Header Ads

Friday Mailbag: Soda, the Health Act and ‘Mrs.’ Trump

07:56
Tim Lahan
Whether because of the open enrollment period in insurance or the looming decision on the Affordable Care Act, health was on Times readers’ minds this week. One article specifically, in the Well section, drew the most heat from readers.
The story, on a U.S.D.A. report describing the purchasing habits of families that get government food aid, was framed as a look inside the shopping cart of a food stamp household. But as many readers noted, what the story minimized was the fact that both households that are in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (known as SNAP) and those that are not make similar purchases. Further down in the piece:
The report compared SNAP households and non-SNAP households. While those who used food stamps bought slightly more junk food and fewer vegetables, both SNAP and non-SNAP households bought ample amounts of sweetened drinks, candy, ice cream and potato chips. Among non-SNAP households, for example, soft drinks ranked second on the list of food purchases, behind milk.
Here are several reader notes in response to the story:
As a woman who was never on the SNAP Program, I find the title especially insulting to anyone on food stamps. You mention in the article that both SNAP and non-SNAP shoppers buy comparable amounts of junk food, so why was it necessary to single out those who are on the SNAP Program?
Diane Cebzanov, Ellenburg, N.Y.
If SNAP households have the same buying habits as other households, why aren’t the drinking patterns of those other households of concern? We are constantly inundated with reports of obesity epidemics and preventable diseases across the spectrum of consumers, and here we have proof that the poor eat basically the way the rest do. But the article suggests only SNAP recipients should be prohibited from buying sugary drinks to prevent disease, while ignoring the heavy subsidies given to the sugar industry and the corn industry, the removal of which could help health outcomes of all demographics.
Debi Riggs Shaw, Paupack, Pa.
You have speciously and stereotypically implied that poor people are stupid in their consumer purchases and habits whereas the actual story reports how most consumers of any stripe buy too many snack foods including accursed sodas.
Helen Moshak, Evanston, Ill.
Here’s a journalist responding to the piece on Twitter:
And here’s a former Times reporter:
We went to Tara Parker-Pope, the editor of Well, for a response. She says the issue raised by readers — that people in most U.S. households, not just poor people, buy a lot of soda, sweetened beverages and junk food — was “a central theme in the story, and not only did we make sure it was addressed high in the story, it was an ongoing theme in the middle and end of the story as well.” She added, “That said, it’s a matter of discussion and debate whether a federally subsidized food program, designed to improve the nutrition of poor people, should allow junk food and soda just because everyone else eats it.”
The public editor’s take: I side with the readers on this one. It’s true that the article mentioned — well into the story — that households overall purchase about the same amount of sweetened drinks as SNAP households, but that wasn’t the way the story was framed. Furthermore, headlines matter, and this one said: “In the Shopping Cart of a Food Stamp Household: Lots of Soda.” That’s fairly loaded. And then there was that photograph of a shopping cart filled almost entirely with soda. (In fact, the story noted, 5 percent of the SNAP dollars spent on food goes to soft drinks.) The cutline under the photo? “A government report shows that sugary soda is the most popular item in the shopping carts of families that receive federal food stamps.” The purchases of food stamp households is a long-debated subject in political and policy circles. This piece didn’t do much to advance the discussion.
Staying on the popular topic of health, several readers took issue with The Times referring to the Affordable Care Act as Obamacare, arguing that the issue is too fraught to attach Obama’s name to the law.
Referring to the Affordable Care Act as Obamacare plays into the hands of the conservative right who have weaponized that shorthand label. (Remember Hillarycare?) Only using the health care law’s rightful name is a small but responsible journalistic response to the current Republican assault.
Harriet Watson, Portland, Ore.
There has been vacillation, however, over what to call the act, often among Democrats themselves, depending on its popularity. In 2013, President Obama affirmed he wanted the law to be referred to by his name. “We passed Obamacare — yes, I like the term — we passed it because I do care, and I want to put these choices in your hands where they belong,” he said.
We asked Phil Corbett, the associate managing editor for standards, for his take.
Most often in straight news stories we refer to the law by its formal name, the Affordable Care Act, or simply with a generic description like “President Obama’s health-care law.” Early on, we studiously avoided “Obamacare” because it was used primarily as a derogatory name, by critics, and seemed politically loaded to us.
I think that “loaded” quality has long since faded, since people on all sides of the debate now routinely use the nickname “Obamacare.” We still generally avoid it in straight-news stories from Washington, because we generally don’t use a lot of nicknames or colloquial terms in those stories. But The Upshot has always adopted a more informal, conversational tone, so we decided a long time ago that “Obamacare” was O.K. in that context.
One story on Obamacare caught readers’ attention on account of its headline, which read: “Trump Promises ‘Insurance for Everybody’ as Health Law Replacement.”
I was dismayed to see the uncritical headline. Not until the fourth paragraph does the article mention that he offered absolutely no details for this plan. I see this kind of headline as a gift to the president-elect, allowing him to broadcast vague promises without accountability. Please don’t make it so easy for Trump to manipulate the media.
Jenny Davis, Belfast, Me.
With Donald Trump’s inauguration taking place today, it’s as good a time as any to remind journalists to stay vigilant in holding him accountable.
Another reader noted that the reporting on Volkswagen’s diesel scandal could use a deeper look in one area.
I am writing about the coverage of the Volkswagen diesel scandal and settlement. Jack Ewing and Neal Boudette have done some good reporting, especially on the criminal aspects of this case. But what I find lacking is any coverage — and, indeed, investigation — into the progress of the buyback program for those of us who are personally impacted by this scandal. I am the owner of a 2013 VW Passat TDI and a verified claimant in the litigation who has chosen to have VW buyback my vehicle. The court settlement was reached on October 18 and we were promised a quick turnaround, within weeks, to receive our buyback. Two months have passed and we have heard nothing, let alone received our settlement money. Calling the “VW Claimant Line” to get information is an exercise in frustration. After several calls recently I finally spoke with a representative who confessed that they are way behind schedule. I and others want to know what is going on. We have little recourse to complain and no media outlet seems to be investigating this delay.
The Rev. Dr. Scott P. Albergate, Havertown, Pa.
After we passed the note along to one of those reporters, Ewing, The Times’s European economics correspondent, he told us that this is indeed something the paper should be writing about. He also said:
The Volkswagen case has generated a lot of mail and often tells me something I didn’t know. It was through readers early in the case that I realized how effectively Volkswagen sold to environmentally conscious buyers, who were then extra mad to learn about the cheating. More recently I’ve gotten a few letters from people having problems with the buyback process, although others have told me it’s going well. As always there is an issue of reporter bandwidth.
Finally, The Times has found some closure with respect to the new first lady’s courtesy title. Last July, the public editor addressed why some women are referred to as “Ms.,” including Melania Trump, and some as “Mrs.” The public editor noted that Melania Trump had “yet to express a preference (thus the default ‘Ms.,’ although reporters have been asked to determine her preference).”
Now, however, the senior editor for standards, Greg Brock, tells the newsroom that the next first lady has expressed a preference: henceforth she will be referred to as Mrs. Trump in The Times’s pages.
Except in this column, of course, where we have done away with titles. She’ll be just “Trump.” And as for us, you can still call us Spayd and Gershkovich.
P.C: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/20/public-editor/friday-mailbag-soda-the-health-act-and-mrs-trump.html

Post a Comment

No comments

Subscribe to: Post Comments ( Atom )
Powered by Blogger.