37 Million Americans in Hunger and the MSM Doesn't Effing Care

I had the opportunity as a blogger yesterday to sit in  on a conference call by John Edwards about his plan to address hunger and food insecurity in America, which just last week was reported to have affected 37 million Americans including 13 million children.  John Edwards conducted the conference call himself, not some one from the Edwards campaign mind you, an indication of the priority the candidate puts on this issue.

I found the six point program, which was ably laid out by TomP yesterday, forward thinking and impressive.  And I'll get to my take on the plan in a bit, but what most struck me was the absolute and total apathy by the soul dead wretches in the media.  Given an opportunity to ask questions about a serious plan to address pain and suffering of 37 million Americans, they had not one question about it.

They had questions, of course, but entirely and completely about the horse race.  Not one of the overpaid corporate stenographers could even muster the concern about their fellow Americans to feign interest in hunger or poverty.  They didn't even care about costs.  They couldn't manage the skepticism, or perhaps knowledge, to query the candidate about the plan's effectiveness.

I am a political junkie of the first order, but it's because I care what the actual results will be for my country and the world.  These guys and gals are clock punching corporate climbers covering a diverting little sports event.

And, of course, it is a bleeding shame, because the problem is real for far too many American's especially at a time of rising food and energy prices and stagnant wages, and because Edwards's proposals were damn good ones IMO.

I was struck by the emphasis Edwards put on the Farm Bill, which is absolutely correct since it's a huge bill the greatly affect the price every American pays for food.  Specifically, he emphasized the need to increase the nutrition portion of the bill:

 
The nutrition programs in the Farm Bill are critical to increasing food security in America.  Just two programs - food stamps and the Emergency Food Assistance Program for food banks - help about 25 million Americans a year each.  Unfortunately, federal funding has not kept pace with growing need and rising costs.  Last week, Senate Republicans used a filibuster to block the farm bill, sending Congress home for Thanksgiving without helping overtaxed food banks or hungry families.  Edwards believes that Congress should quickly pass a strong and fair farm bill with robust funding for federal nutrition programs and President Bush should sign it.  [ASH, 2007]

The last program last part of the Edwards program particularly interested me as some one who's worked with the Community Reinvestment Act.  Edwards proposes a public private partnership to map access to grocery stores and food banks in the country and set up programs to help under served areas.  This is one of the more innovative ideas I've seen given the inequities of nutrition access in poor and rural areas and the tremendous effect that can have on nutrition and the cost of food.

Wealthy neighborhoods have over three times as many supermarkets as non-wealthy neighborhoods.  Small corner stores are usually more expensive and offer less nutritious food.  Food-insecure families in rural areas often face high transportation costs to reach the nearest food pantries.  As president, Edwards will launch a public-private partnership to bring fresh, nutritious food to new neighborhoods.  He will create a national food access map that identifies neighborhoods lacking grocery stores, emergency food banks and regular access to fresh produce.  His new Healthy Neighborhoods Seed Fund will offer needy communities challenge grants for projects including full-service supermarkets, community gardens and food stamp-friendly farmers' markets. [PolicyLink, 2005]

A quick perusal of the New York Times and the Washington Post on-line today confirmed their utter lack of interest in the issue.  So, rants aside, the best way to counter the MSM on this one, whomever you support for President, may be just to click through here and Donate or Volunteer for Second Harvest, or charity of your choice.

Update: Cross Posted at Boston for Edwards



Display:


Reporters don't care (2.00 / 2)

Journalists used to be activists.
They would see things that appeared wrong and they would bring information to the light.  
Or they would see some good not being noticed and would bring it to our attention.  
They would risk much to bring truth as they discerned it to us to inform the population.

War correspondents would go to dangerous areas to report what actually was happening on the ground.  
They didn't trust the generals.  And they were right not to trust them.

Journalists were taught to ask the penetrating questions.
Now journalists read scripts or write entertainment pieces about politics and issues.  
They  don't explore the uncomfortable for society because they are looking for access to those who are comfortable.  
They have been assimilated by the DC culture.

