The public can choose to eat or not eat the product. The ruling will not hinge on the term ‘pink slime’, but rather, on the facts presented by ABC in asserting its claims, whatever they were. Also important will be the plaintiffs ability to correlate the decline in their revenues with the ABC report that they must prove is false or misleading.
Good point. I think a lot of this has to do with the country not knowing how the sausage is made, so to speak. Once people saw what they had been eating, they felt sick, even though, much of what goes on in a slaughterhouse, and meat processing plant would do the same. There was never anything inherently wrong or gross about pink slime, but the media’s characterization on it bordered on lunacy.
Agreed. There is a cliche phrase to the effect “you don’t want to see sausage being made.” … which points to the unpleasant method of assembling sausage and the materials used.
IF ABC used their Constitutional rights to expose the sausage making process used by the plaintiff that varied significantly from standards, making the product unhealthy or riskier to consume, they have a good defense. If they intended their report to sensationalize and gain attention without good reason, they are SOL in court.
I do not know the full story. I won’t project the outcome of the trial. But the fact the plaintiff sued a news organization means they either have a substantive case, or don’t but have aggressive legal counsel that doesn’t fully understand the matter, and are only acting on their decline in sales revenue.
Good call. Knowing the unfortunate state of the society we live in, one reason is just as likely as the other.
It’s one thing to protect consumers from dangerous product (Blue Bell ice cream’s listeria problems, anyone?) but its another to make something totally safe, edible and “healthy” (as far as fast food can be considered healthy, that is) look disturbing, dangerous and out of the ordinary for shock value ratings.
Ever hear of Chipotle’s with their unfortunate making people sick including their own employees? No wonder they are having big problems with sales declining.
June 5, 2017 at 11:06 pm
Doug Fisher says:
Like or Dislike:
3
0
Yep, Chipotlet is in the same boat as Blue Bell Ice Cream, Peter Pan Peanut Butter (from 2004ish?), etc.
Those kind of reports are vital to keeping corporations honest. When a report is going on with that same fervor about, effectively, reconstituted and repackaged meat being used to make fast food products, it was designed to scare and intimidate, not warn. There was nothing wrong with pink slime in the sense that it would make people ill.
June 6, 2017 at 1:31 pm
Captain Planet says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
Yeah, Chipotle certainly isn’t alone. Currently, Tropical Smoothie Café has a hepatitis outbreak, Chicken and Rice Guys have E. coli, and Dole is dealing with Listeria. Did you hear about that Chick Fil A in NYC that was shut down? They was fly waste all over the food. Gross. Generally speaking, I steer clear of any place with a drive through.
June 7, 2017 at 6:15 pm
UW says:
Like or Dislike:
1
0
Chipotle’s sales increased in their last report.
Agent, do you still think their outbreak was caused by using free-range chickens?
June 6, 2017 at 10:20 am
Captain Planet says:
Like or Dislike:
4
12
Make it grass-fed or not at all for my family. Yeah, if people saw how most things are made, they might not eat much at all. But, let’s stop talking about pink slime and start focusing on orange slime, AKA POS-tus.
Rice, personally I would like the meat company to rip Disney/ABC a new one on this. They are among the worst of the fake news networks. Their reporting of the news is “nauseating”.
In this case, it’s hard to say now. In other politically charged stories, I definitely see misbehavior by a member of the media whose parent company wears big round ears.
I don’t think they are any more biased beyond the biases expressed by any of the major news networks. You obviously have MSNBC and Fox News on opposite ends of the spectrum left and right, but CNN and ABC are more towards the middle on most issues.
Calling them fake news is damaging to your argument, unless you lump in every single network and cable news channel in there. Bloomberg is probably the least “fake” since they typically report on just markets and straight news, and don’t gussy things up with fake controversy.
Doug, You are either joking or tragically naive. CNN has a virtual vendetta going against Trump. MSNBC remains the left-wing’s equivalent of Fox. While ABC, NBC, and CBS are not blatantly liberal in their reporting, they strongly tilt that way. Dan Rather lost his CBS job because his liberal bias overcame basic reportorial standards.
Your characterization of Bloomberg on straight news is also off the mark. It has a liberal-slant similar to the Washington Post’s, but not as liberally biased as the New York Times.
