You hear a lot about media bias. And yes, I believe there is a great deal of it, to the point that I believe very little journalism exists from the network level down through major dailies, and even below. Sometimes it’s not even hidden, sometimes it’s by omission, and often it’s by headline because many people are just headline readers. You’ll also see bias in how some information not really wanted, but that must be included to at least imply impartiality, will be slipped in as late in the story as possible because so many others don’t take time to read all of an article.
Well, I ran across such an article the other day. I’m not even going to get into the subject matter of the article itself and whether the action was right or wrong, that’s not the point. I Just wanted to show the effect of the written word, depending on your views. Here is the original article, word for word.
California Approves Use of Cancer-Causing Pesticide
Fresnobee.com via AP
FRESNO, Calif. — California pesticide regulators have approved a cancer-causing fumigant for use by fruit and vegetable growers, despite heavy opposition from environmental and farmworker groups.
Officials announced Wednesday that the state Department of Pesticide Regulation will register methyl iodide as a substitute for the pesticide, methyl bromide.
Methyl bromide is being phased out by international treaty.
The agency tentatively approved methyl iodide’s use in April, despite concerns by a scientific advisory panel that it could poison air and water.
Regulators insist the chemical can be used safely and say strict guidelines will be followed.
Tests have found no traces of the carcinogen in fruit from treated soil. The pesticide already is registered in 47 other states.
OK, from the headline on, you get the gist. They may as well have said, “How could these people have possibly done this?” As if to avoid it, at the end, if a reader goes that far, you finally see that 47 other states have approved it, and tests show no traces of chemical on the fruit.
But, if a regular observer/consumer is reading this, what if it said the following? Note the information is the same.
California joins 47 other states to approve agricultural economic tool
In what some are saying is overdue and could restore the fruit and vegetable growing sustainability of the region, California regulators have joined 47 other states in approving methyl iodide, a protective fumigant for fruit crops.
Following tentative approval in April, the state Department of Pesticide Regulation has now officially approved the crop tool, citing testing that show no traces of carcinogen in fruit after its use.
Methyl bromide was targeted for phase-out by some countries as part of an international treaty, forcing a substitute for the protection of California fruit crops.
In spite of safe testing results, some environmental groups are opposing the action, but regulators stress that the tool can be used safely and effectively under the guidelines imposed.
Sound a little different? If anything can be taken away from this, it’s that we should be careful of not only what we read, but how we read it. We also need to make an attempt to put personal bias aside, and see if there is actually a jewel or two of truth we can discern.