Poverty as an issue doesn't exist because it is not where they are.  And they don't go seeking it.  
They will report the obligatory visit to food banks but they no longer report the shameful conditions that created the need for them.  

I don't know how the reporters are trained but they seem to look for the gotcha and sensationalism.  
I also think that the population doesn't know what they should pay attention to so many stop watching or reading.  

Your experience that not one reporter asked a question is really amazing.  
What is more amazing to me is that even bloggers don't know how to deal with this issue.  
Many are blogging because so many stories have been ignored by the msm.  
However there is such a need to reinform our population about what is important.

It is for these reasons that I support Edwards.  He pays attention to the important stuff.


I am an Edwards Democrat. Visit EENR blog for Progressives
by pioneer111 on Thu Nov 22, 2007 at 02:26:37 PM EST

Re: 37 Million Americans in Hunger (2.00 / 1)

What you are really complaining about is the media doing its due diligence to report the news while being a little cautious about being used as a publicity wing of a certain candidate's campaign.  Edwards timing of the call clearly was to try to tie our annual interest in the hunger & homeless problem, which unfortunately often only appears at Thanksgiving, to the Edwards campaign.  If they resisted being blatantly used that way good for them.  A quick perusal of the NYT, at least, reveals that there were many articles in the last few days related to hunger as an increasing problem locally, nationally, and internationally. And you certainly can't fairly say the MSM ignores the issue of hunger in their news stories throughout the year.  


by Piuma on Thu Nov 22, 2007 at 03:13:25 PM EST

Exactly. (1.33 / 3)

The diarist isn't concerned with the medias lack of coverage of hunger--the diarist is concerned with the medias lack of coverage of John Edwards.


by Mystylplx on Thu Nov 22, 2007 at 04:03:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Free Rice (none / 0)

I don't know about that, but I sure would have liked to see more interest in this diary.

http://www.mydd.com/story/2007/11/22/201 96/579


Dare to be free.
by misscee on Sat Nov 24, 2007 at 11:38:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 37 Million Americans in Hunger (1.00 / 1)

One would think they would at least be interested in asking skeptical questions about how his policies would work.  Or cost.  If they were doing due diligence they would have asked a stinkin' question.  They were only interested in the timing of primaries and the he said/she said stuff.


by MassEyesandEars on Thu Nov 22, 2007 at 04:05:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I am certainly not an Edwards fan.... (2.00 / 1)

but you do make a good point.  Even if Edwards was politicizing the timing of the issue,  the media was irresponsible, imo, for not covering a  plan that would benefit the most needy Americans among us.  

Horse race issues are always exciting,  but I agree that it would be nice for once to actually see stories about solutions to America's problems in print.  


Hillary/Obama 2008
by Sandy1938 on Thu Nov 22, 2007 at 07:51:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 37 Million Americans in Hunger (none / 0)

That's TR abuse. You're not supposed to troll rate a post just because you don't like what it says.


by Mystylplx on Fri Nov 23, 2007 at 12:08:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 37 Million Americans in Hunger (none / 0)

And BTW, your comment just proves my point--this is all about the medias lack of coverage of John Edwards, not about hunger at all.

And you probably have a point in that respect, it just seems awfully distasteful for you to pretend it's about hunger when what it's really about is John Edwards.

If you want to put up a diary about how the media doesn't cover Edwards as well as Obama or Hillary then that would be one thing--I might even REC it--but it's crass to use the issue of hunger in such a cynical way.


by Mystylplx on Fri Nov 23, 2007 at 12:51:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I think you're not getting his point (none / 0)

The journalists on that conference call couldn't think of a single question to ask him based on the policy to deal with hunger. He talked about a range of issues, including the Farm Bill, and they didn't even want to ask about the policy.

They don't have to publish a piece on Edwards' hunger policy right before Thanksgiving if they object to the timing. They could do some research and write about it later.

However, as AJ has shown, they didn't even want to spend 30 seconds questioning him about this policy. At least some of the campaign coverage should be about substantive issues.


John McCain: 100 years in Iraq "would be fine with me."
by desmoinesdem on Fri Nov 23, 2007 at 01:14:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I think you're not getting his point (2.00 / 1)

It's always possible I might be missing someones point, but everything you just said still points to the fact that this diary is about a lack of coverage of John Edwards policy and not a general lack of coverage of hunger in America.

