Muck and Mystery
   Loitering With Intent
blog - at - crumbtrail.org
March 23, 2005
Junk Journalism

One of the factors contributing to the demise of the environmental movement is junk journalism, close kin of junk science. It is part of the sad state of journalism in general and related to the intellectual and ethical poverty of journalism in political matters. The environmental movement isn't about the environment, it's about politics, so this isn't surprising.

For example, consider this interview of junk journalist Michael Pollan, unfortunately Knight Professor of Journalism at Berkeley so his disease is being transmitted to a new generation. [via The Poser]

It appears I have a kind of corn obsession. I'm like that character in Middlemarch, Professor Causabon, who thought he had the key to the universe, the key to all mythologies. In corn, I think I've found the key to the American food chain...

If you look at a fast-food meal, a McDonald's meal, virtually all the carbon in it – and what we eat is mostly carbon – comes from corn. A Chicken McNugget is corn upon corn upon corn, beginning with corn-fed chicken all the way through the obscure food additives and the corn starch that holds it together. All the meat at McDonald's is really corn. Chickens have become machines for converting two pounds of corn into one pound of chicken. The beef, too, is from cattle fed corn on feedlots. The main ingredient in the soda is corn – high-fructose corn syrup. Go down the list. Even the dressing on the new salads at McDonald's is full of corn...

Corn is a greedy crop, as farmers will tell you. When you're growing corn in that kind of intensive monoculture, it requires more pesticide and more fertilizer than any other crop.

I've written plenty against grain monoculture and grain feeding of livestock, especially maize, but this is junk journalism. Much of the meat served in American fast food outlets isn't raised in America. It is imported, especially from S. American countries such as Brazil. This is no secret. For the past decade and more environmental groups have been hammering McDonalds in particular about its contribution to rain forest destruction since it buys so much beef from Brazil. American cattle producers have also complained since they compete with foreign suppliers and the downward price pressure their lower costs of production bring.

Junk journalism is destructive in multiple ways. It usually is trying to persuade society to do something stupid but it is just as bad when the agenda is benign.

I can't write an article about industrial beef without pointing to an alternative, which is grass-fed beef;
Junk journalism like Pollan's piece which makes false claims is an effective way to discredit the idea of pastured products in the social mind. In a sense fast food outlets are serving pastured products since the beef they import isn't raised on grains. This is a problem for them since the meat is too lean to cook using typical methods, and they have developed alternative methods to compensate. Pollan's main argument against McDonalds is nonsense, which compromises the rest of his argument against industrial monoculture. He isn't a reliable voice.

Pastured livestock products - not just beef but also goat, chicken and pork as well as dairy products - are good for the environment and good for human health, but Mcdonalds isn't relevant to this subject. It is premium markets that are the proper target since they serve the cuts of meat where grain feeding is most apparent. Grain fed meat is fatter, with marbling that adds flavor and tenderness. This is an issue in grocery stores as well as restaurants since people select meats based on appearance and prize intra-muscular fat. For decades society has been educated to use these criteria for selection and their own experience confirms that fatter meat is tastier and more tender.

But what does tastier mean? Is the fatty flavor of such meat better? Not to those who have have an appropriate cuisine and experience of pastured meats. It is prepared differently than fatty meat and has what is often described as a cleaner yet stronger flavor. Some of the most sophisticated and expensive cuisine specifies pastured meats for this reason. The national cuisine of those S. American countries where Mcdonalds buys meat requires pastured products to work as intended.

Part of the issue is the genetics of the animals. For decades American (and European) livestock operators have worked diligently to select animal genetics that are a good fit for the finishing methods and target markets available to them. They have done well. But these are not the right genetics for pastured livestock which are finished on pasture and don't have all that fat to make them tender and flavorful. Neither are they especially efficient as grazers, able to thrive and finish well on pasture. The new generation of pasture producers are importing genetics from traditional grazing countries such as New Zealand to develop American grazing stock.

The rest of the Pollan article is similarly junky; half truths mixed with false assertions in an amateurish way that in the end is nothing but a typical, deceitful political screed. No honest student of the issues can find any value in his writing and political opponents find plenty of ammunition for equal and opposite screeds. He discredits a subject that does have merit. This has long been the greatest weakness of the environmental movement. Their arguments can't stand up to scrutiny even when their subject is legitimate, which turns people off to the subject. Junk journalists like Pollan are part of the problem rather than the solution.

