PRWatch-logo.jpg

Shortly after the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and the American Academy of Pediatrics issued their one-two punch against raw milk in December—with widespread media attention— I was talking with a couple of dairy farmers about the course of events. Someone wondered: Do you think the CDC and AAP news reports–about the Minnesota study and the pediatricians’ call for a ban on raw milk— were coordinated? Absolutely, speculated one of the farmers. No question. 


But how could we make a connection? 

 

I decided based on that conversation to look into the whole matter more carefully. The result is an article in PR Watch, a media watchdog publication that is part of the Center for Media and Democracy, out of Wisconsin. In the article, I highlight the intriguing coincidences around the CDC Minnesota study disclosure, the AAP press release about its raw milk policy, and a USA Today correction–all of which  occurred in mid-December. 

 

I conclude that the seemingly coordinated blasts against raw milk were unfortunate on a number of levels—for mixing science and politics yet again, as well as for seeking to undermine tentative moves toward cooperation among raw milk advocates and opponents, and in the process discouraging moves toward broader acceptance of safety standards for raw milk. 


The article also highlights the mainstream media’s deference to organizations like the AAP and CDC. It’s never an easy matter, no matter what your profession, to be publicly critical of your colleagues. In effect, I criticize publications like USA Today for not only bowing down to the CDC and AAP, and regurgitating their press releases without serious question, but, adding insult to injury, rolling over and publishing a correction when challenged about a reporting error that wasn’t an error at all.


All serious journalists are taught early on to question press releases, no matter what the source. Unfortunately, too many reporters do little or no questioning when the press releases come from government agencies like the CDC and from august medical organizations like the AAP.  So they wind up becoming tools in the ever-more-bizarre political war being waged on our food in the name of science by government agencies and medical organizations. 


Why the abandonment of basic journalistic standards? Part of the problem is that mainstream media have pruned their reporting staffs, putting ever more production pressure on reporters left to mind the ship. Reporters also fear being left out of news events like the “embargoed” studies and reports I refer to in the PR Watch article, if the reporters ask too many tough questions or are too critical.


But another part of the problem is the reluctance of reporters to question people with Ph.D. and M.D. after their names. As if those people are all-knowing, and above political and ideological reproach….when the truth of the matter is that those people are increasingly partisan, to such an extent they have become willing to endanger public health by shooting down any and all well-intentioned regulated approaches to expanding raw milk availability in states around the country. 


There is some discussion following my previous post about using the media to expose abuses of farmers, like that  against hog farmer Mark Baker in Michigan. As Mark McAfee suggests, it can be done, especially if there is a particular event to highlight–whether it is a court decision or an agency assault. It’s not easy, though. The organizations farmers are battling against, like the CDC, FDA, AAP, and state agencies and universities have literal armies of public relations professionals working aggressively to tell the “official” story. It’s partly a matter of forging relationships with journalists. For all their inclinations to spout the party line, many reporters do have a soft spot for the underdog. It does make for more interesting reading than those politically motivated official studies.


Moreover, there are many more media options out there than was the case ten or fifteen years ago, including online radio and podcast programs much more sympathetic to small farmers and community-based food. A big reason the mainstream media generally haven’t done well in the transition to the Internet and more open information dissemination system is because of their linkages and dependency on big government and the corporate power scheme.