After learning about the shocking truth about the media, we were shown a real case in which a story was killed for only the profits of a widely known news company. 2 journalists from Fox News covered a story that explains how a company named Monsanto was putting a chemical called rBGH into cows to produce an unhealthy amount of milk for more profit. The several images of how much milk the cows were holding were disturbing, and I felt that this could be included in animal abuse as well. They looked unhealthy having to hold so much milk that exceeds the natural amount they can hold, and they looked to be in pain. The things that could happen after someone consumes the milk was concerning as well. By consuming the contaminated milk, that person could develop cancer, and in the worst-case scenario lose their life. I could not believe that such a chemical was approved by the FDA in America, and it makes me question the sanity and what lead them to come to a conclusion of such.
Getting back to the story, the 2 journalists who covered this case had planned on spreading this shocking news on Fox News publicly, but I was sickened to learn how the company decided to take control over the story. They made the journalists revise the writing a total of 83 times, and everything written in the original writing that could cause harm to Monsanto or concern the consumers were either completely removed or the wording was altered to fabricate the horrifying truth. Furthermore, Fox News tried bribing the 2 journalists with money to not take this story to another news company and to never mention this case to anyone other than them. This infuriated me, but I was proud that both of them decided to stand up for themselves and take the company to court. Unfortunately, they were denied their "whistleblower" right, and this ended them losing the case and having to pay thousands of dollars even though they should have been the ones winning.
We also learned that the chemical rBGH is banned in many countries including Japan, and if it is utilized in human consumption products, it must be labeled so the buyer is aware of this beforehand. However, in America, there is no law that a product consisting of rBGH needs to be labeled, and Mr. Paterson mentioned a contradiction in this system. If we focus on the topic of milk, the ones that are contaminated with rBGH do not need to be labeled with anything, but compared to this, the milk which is healthier and authentic needs more labeling to better inform the buyer and persuade them to buy this milk instead of the other. However, the healthier milk costs more money to produce and advertise, therefore making it expensive and this results in the buyers buying the contaminated milk. This system just made me realize just how many companies will do anything for profit, even if that means that someone's life is on the line.
Comments
Post a Comment