NPR on raw milk: between personal experience and government science

Below we have an excerpt from a piece written recently by National Public Radio’s ombudsman, in response to listener feedback. Listeners wondered why reporters and commentators on a publicly funded radio network would express opinions that cast doubt the wisdom of government policy and seemed to ignore what they viewed as established consensus among the public health community. An interesting question indeed:

“When it comes to raw milk, even a simple story can turn sour on some listeners. There’s an ongoing controversy over raw milk’s safety. Proponents hail its taste and nutrients. Adversaries worry about deadly food-borne diseases. Government regulators are caught in between, accused of being too lax, too stiff or too in bed with Big Dairy.

Then there is NPR. Its science and health reporters are familiar with the debate; you can find their ongoing coverage primarily on The Salt, NPR’s food blog. But concerns didn’t reach me untilBonny Wolf, a regular food commentator for NPR, did a short piece for Weekend Edition Sunday in which she described her first sip.

“It didn’t taste like a bad idea. It tasted like milk – fresh, rich milk,” she said.

That approving statement—and the commentary that followed—left some listeners feeling as though Wolf did the audience a dangerous disservice.”How could this qualify as reporting on NPR?,” wrote Jo Ann Lutz from Durham, NC. “The article implied that the government is wrong to require milk to be pasteurized and that the nutrients in raw milk are very important.”

“Where were the facts?,” Lutz added. “What are the illnesses the government is worried about?”…”

Read it all on NPR Ombudsman.

2 Comments

Filed under News

2 responses to “NPR on raw milk: between personal experience and government science

  1. nedlud

    It is amazing that people fail to realize they formed their so-called ‘scientific’ and ‘factual’ knowledge (actual: biases and prejudices) about food and other things, through their early forced adoption of government propaganda (teachings) to begin with. This is the whole purpose of childhood education–and college education as well–to instill the idea of modern government, its unimpeachable, god-like ‘workings’, and a ‘scientific’ culture (with its -uhh- inherent ‘godness’), and belief in government and ‘scientific’ culture (again, its ultimate, inherent purity and -uhh- ‘godnesss’) onto the individual.

    And it works.

    For as we see, if later anyone from ‘government’ or anyone else for that matter, seems to have an alternate view, from what this believer believes (has been taught from childhood), those others are attacked. With no understanding/recognition of the actual situation (the enormous level of indoctrination and mindless obedience to authority) by the blind believer, who was taught from childhood, ‘what to believe’. None. Zero. Zip. Nada.

    Mindless!

    This is stuoid is as stupid does.

    And it’s been getting worse, except for places where openness, communication and the questioning of authority is encouraged, eg., open sites like this one.

    nedlud

  2. Pingback: raw milk and defining government relationships « JRFibonacci's blog: partnering with reality

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s