What if what CNN has been reporting on Trump and his allies is true? Would it be a witch hunt and virtual vendetta then?
I am not asking that you believe everything that CNN reports about the administration, but their reports are often corroborated by many unrelated news outlets who favor both sides of the aisle.
If they are reporting factual things about Trump that are damaging, then they have the right and responsibility to report them.
CNN does, however, fall into the ratings-chaser game, however, just like Fox News and MSNBC, where they will inflate and distort many stories for the ratings, without regard for the newsworthiness of the reporting. See: Malaysian Airlines crash a few years back for reference.
June 7, 2017 at 6:17 pm
UW says:
Like or Dislike:
0
2
Have you watched MSNBC lately, or ever? They certainly aren’t far left-wing anymore. They have Scarborough on for what, 3 hours a day? They are center left with corporate Democrats, and moving right.
June 6, 2017 at 12:25 am
Boonedoggle says:
Like or Dislike:
8
0
USDA Scientist Gerald Zirnstein named the ground beef additive “Pink Slime” several years before the ABC story. ABC never said the stuff was unfit for human consumption, but rather that the presence of the additive should be appropriately shown on the label. If the name “pink slime” were somehow dafamatory, perhaps the appropriate defendent should be Mr. Zirnstein, and not ABC which was simply the messenger. BTW: It is still illegal to sell products containing pink slime in Canada or Europe,.
Do anyone else’s posts get deleted from time to time? Nothing I said was inflammatory or wrong, but it got removed since last night. This is the third post I have written that has been deleted, and it is ridiculous. IJ: If you have a problem with what I post, you have my email address, how about some guidance on what makes it so bad? Otherwise, let the form decide if my posts are of any value or not.
I do not know which post in particular you are referring to but we try to keep people on topic and on occasion we remove posts we think go too far astray from the subject of the article. I am not accusing you of doing anything wrong and we welcome your participation. This is for everyone, not you in particular. Contrary to what some believe, this is not a forum for individuals to endlessly and randomly spout their personal and political philosophies or engage in long-running spats with other readers. This is not a personal blog (it’s not a blog at all; it’s a comment section). We do not have the time, staff or desire to monitor the comment section every minute of every day or to notify when posts are removed. We do not get to every post that probably should be removed. Overall, we rely upon our readers and commenters to respect our wishes to remain on topic, as well as to avoid personal attacks, profanity and self-serving marketing. Most readers respect our wishes while a few do not. I am not accusing you of doing anything wrong; I am asking everyone to stay on topic and be respectful of others. We know that many readers do not participate in the comment section because they are turned off by the monopolizing and politically partisan harangues by a handful of commenters. As you know, InsuranceJournal.com is free– you are not asked to pay for a subscription. Please help us continue to devote our time and resources to reporting on the industry as opposed to refereeing comments. Thanks.
I understand that, and I, as many others, have a tendency to relate on-topic news to unrelated off-topic things. I think where it raises my hackles is when a report from a trusted news-source gets hand-waved away as “fake news”, with no regards to what that even means.
How do you quantify one news source as fake?
PunditFact did a fact checking on the major cable news networks and, no surprise the results were TERRIBLE for Fox News, slightly less terrible for Fox News, and pretty decent for CNN.
Fox News: statements Mostly False, False, or Pants on Fire: 61%
MSNBC: 44%
CNN: 21%
Now, in my opinion, 21% is still drastically too high. No respectable news organization should be proud that their talking heads and on-air talent lies 1/5th of the time, but its still 3 times lower than Fox News content, where more than half the time, the viewers are being lied to…
So Doug, how much does George Soros pay you to blog this site with your false narrative. You have all your figures upside down, but that is what Progressives do to advance the story. CNN, MSNBC are the worst excuses of a network since the TV was invented.
I agree, they are terrible excuses for “news” coverage; What they provide is more accurately described as “infotainment.” Fox News, however, outside of Shep Smith and Chris Wallace does not have a good track record for honest reporting of stories.
To single one out without singling them all out is just a little ridiculous. Check out a fact checking site, and then compare it to the way each news source you visit reports on these stories to see who aligns with the truth, and who sensationalizes, distorts and misstates the truth on a consistent basis.
You can “dislike” it all you want, everybody, but it does raise an interesting point. Calling something “fake news,” especially a blanket proclamation of such without proof is foolhardy at best.
