|
|
|
 |
|
|
 RSS Feed
| › Most Recent Postings
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Original Post:
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Consumer controversy still off some radars |
|
| Sun, February 01, 2009 |
|
Two weeks ago, I marveled at the virtual news blackout that major news organizations had given a controversy that has been roiling small businesses and consumer groups for months. (I'll lazily rely on that previous post to provide background on the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act, or CPSIA.) Now that the debate has come to a head -- the Consumer Product Safety Commission on Friday put the law's most disputed effects on hold -- how have journalists done in the intervening weeks and after Friday's vote?
Not bad, according to the blogger I've counted on for comprehensive (if opinionated) updates, Walter Olson of Overlawyered.com. Here's his comment yesterday on the news coverage of late:
In the mean time, let us note that while some sectors of the media flopped utterly in covering CPSIA in recent weeks, others distinguished themselves, with much good coverage appearing in local newspapers and also local television (the latter often belittled as a source of original reporting). Above all, this was a triumph of social media: blogs both big and small (including the 350+ who participated in CPSIA Blogging Day on Wednesday), forums (at places like Fashion Incubator and Etsy), and Twitter (which proved its worth as a means of putting concerned people in touch with each other, spreading word about useful articles, documents and resources, and serving as an early alert system on news developments).
So he singles out The New York Times, as he should, for its weird blind spot on this story (I also found this pathetic gesture, cribbed from the Bloomberg wire, published on Saturday's page B2 in the Times). But The Washington Post should not escape scrutiny. Other than this rather perfunctory spot-news story yesterday by Annys Shin, the paper of record on Washington regulators has pretty much ignored the story. As when I first looked at this story and its coverage, one positive sign was the LA Times' Alana Semuels, who continued through yesterday to stay on the story. And Olson is generally right on the big picture: many did cover this.
But, back to the Times and Post: What's going on here? I usually reject conspiracy theories by partisan media critics, based on my experience. But in this case, I do suspect a bias -- one based on big-time journalists' inability to connect to a concern voiced mainly by handicraft sellers, thrift shops, and second-hand retailers. These are small businesses serving people far outside the urban, and urbane, circles inhabited by Times or Post editors.
I hope they prove me wrong. It's not too late for a comprehensive, what-really-happened-here wrapup.
|
|
Posted at 08:00 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are 0 comments to this post:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
