Flap's Blog – FullosseousFlap's Dental Blog

After reading what you quoted above I had to take a look at the full editorial. I think you missed the best argument in the whole piece:

“If consumers want to know whether they’re buying food with genetically
modified ingredients, the marketplace can respond with voluntary
labeling.”

Yes! Yes! The marketplace is the solution! Supply and demand! If manufacturers won’t label their food properly we’ll all just stop buying foo– Oh, wait. Food’s one of those pesky “necessity” things isn’t it? Market forces have a strange tendency to fall apart when there are two or more currencies involved. Yes, you can buy or not buy food with money, but you can only pay down your hunger with food–no matter how many nickles you swallow.

We might also want to take into consideration that even “Left-leaning” information sources can lack credibility where money is concerned. The Star is part of a massive media conglomerate called the E. W. Scripps Company, which owns numerous newspapers, television stations, and its own syndication platform. How much money do you suppose their is in those weekly supermarket coupon circulars what with the photography, the graphic design, the ink, the printing, the shipping, etc.? And then you’ve got television advertising for supermarket chains and individual products coast-to-coast to consider as well. Whether someone or something identifies as “conservative” or “liberal” or anything else is ultimately irrelevant if there is a revenue stream involved. As soon as you start selling advertising space you become the summation of your advertisers’ messages.

“Conspiracy?” Now you’re putting words into my mouth. Conspiracy is the refuge of those who feel hopelessly marginalized; those who feel no move they make will have an impact on their environment. It is an excuse to sulk in silence without the guilt that comes with know you’ve given up. The fact alone that the measure we’re discussing sits on the ballet indicates I don’t need to embrace conspiracy just yet.

There’s no need to re-contextualize my argument. I like its framing just so, thank you. One does not require a grand cloak-and-dagger scheme to make sense of what I’m saying. All one must understand is the give and take between political and economic relationships. The paper is doing precisely what is its best interests (i.e. its advertisers’ and parent company’s best interests). Would you suggest that there is no communication between large advertising clients and the people from whom they buy their ad space? Would you suggest that a parent company does not communicate its interests to its various subsidiaries? I’m not asking you to believe a bunch of black-robed figures made a blood pact at a clandestine meeting. I’m asking you to follow the money. Based on your previous posts you seem very inclined toward maintaining your own share of personal wealth, so it surprises me that you would even indirectly deny the power money holds over all of us.

I’ll conclude by saying I’m grateful for your renewed interest in my comments. Your first thought alone about how the Star, “is,” and, “always has been,” a paper that favors the Democratic party has given me some valuable insight into your way of knowing the world. I wonder, do you wish a return to simpler times? Is that the goal that allows you to maintain your political philosophies?