If the news is just something you don’t want to hear, that’s different, but just saying, “ABC/CNN/MSNBC/Fox News/CBS/NBC/Bloomberg/Reuters/etc. are fake news” without providing proof, you are just parroting a talking point from someone else.
Personally, I would want to know if I were being lied to on a daily basis…
There are some who like being lied to, Doug. They want to believe the world matches their view. And, are willing to consume whichever media is going to wizard that up for them. As well as be okay with all the lies coming out of the White House right now. I’ve never heard so many lies.
Back to the food, our former governor was trying to promote the pink slime. If I remember right, he was wearing a shirt that said “Dude, it’s beef.” It definitely comes from the same animal, but it’s not necessarily the cuts we all think we are eating. I’ll continue to chose my foods wisely. It certainly has excellent health benefits. My annual results have continued to improve year after year with a conscious diet.
June 7, 2017 at 7:00 pm
FactChecker says:
Like or Dislike:
2
0
Mr. Simpson, I emailed you, another person through the site another commenter told me was responsible, and the site’s contact form multiple times. A regular user here who who goes by Ricehacked the election (polar something, and other names) threatened to track me down through your website, and you did not respond. He also revealed info about my browser that could have been a guess or could have come through your site, but you did not respond to that either.
Will anything be done about this person? Does he work for your company? If so that is entirely inappropriate, and illegal. His threat was also a threat of an illegal act. Why is this allowed here?
Holy crap, if this is a serious post, then that is both hilarious and incredibly sad!
I can tell by reading the posts that the user is on the fringe, but if what you are insinuating is true (threatened to hack you?), then that goes above and beyond normal conspiracy-theory nutter stuff.
Doug,
I have often wondered if the poster FactChecker is speaking about (Yogi for us old-schoolers out here) is either a contributor or advertiser on IJ. He seems to have some sort of inside influence. If that is indeed the case, that cannot be permitted to stand.
June 8, 2017 at 1:45 am
Doug Fisher says:
Like or Dislike:
1
2
Certainly not, but with the level of professionalism in the printed Insurance Journal, and how well the site is maintained, I would certainly HOPE that would not be the case.
As I have mentioned before, I am aware that Insurance is a very right-leaning field. I consider myself a conservative, after all, but disagree with the hijacking of the movement over the last 15 years. They have basically drawn a line in the sand that says,
If you are with us, then you have to be:
-Anti-science
-Anti-birth control
-Pro slashing taxes on the rich
-Pro make it hard as hell for poor/minority/old people to live comfortably
-Pro Fascism (new wrinkle for current administration)
The loudest voices of modern-day “conservatism” are all-in on proto-fascism and disparage science, while uplifting things that have no logical or scientific merit.
If someone like this is running the show behind the scenes that lowers IJ’s credibility intensely.
June 9, 2017 at 2:07 am
FactChecker says:
Like or Dislike:
0
0
The silence speaks volumes. They can delete threads left and right if they aren’t by Agent or SusanRice but they won’t reply to this.
June 9, 2017 at 9:50 am
Andrew G. Simpson says:
Like or Dislike:
2
0
Nobody working here is responsible for your angst. Your IJ conspiracy theory has no merit. If you think you have been harmed by someone, by all means contact the appropriate authorities.
June 9, 2017 at 11:07 pm
FactChecker says:
Like or Dislike:
0
1
Thanks for the completely unprofessional reply. I have no angst, you would think a person who writes articles would know the definition of that word, but I guess not based on the articles you edit from other sites. I also didn’t push a conspiracy theory, I wrote an exact scenario that happened. Your company policy is that you will remove posts that are ‘off topic’ unless it is Agent or SusanRice ranting about Soros, libtards, liberteralls, or any of the other insults they sling. Outright racism is tolerated (celebrated?). And you won’t remove posts threatening to track people down, or ban those people.
A user here threatened to track me down, they posted information that potentially could have come from your site, said what changes the site was going to make, and then almost immediately the changes were made. You need a consistent policy, or to stay away, and a person who can handle himself professionally needs to oversee it. That person is not you.
Thank you for replying to my original post, you confirmed my belief, and reinforced my decision to remove the admittedly small advertising my agency used to do through your company.
