This page was last updated on June 1, 2011.
Eat up; Editorial; Beaver County Times; June 1, 2011.
Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.
“Americans have a right to eat whatever foods they want. But the decision isn’t entirely up to them.”
[RWC] This editorial is another example of Times continuing support for the nanny state.
“The companies that market products — from fast-food restaurants to cereal makers, from snack-food manufacturers to faux healthy-food hucksters — have a major influence on what people eat and drink through the way they shill their products. (Have you ever noticed that frozen foods don’t taste anywhere near as good as they look in television commercials?)”
[RWC] I wonder why the Times chose to use the term “shill” instead of “advertise” or “market.” <g>
“The Obama White House and Congress want to change that. The Washington Post reports the administration has drawn up guidelines, which were ordered by Congress and developed by four federal agencies, that call for food makers to voluntarily limit the way they market sugary cereals, salty snacks and other foods to children and teens.
“The guidelines have been justified as a way to counter America’s childhood obesity epidemic.”
[RWC] Note the editorial doesn’t tell us who “justified” the “guidelines.”
“Food makers and manufacturers object vigorously to voluntary restrictions, which, if approved, would be implemented over a decade. The paper reports they argue the guidelines would become de facto regulations.”
[RWC] There is nothing “voluntary” when dealing with government because there is always the implied threat government will force you to do even more if you don’t play ball. It’s a way for government to get its way via bullying and thuggery while bypassing the legislative process.
“They want to be able to manipulate the message. An example of this is the cereal maker who centered its campaign for sugar-laden cereals on their fiber content, completely ignoring the sweet stuff that jacks up the calorie count and more than counters the health benefits of fiber.”
[RWC] “They want to be able to manipulate the message?” Duh! Doesn’t the Times do this in just about every piece it publishes?
You’ll note the editorial never addresses the fact we’re talking about freedom of speech. Current law handles fraudulent speech, including that in advertising. As a reminder, the Times has a history of supporting restrictions on freedom of speech as long as the restrictions exclude the Times. Two examples are here and here.
“Given the current anti-government sentiments that dominate large segments of domestic politics, the 24-7 infotainment cable networks and talk radio, it’s unlikely these guidelines will get much traction.”
[RWC] I wonder what the Times reaction will be when the government proposes “voluntary restrictions” on and “guidelines” for its freedom of speech.
I continue to get a kick out of Times editorials writing about “24/7 infotainment cable networks” or something similar. The top banner of the Times homepage says “News, sports and entertainment in Beaver County PA.” Doesn’t that make the Times itself an “infotainment” publication?
“That means food makers will continue to bamboozle the American people into believing that they can eat anything they damn well please — right to an early grave.”
[RWC] I missed the part of the editorial that said the Times would do its part and voluntarily refuse to accept advertising from food makers that don’t go along with the “voluntary restrictions” and from stores that sell the products.
© 2004-2011 Robert W. Cox, all rights reserved.