, but end or reverse them?  There is so much that would have to happen!
 
Take this very policy of helping out the dairy industry by encouraging cheese consumption.  I'm no government expert but I imagine it's not as simple as simply ending the program and giving all the money back to the dairy farmers.  That department probably has commitments based on the fees it collects, and probably does other things with those fees, too.  There may be serious overriding reasons for helping the dairy industry - perhaps its not such a good idea to just stop that help cold turkey.  Maybe they'd have to come up with substitutes for the "encourage cheese eating" efforts, so as not to leave the industry hanging.  There are senators and congresspeople from dairy states who will have a say in all that too.
 
If the govt wants to discourage the public from eating high-fat cheese, should they first have to ensure that every last nook and cranny of other government programs is acting in concert before they begin?  That seems crazy, to me.  You'd never get anything done.  So they do what they can, when they can.  Hopefully, when stories like the NYT piece are published, it speeds the process up.
 
I'm not passing judgment either way on either of the two programs.  Are there valid reasons for helping the dairy industry in this way?  I have no idea.  Should the government be involved in educating the public about a healthy diet?  Maybe, maybe not.  I don't know everything that went into their thinking.  Does that kind of education work?  I have no idea.
 
And yes, that tobacco thing is an apt analogy and, no, I was not troubled by any of that in the least.  I mean, I might have a problem with subsidizing tobacco farmers, whether or not the government was conducting an anti-smoking campaign.  But I wouldn't expect the government to have to end those subsidies before beginning the anti-smoking campaign.  I assume the obstacles were just too great.
 
The perfect is the enemy of the good.

Bruce (I'm assuming),
I don't expect all government agencies to "turn on a dime" as it pertains to policy making.  I do expect them to at least make the effort to be swimming in the same direction, and that doesn't seem to be happening here.
 
One possible solution, how about promoting the eating of cheese, but in moderation.  The one flaw in the tobacco subsidies analogy is that smoking serves absolutely no health good at all, whereas cheese, in moderation, can provide good nutrition and be an important part of our diet.
 
The biggest problem here is that the effort to promote cheese has been relentless, pernicious, and a bit of a subterfuge.  The increases in cheese consumption listed in the article are astronomical.  There's also a side issue that no one has brought up: The NYT article states that due to the higher consumption of low fat and no fat milk and other dairy products, there is now a surplus of dairy fat.  Yet, we continue to see increases in the price of ice cream, even while they are decreasing the size of the containers.  The reason for this increase, we've been told by the dairy industry, is because of a shortage of dairy fat, making it more expensive!
 
I think what's really got me going here is the unmitigated, unrestrained greed fueling not just the dairy industry, but business in general.  Greed got us into the current economic mess we're in and will slow our recovery for a good long while.  The fact that an arm of the US government is encouraging that greed at the expense of the health of its citizens just makes me mad.
 
Buddy

Bruce's calm, well reasoned response has forced me to sit here and try to sort out why I'm so annoyed by this issue and I think I've got the answer.
 
On the one hand, the USDA is acting as a watchdog agency, overseeing our food supply, making sure it is safe and informing us if there is any kind of a problem.  Those problems can include, but are not limited to, tainted batches, and health problems that can result from overeating certain types of food.  As a watchdog group, I want the USDA acting (to carry the canine analogy further) like a pit bull, not a lap dog.
 
Their role in the Dairy Management issue is as a Chamber of Commerce, promoting the product and enticing consumers to buy it.  As such, I suppose that the dairy industry expects the same level of USDA support that we as consumers should be getting.  I just don't see how that can realistically happen.
 
As I said in my first post, the USDA is serving two masters.  That should be unacceptable.
 
Buddy

I think you cut to the core of the problem, if there is a problem.  Is it wise to have the same agency that regulates our food supply on the public's behalf also act as a booster for those doing the supplying?
 
And I think it depends on how much of a firewall exists between those two functions.  It doesn't necessarily follow that because they're in the same agency, they are reducing each other's effectiveness.  It can end up just being semantics - if we put them in different agencies would it change the way they performed their functions?
 
Actually, looked at that way, it's a positive sign that these two cross-purposes functions can exist in the same agency.  It means one side has little say over what happens on the other side.  I would hope that there are people higher up the chain of command who are working on having everyone march in the same direction, to the extent that is possible.

Got to hand it to the promotion guys: "Got Milk?", "The perfect food" (eggs), "The other white meat" (pork) are the ones that immediately come to mind.
 
Anyhow, right or not, We're the kind of folks who support all of those producers - we have eggs in some form just about every day, likewise with milk. We eat pork several times a week, and we eat lamb at least once a month - more often in the summer when we like to grill double lamb chops outside. In fact, we had a beautiful rack of lamb just last Thursday - although I don't suppose it did much to help tmiles and his friends - the lamb was from New Zealand.
 
Cheers, John 

I've been discussing this issue with some other folks to get some input and perspective and I think I've got the answer.  First off, let me say that the individual I talked to takes a more conservative view to life, rather different from mine, and yet, we spoke rationally, thoughtfully, and with a common purpose to reach some kind of conclusion over this issue.
 
What we agreed upon was that the USDA should neither be a marketing advocate for agribusiness, nor should they be babysitters for the public.  Their role should be that of safety watchdog and nothing more.  Make sure the cheese is safe to eat and then back away from the Gouda.
 
All I want from a government agency is to make sure that what I choose to eat is not going to do me any harm and that's it.  If the dairy industry wants to create and fund a marketing company to promote their products, then so be it.  They should do that on their own, requiring their members to pay into a common fund that is overseen by a board that they themselves have elected.
 
On the other side of the issue, we already have groups like (I think this is the name) Science For The Public Good (you know, the guys who told us that Mexican food and movie theater popcorn is fattening) watching out for us, telling us what not to eat too much of or not at all.  I know that last statement doesn't sound like it, but I really have no gripe with those folks.  I just think those two conclusions in particular are a bit bloody obvious.
 
Anyway, that's my solution that will never be seen or considered by anyone with any authority or influence to make a policy change.  Stick to the safety stuff and leave the marketing to the manufacturers and the consumption decisions to the consumers.
 
I don't know about you, but I'm about ready to put both me and this issue to bed--me for the night, the issue for a bit longer...
 
Buddy

Buddy does not seem to be at all a naive sort of guy, but his simplistic suggestion that the government get out of the promotion business and let it be run by private enterprise would be great in the best of all worlds - trouble is, we live in an imperfect world and sometimes a bit of government coercion is helpful. ( This is not meant as a personal criticism of Buddy - he appears to me to be a fellow liberal with a bit of a libertarian streak - not an uncommon trait at all)
 
A private association promoting a product, charging fees to its members is fine. The problem is that there are always freeloaders - the guys who benefit from the promotion but pay nothing to support the effort. Government, on the other hand, can require everyone profiting from the promotion to pay their fair share of the costs.
 
I think we all agree that it is bizarre for the Ag department to be in the business of promoting products that may, in some cases, not be all that good for our health, while at the same time be promoting food pyramids that aim to limit our consumption of these same products.
 
In the end we all need to understand that it is Congress that has directed the Ag Department to do exactly what we are witnessing. This is because Congress is beholden to special interests, and there are powerful special interests promoting health and powerful special interests promoting products.
 
Cheers, John  

I am very Liberal when it comes to cheese.  I put it on everything I can, and in heaping helpings.
 
But when it comes to tobacco I am very Conservative.  In fact you can call me an Ultra-Conservative when it comes to tobacco since I don't use it at all.
 
But overall, I would say my approach is Libertarian since I really don't care what other people do with either item.