(Make-Up Work) Reading Journal 1: Deconstructing Three Articles

Raw Milk Cheesemakers Fret Over Possible New Rules

By William Neuman for the New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/05/business/05cheese.html?src=busln

FDA ramps up scrutiny on a new area: Cheese

By Lyndsey Layton for The Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/05/AR2011020502210.html

Both The New York Times and The Washington Post published articles on the FDA regulation mandating artisan cheesmakers to age raw milk cheese for 60 days. The Times article has a hard news lede, while the Washington Post article begins with a narrative. I found the narrative lede more to the point and informative in terms of telling the reader what is at stake. I like how the Times article explains the problem with raw milk in terms of scientific findings and the chemical reactions in cheese. The Times article goes into length in describing the chemistry and science behind the cheese aging process, while the Post article focuses on the conflict between regulators and the artisanal cheesemakers. In a way the Times article tells you why cheese-aging could potentially be a problem, and the Post article informs you on the battle between the FDA and small cheese farms. Both articles highlight the fact that the rule was created in the 1940s and is out of date. It is important to mention the fact that the FDA’s decision is based on pass findings and that times have changed because the news has the potential to start mass hysteria. The Post article cites a specific case of a small family farm against the Food and Drug Administration. Both the Times journalist and the Post journalist neglect to consult was the cheese fanatics and the consumers. I would have liked to hear their perspective on the issue. Would they risk getting ill for the sake of eating savory raw milk cheese? The Times journalist gives pretty much equal weight in terms of quotes for the regulators and the regulated. The journalist is doing his job of providing the public with information so that they can decide for themselves, but I feel like the journalist is trying too hard to balance the evidence and is thus misleading to the reader. The Post article does a good job of getting the perspective from both the cheesemakers and the FDA without trying to be “fair” and “balanced”. The Post article is divided into sections, under headings such as “Taste vs. safety”, “Inspections ramp up”, and “Family farm in spotlight”. I like the organizational touch, for the reader can get a sense of the issues at stake.

Restaurant Nutrition Draws Focus of First Lady

By Sheryl Gay Stolberg and William Neuman for The New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/07/us/politics/07michelle.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&ref=todayspaper

The lede to the article is successful in providing the reader with what Michelle Obama is doing and what for. The journalist interviews the dietitian for Subway, which I think was very relevant to the article for Subway is the “nation’s second-largest restaurant chain in terms of revenue”. However, I did not find her quote too informative. Had the journalist included a quote from the dietitian on her views of whether Michelle Obama’s new goals are realistically achievable, it would have been more effective. The journalist is appropriately skeptical of Mrs. Obama’s out reach to the companies, fearing that the food industry is not a reliable partner in evoking change. In response to the last quote of the article “The food industry will change when consumers change what they want”, I would like to know what it is the consumers want. I think that piece of information is critical in assessing whether Michelle Obama’s plan is going to be effective. Since the central issue at stake seems to be the obesity epidemic (especially in children), I would also like to have heard the public’s perspective on Michelle Obama’s “Let’s Move” program. Are they aware of its mission and effectiveness?