Dear Ken,

Thank you for your calm response to my previous post.

First, you ask when does an apparent failure to respond to
acquired knowledge of unintended consequences become wilful
negligence, and you cite the example of the tobacco industry.
The answer, I would say, is when the accused party in found
guilty of such in a court of law.  Until then, all we have are
accusations.  Tobacco firms in the US were found guilty of
this kind of behaviour, and made to pay large fines and
compensations, as I remember it.  Have any processed food
companies been taken to court in the US, and found guilty, and
made to pay large fines and compensation?  I don't know, but I
don't remember any such cases, and, more importantly, Michael
Moss says nothing about this in his NYT article.  For me, this
is one of the incompletenesses in this article.  If there
haven't been any cases, why haven't there been, when
accusations of wilful negligence do seem to be warranted,
given what Moss does report.

Criticising companies for wilful negligence when this has not
been demonstrated in a court of law--the way we have of doing
this in our society--is, in my book, business bashing.  I'm
not saying you shouldn't do it.  You're free to, as long as
you don't commit libel or slander.  But, it is unlikely to
change anything, especially if the company you accuse is
making good business from the practices you criticise.


Second, you describe what I would call some sensible and
responsable eating habits.  And I agree with your positive
assessment of Jean Mayer when he wrote that "...  a burger,
fries, and Coke at McDonald's was a perfectly nutritious meal
provided that you only ate it from time to time ..."  It still
is a nutritious meal today, perhaps even more so.  And, if
most people followed his advice and adopted your sensible
eating habits, Moss wouldn't have a news story with which to
help sell his employers news paper.

To me, it's plain daft to try to change people's eating
habits, or smoking habits, come to that, by accusing the
companies who sell them the food they eat too much of, of
wilful negligence.  As I said before, this doesn't change
anything, whereas educating people to adopt better eating
habits can, and does, at least some.  Charging people the
health care bills for treating the ailments that result, would
also do this, and probably more effectively.  It might also
put some processed food companies out of business, but that, I
would say, is their business, not one we need to be concerned
about.  Unless that is, you are employed by one of these
companies.  Then, yes, your life would become difficult and
complicated, but, given that, as you say, Ken, "this was not
hidden knowledge", you, and other workers like you, could have
read the writing on the wall, and looked to change jobs.  Or
are we to understand these companies stop their workers from
doing this?  What would Moss have to say about this, I wonder?
Another aspect he doesn't deal with.


Third, you describe the Moss article as a case of responsible
journalism.  Responsible journalism is, in my view, an
oxymoron.  I think any and every journalist should always act
and behave in a responsible manner, when working on and
preparing articles for publication--though I know some don't
always do this.  But professional behaviour--which is what
this is--doesn't warrant calling what they write responsible
journalism.  If they do a good job, we might call it good
journalism.  If they do a bad job, we should call it bad
journalism.  Either way, it's just journalism.  Nothing the
journalist does can given his or her journalism extra
qualities such as responsibleness.  It'd be like calling it
Red Journalism, then the reporter wrote with a red ink pen.

Responsibility stays with use as individuals.  We can't, and
so shouldn't try to hand it on to other things, like
journalistic articles, no matter how well worked on and
prepared.  The NYT is a business.  So, as Drucker said, it's
purpose is to make customers.  Moss, as a reporter for this
newspaper company, is employed to help do this.  In doing so,
he, like other reportes, may try to portray his reporting as
doing an important moral service for the community, by
identifying and exposing persistent wilfully negligent
behaviour by some processed food companies.  If we fall for
this marketing ploy, we erode our chances of persuading more
people to know more and think more about what they eat and how
they eat.

Oh, and the NYT, like other news papers, carry controversial
stories when they judge this will make more customers, and not
if they won't.  I don't have a problem with this, but it
doesn't make the controversial stories they do carry,
responsible journalism, it might make it good business.


Here endeth the sermon.  Sorry, this is all rather heavier
than I would usually want to post here.

Best regards,

Tim


-----------------------------------------------------------------
PhD-Design mailing list  <[log in to unmask]>
Discussion of PhD studies and related research in Design
Subscribe or Unsubscribe at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/phd-design
-----------------------------------------------------------------