Maybe the journalists on the conference call were so wrapped up in what they were going to publish in the next issue they weren't thinking ahead?

It sure seems hard to justify the outrage in this diary simply for that reason. But if you add in the fact that they didn't do the story on Edwards hunger proposal just before thanksgiving, THEN it makes sense.

Which makes more sense--that he's angry that they didn't ask the questions he wanted them to ask whether or not they were going to do a story on it? Or that he's angry that they didn't ask the questions he wanted them to ask because it meant they weren't going to do a story on it?


by Mystylplx on Fri Nov 23, 2007 at 01:35:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I think you're not getting his point (2.00 / 1)

That last paragraph would read more clear rendered--

Which makes more sense--that he's angry that they didn't ask the questions he wanted them to ask whether or not they were going to do a story on it? Or that he's angry that they didn't ask the questions he wanted them to ask because it meant they weren't going to do a story on it?

It's NOT just that they didn't ask any questions--it's that the fact they didn't ask any questions means there wasn't going to be a nice pre-thanksgiving story for the Edwards campaign.


by Mystylplx on Fri Nov 23, 2007 at 01:47:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: 37 Million Americans in Hunger (none / 0)

Edwards timing of the call clearly was to try to tie our annual interest in the hunger & homeless problem, which unfortunately often only appears at Thanksgiving, to the Edwards campaign.

Well, that seems reasonable to me. That's pretty much the definition of a campaign.  You want to do X as president, so you need to let people know that you want do X, so it's not a bad idea to pick a time that people are focusing on X to tell them your specific plans having to do with X.

And there's nothing wrong with expecting that campaign reporters would report about what candidates are campaigning about. It's hardly incautious journalism to report to the public that Candidate Y has ideas Z about Important Issue X, at a time when the public might actually be a little more inclined to be thinking about Important Issue X.

Not only is it not incautious, it's arguably a good thing for journalists to do that.


Keep it short. DemocraticShortList.com
by Rob in Vermont on Fri Nov 23, 2007 at 04:36:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

whad da ya mean? (none / 0)

All that is important IS being reported on... shopping. Isn't that the bestest thang ever?!

;)


Washington Woman
theocracywatch.org
EENR Blog
by kevin22262 on Fri Nov 23, 2007 at 03:53:07 PM EST

Re: 37 Million Americans (none / 0)

That's probably because they don't believe he really cares about hunger, that he is just using it as a campaign issue- and they aren't going allow themselves to be used by him to pretend like he does.


NY TIMES ENDORSEMENT: "Mrs. Clinton is more qualified, right now, to be president.... She would be a strong commander in chief."
by reasonwarrior on Fri Nov 23, 2007 at 09:42:56 PM EST

Re: 37 Million Americans (2.00 / 1)

Yup. The journalists are the good guys here. A presidential candidate in the Democratic Party is the bad guy because he is trying to make hunger in America a campaign issue.

Do ya even realize how much you sound like someone belching on freerepublic?


Keep it short. DemocraticShortList.com
by Rob in Vermont on Fri Nov 23, 2007 at 10:38:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I went to a Biden house party tonight (none / 0)

He took questions for a long time, and pretty much every question was more direct and more substantive than what we've heard from Blitzer or Russert or Matthews in any debate.

In fact, taken as a whole, the questions asked at this one house party in one corner of the Des Moines suburbs were better than the questions asked in any debate so far this year except for the AARP forum moderated by Judy Woodruff.

It's a fact. Journalists covering the campaign beat rarely ask a decent question about a real issue.


John McCain: 100 years in Iraq "would be fine with me."
by desmoinesdem on Fri Nov 23, 2007 at 10:50:29 PM EST

Re: 37 Million Americans in Hunger and the MSM Doe (none / 0)

Here's the link to an article in today's New York Times about Seniors in Maine barely getting by:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/24/us/24m aine.html?ref=us


by Piuma on Sat Nov 24, 2007 at 02:27:58 AM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.