June 6, 2017 at 4:16 pm
Agent says:
Like or Dislike:
0
2
Doug, the forum has decided. By the way, Conservative opinion has also been deleted, but not at the rate of Progressive posts.
Hey Doug, I have news for you. The true Conservative does not talk like you or believe as you do so I can only conclude that you are a “Fake Conservative”. Actually, you are the Polar opposite which is another name for a Progressive Liberal. Nice try, though. You haven’t changed the heart and mind of anyone with that rant.
The public can choose to eat or not eat the product. The ruling will not hinge on the term ‘pink slime’, but rather, on the facts presented by ABC in asserting its claims, whatever they were. Also important will be the plaintiffs ability to correlate the decline in their revenues with the ABC report that they must prove is false or misleading.
Good point. I think a lot of this has to do with the country not knowing how the sausage is made, so to speak. Once people saw what they had been eating, they felt sick, even though, much of what goes on in a slaughterhouse, and meat processing plant would do the same. There was never anything inherently wrong or gross about pink slime, but the media’s characterization on it bordered on lunacy.
Agreed. There is a cliche phrase to the effect “you don’t want to see sausage being made.” … which points to the unpleasant method of assembling sausage and the materials used.
IF ABC used their Constitutional rights to expose the sausage making process used by the plaintiff that varied significantly from standards, making the product unhealthy or riskier to consume, they have a good defense. If they intended their report to sensationalize and gain attention without good reason, they are SOL in court.
I do not know the full story. I won’t project the outcome of the trial. But the fact the plaintiff sued a news organization means they either have a substantive case, or don’t but have aggressive legal counsel that doesn’t fully understand the matter, and are only acting on their decline in sales revenue.
Good call. Knowing the unfortunate state of the society we live in, one reason is just as likely as the other.
It’s one thing to protect consumers from dangerous product (Blue Bell ice cream’s listeria problems, anyone?) but its another to make something totally safe, edible and “healthy” (as far as fast food can be considered healthy, that is) look disturbing, dangerous and out of the ordinary for shock value ratings.
Ever hear of Chipotle’s with their unfortunate making people sick including their own employees? No wonder they are having big problems with sales declining.
Yep, Chipotlet is in the same boat as Blue Bell Ice Cream, Peter Pan Peanut Butter (from 2004ish?), etc.
Those kind of reports are vital to keeping corporations honest. When a report is going on with that same fervor about, effectively, reconstituted and repackaged meat being used to make fast food products, it was designed to scare and intimidate, not warn. There was nothing wrong with pink slime in the sense that it would make people ill.
Yeah, Chipotle certainly isn’t alone. Currently, Tropical Smoothie Café has a hepatitis outbreak, Chicken and Rice Guys have E. coli, and Dole is dealing with Listeria. Did you hear about that Chick Fil A in NYC that was shut down? They was fly waste all over the food. Gross. Generally speaking, I steer clear of any place with a drive through.
Chipotle’s sales increased in their last report.
Agent, do you still think their outbreak was caused by using free-range chickens?
Make it grass-fed or not at all for my family. Yeah, if people saw how most things are made, they might not eat much at all. But, let’s stop talking about pink slime and start focusing on orange slime, AKA POS-tus.
Rice, personally I would like the meat company to rip Disney/ABC a new one on this. They are among the worst of the fake news networks. Their reporting of the news is “nauseating”.
In this case, it’s hard to say now. In other politically charged stories, I definitely see misbehavior by a member of the media whose parent company wears big round ears.
I don’t think they are any more biased beyond the biases expressed by any of the major news networks. You obviously have MSNBC and Fox News on opposite ends of the spectrum left and right, but CNN and ABC are more towards the middle on most issues.
Calling them fake news is damaging to your argument, unless you lump in every single network and cable news channel in there. Bloomberg is probably the least “fake” since they typically report on just markets and straight news, and don’t gussy things up with fake controversy.
Doug, You are either joking or tragically naive. CNN has a virtual vendetta going against Trump. MSNBC remains the left-wing’s equivalent of Fox. While ABC, NBC, and CBS are not blatantly liberal in their reporting, they strongly tilt that way. Dan Rather lost his CBS job because his liberal bias overcame basic reportorial standards.