Industrial cropping is an environmental problem, an unavoidable one in our populous world, and won't go away. What we can legitimately do to improve the situation is avoid unnecessary cropping. The use of pastured livestock is one very useful method. An even more relevant problem is the growing use of bio-fuels. Billions of dollars in subsidy and millions of acres of land are involved in this utterly destructive practice. How ironic that we find those who claim to care about the environment offering support for this behavior while bashing a low end restaurateur. It speaks volumes about their attitudes and agenda, making it perfectly clear that they have no concern for the environment at all.

Posted by back40 at 10:52 AM | Media

TrackBack URL for Junk Journalism - http://www.garyjones.org/cgi-bin/mt/mt-tbx.cgi/154

» Enviro Babble from Crumb Trail
One of the worst maladies afflicting environmentalism is junk journalism, agendized nonsense that discredits even otherwise worthy concerns. Consider this: Chickens have become machines for converting two pounds of corn into one pound of chicken. This......[read more]
Tracked: March 23, 2005 12:57 PM

Comments

(Was searching for "information cascade" and came upon your blog.)

Your beef, so to say, is with Pollan. So why don't you respond on WorldChanging to to give other people the chance to debate/discuss with you? It appears like the balance of support is in his favor there.

Jon

Posted by: Jon Garfunkel at March 27, 2005 01:07 PM

Hi Jon,

The way blogs work is that everyone can have their own blog, and cross blog conversation takes place. They can be networked together with trackback links. There's no fundamental distinction between a comment and a trackback, and I find that the most interesting conversations are cross blog. I always check trackbacks before I read comments since they often lead to new and better voices, enriching my experience. On my other blog, Crumb Trail, trackbacks are listed at the top of the comments section with an excerpt from that linked post. I should do the same here. This is a blog read by very few and linked by even fewer and I've been a bit negligent about affordances.

A blog conversation isn't really about those who post, it's about those who read. This is a key difference between blogs and comparatively sterile gated "virtual communities". By being open to the world blogs help knit society together and make more effective use of ICT. The fact that you are here is evidence of that. You may disagree with everything that is posted here and still benefit from having visited if it sharpens your objections or motivates you to study and think. You may come again or monitor at a greater distance using RSS.

That isn't the way blogs are always used. Some aren't interested in conversation so much as marketing. They are selling a package of views for political and economic benefit. Such blogs either delete comments and block trackbacks from dissenting voices in an attempt to make it more difficult for their customers to hear criticism, or simply don't support conversation at all. This is a broadcast, old media, approach rather than a network approach.

There are legitimate reasons to delete comments. For example there are trolls who don't make reasoned arguments and so contribute nothing but bile, as well as various types of spam. There are also reasons to block trackback since this attracts spammers too who are only trying to raise their ranking and generate traffic to their commercial sites. I, like many others, close both comments and trackback after a couple of weeks to deter spammers.

While there is no fundamental distinction between comments and trackback some still draw more subtle distinctions. They might feel that long comments shouldn't be done, that they degrade conversation in some way and should be done as separate posts on your own blog. Others think of their comments section as their private space, their living room, and that comments that are too sharply critical are inappropriate. The house rules here are that I delete stupid comments, and edit comments that attack others in the conversation. Feel free to attack me but be nicer to the other visitors, and do it intelligently. Courtesy is shown by making reasoned arguments, even when sharply critical, rather than flattery. If you have nothing to add to the conversation - no exception, expansion or disagreement - then why speak at all? But if you can advance the discussion by noting errors of commission or omission, and have the energy and interest to bother to express your thoughts, then the whole world (theoretically) can benefit from your effort.

You ask "So why don't you respond on WorldChanging to to give other people the chance to debate/discuss with you?"

Well, they can do that here if they wish. They have the chance if not the interest. Also, I am sharply critical of WorldChanging. They are old timers with what I find to be a destructive, reactionary agenda. Their arguments are limp and mistaken, their views politicized to an extreme extent. The change they advocate is stasis and regression. Strictly speaking this is change, but not progress. They are part of the gloomy, drab green socio-political segment that includes paleo-environmentalists and neo-Luddites. They make a pretense of trying to update their agenda and so as not to be so obviously ridiculous as the world passes them by, but they are just a joke, conservatives pretending to be progressives, and not even respectable conservatives who make legitimate conservative arguments.

The only one I find useful is Nicole-Ann Boyer though I take exception to her posts too. She grapples with important and interesting issues, which makes her valuable, even though I often disagree with her views about those issues. She's smarter than the others though seems unaware of this, perhaps it's a gender thing. YGG!

I seriously doubt that they would be happy to have my views in their comments since they delete or block trackback from this blog.

So, do you have substantive criticisms? This is a free fire zone. Take all the time and space you want.

Posted by: back40 at March 27, 2005 03:25 PM