Even as the ultra-green Grist magazine has sought to give its fervent readers a more nuanced conversation about genetically modified food, the news media, reporting on the recent vote in the Vermont legislature to require labeling of genetically modified food because there is no scientific consensus on the safety of such food, frames the issue in a way that makes it seem as if it is simply a battle between brave concerned citizens and bad big business.
Reports by the Associated Press, Reuters, (and the publications which published their stories, such as The Huffington Post and the Seattle PI) the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, Salon, and Mother Jones are almost entirely science free.
Instead of information—instead of an entirely reasonable inference that the Vermont legislation could be based on a misrepresentation of scientific expertise—the story is all emotion. But what if a strong grassroots movement lobbied for a bill requiring the MMR vaccine be labeled, because it believed that there was no consensus on its safety with respect to autism, and cited a handful of doctors and PhDs as evidence? Would it be legitimate—would it be good journalism—to simply report that story without any reference to the science and why some kinds of scientific evidence are stronger than others?
Read the full, original article: Science Free News Coverage Of Vermont GMO Labeling