Your characterization of Bloomberg on straight news is also off the mark. It has a liberal-slant similar to the Washington Post’s, but not as liberally biased as the New York Times.
What if what CNN has been reporting on Trump and his allies is true? Would it be a witch hunt and virtual vendetta then?
I am not asking that you believe everything that CNN reports about the administration, but their reports are often corroborated by many unrelated news outlets who favor both sides of the aisle.
If they are reporting factual things about Trump that are damaging, then they have the right and responsibility to report them.
CNN does, however, fall into the ratings-chaser game, however, just like Fox News and MSNBC, where they will inflate and distort many stories for the ratings, without regard for the newsworthiness of the reporting. See: Malaysian Airlines crash a few years back for reference.
Have you watched MSNBC lately, or ever? They certainly aren’t far left-wing anymore. They have Scarborough on for what, 3 hours a day? They are center left with corporate Democrats, and moving right.
USDA Scientist Gerald Zirnstein named the ground beef additive “Pink Slime” several years before the ABC story. ABC never said the stuff was unfit for human consumption, but rather that the presence of the additive should be appropriately shown on the label. If the name “pink slime” were somehow dafamatory, perhaps the appropriate defendent should be Mr. Zirnstein, and not ABC which was simply the messenger. BTW: It is still illegal to sell products containing pink slime in Canada or Europe,.
Do anyone else’s posts get deleted from time to time? Nothing I said was inflammatory or wrong, but it got removed since last night. This is the third post I have written that has been deleted, and it is ridiculous. IJ: If you have a problem with what I post, you have my email address, how about some guidance on what makes it so bad? Otherwise, let the form decide if my posts are of any value or not.
I do not know which post in particular you are referring to but we try to keep people on topic and on occasion we remove posts we think go too far astray from the subject of the article. I am not accusing you of doing anything wrong and we welcome your participation. This is for everyone, not you in particular. Contrary to what some believe, this is not a forum for individuals to endlessly and randomly spout their personal and political philosophies or engage in long-running spats with other readers. This is not a personal blog (it’s not a blog at all; it’s a comment section). We do not have the time, staff or desire to monitor the comment section every minute of every day or to notify when posts are removed. We do not get to every post that probably should be removed. Overall, we rely upon our readers and commenters to respect our wishes to remain on topic, as well as to avoid personal attacks, profanity and self-serving marketing. Most readers respect our wishes while a few do not. I am not accusing you of doing anything wrong; I am asking everyone to stay on topic and be respectful of others. We know that many readers do not participate in the comment section because they are turned off by the monopolizing and politically partisan harangues by a handful of commenters. As you know, InsuranceJournal.com is free– you are not asked to pay for a subscription. Please help us continue to devote our time and resources to reporting on the industry as opposed to refereeing comments. Thanks.
I understand that, and I, as many others, have a tendency to relate on-topic news to unrelated off-topic things. I think where it raises my hackles is when a report from a trusted news-source gets hand-waved away as “fake news”, with no regards to what that even means.
How do you quantify one news source as fake?
PunditFact did a fact checking on the major cable news networks and, no surprise the results were TERRIBLE for Fox News, slightly less terrible for Fox News, and pretty decent for CNN.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2015/jan/29/punditfact-checks-cable-news-channels/
Fox News: statements Mostly False, False, or Pants on Fire: 61%
MSNBC: 44%
CNN: 21%
Now, in my opinion, 21% is still drastically too high. No respectable news organization should be proud that their talking heads and on-air talent lies 1/5th of the time, but its still 3 times lower than Fox News content, where more than half the time, the viewers are being lied to…
So Doug, how much does George Soros pay you to blog this site with your false narrative. You have all your figures upside down, but that is what Progressives do to advance the story. CNN, MSNBC are the worst excuses of a network since the TV was invented.
I agree, they are terrible excuses for “news” coverage; What they provide is more accurately described as “infotainment.” Fox News, however, outside of Shep Smith and Chris Wallace does not have a good track record for honest reporting of stories.
To single one out without singling them all out is just a little ridiculous. Check out a fact checking site, and then compare it to the way each news source you visit reports on these stories to see who aligns with the truth, and who sensationalizes, distorts and misstates the truth on a consistent basis.
http://www.factcheck.org/
http://www.politifact.com
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com
You can “dislike” it all you want, everybody, but it does raise an interesting point. Calling something “fake news,” especially a blanket proclamation of such without proof is foolhardy at best.
If the news is just something you don’t want to hear, that’s different, but just saying, “ABC/CNN/MSNBC/Fox News/CBS/NBC/Bloomberg/Reuters/etc. are fake news” without providing proof, you are just parroting a talking point from someone else.
Personally, I would want to know if I were being lied to on a daily basis…
There are some who like being lied to, Doug. They want to believe the world matches their view. And, are willing to consume whichever media is going to wizard that up for them. As well as be okay with all the lies coming out of the White House right now. I’ve never heard so many lies.
Back to the food, our former governor was trying to promote the pink slime. If I remember right, he was wearing a shirt that said “Dude, it’s beef.” It definitely comes from the same animal, but it’s not necessarily the cuts we all think we are eating. I’ll continue to chose my foods wisely. It certainly has excellent health benefits. My annual results have continued to improve year after year with a conscious diet.
Mr. Simpson, I emailed you, another person through the site another commenter told me was responsible, and the site’s contact form multiple times. A regular user here who who goes by Ricehacked the election (polar something, and other names) threatened to track me down through your website, and you did not respond. He also revealed info about my browser that could have been a guess or could have come through your site, but you did not respond to that either.
Will anything be done about this person? Does he work for your company? If so that is entirely inappropriate, and illegal. His threat was also a threat of an illegal act. Why is this allowed here?
Thank you.
Holy crap, if this is a serious post, then that is both hilarious and incredibly sad!
I can tell by reading the posts that the user is on the fringe, but if what you are insinuating is true (threatened to hack you?), then that goes above and beyond normal conspiracy-theory nutter stuff.
Going to screen-cap this thread for posterity. :P
Doug,
I have often wondered if the poster FactChecker is speaking about (Yogi for us old-schoolers out here) is either a contributor or advertiser on IJ. He seems to have some sort of inside influence. If that is indeed the case, that cannot be permitted to stand.
Certainly not, but with the level of professionalism in the printed Insurance Journal, and how well the site is maintained, I would certainly HOPE that would not be the case.
As I have mentioned before, I am aware that Insurance is a very right-leaning field. I consider myself a conservative, after all, but disagree with the hijacking of the movement over the last 15 years. They have basically drawn a line in the sand that says,
If you are with us, then you have to be:
-Anti-science
-Anti-birth control
-Pro slashing taxes on the rich
-Pro make it hard as hell for poor/minority/old people to live comfortably
-Pro Fascism (new wrinkle for current administration)
The loudest voices of modern-day “conservatism” are all-in on proto-fascism and disparage science, while uplifting things that have no logical or scientific merit.
If someone like this is running the show behind the scenes that lowers IJ’s credibility intensely.
The silence speaks volumes. They can delete threads left and right if they aren’t by Agent or SusanRice but they won’t reply to this.
Nobody working here is responsible for your angst. Your IJ conspiracy theory has no merit. If you think you have been harmed by someone, by all means contact the appropriate authorities.
Thanks for the completely unprofessional reply. I have no angst, you would think a person who writes articles would know the definition of that word, but I guess not based on the articles you edit from other sites. I also didn’t push a conspiracy theory, I wrote an exact scenario that happened. Your company policy is that you will remove posts that are ‘off topic’ unless it is Agent or SusanRice ranting about Soros, libtards, liberteralls, or any of the other insults they sling. Outright racism is tolerated (celebrated?). And you won’t remove posts threatening to track people down, or ban those people.
A user here threatened to track me down, they posted information that potentially could have come from your site, said what changes the site was going to make, and then almost immediately the changes were made. You need a consistent policy, or to stay away, and a person who can handle himself professionally needs to oversee it. That person is not you.
Thank you for replying to my original post, you confirmed my belief, and reinforced my decision to remove the admittedly small advertising my agency used to do through your company.
Doug, the forum has decided. By the way, Conservative opinion has also been deleted, but not at the rate of Progressive posts.
Hey Doug, I have news for you. The true Conservative does not talk like you or believe as you do so I can only conclude that you are a “Fake Conservative”. Actually, you are the Polar opposite which is another name for a Progressive Liberal. Nice try, though. You haven’t changed the heart and mind of anyone with that rant.