Penny Foolish
Published: November 29, 2007
I came upon this editorial in the NYT. I think Schlosser is a great example of an editorial writer who values informing the public about human rights issues. Is this a bias? Absolutely, as he obviously sides with the idea that Florida's migrant farm laborers deserve better treatment and pay. However, he does a good job of including facts to support his convictions. He also attributes his quotes well, and he does a great job of persuading the public that this is an issue worth caring about.
Finally, and most importantly, this is an editorial, and the reader is expecting to hear a public opinion about a public issue.
His most eye-opening assertion, in my opinion:
"The prominent role that Burger King has played in rescinding the pay raise offers a spectacle of yuletide greed worthy of Charles Dickens. Burger King has justified its behavior by claiming that it has no control over the labor practices of its suppliers. “Florida growers have a right to run their businesses how they see fit,” a Burger King spokesman told The St. Petersburg Times.
Yet the company has adopted a far more activist approach when the issue is the well-being of livestock. In March, Burger King announced strict new rules on how its meatpacking suppliers should treat chickens and hogs. As for human rights abuses, Burger King has suggested that if the poor farm workers of southern Florida need more money, they should apply for jobs at its restaurants."
One of the last opportunities to comment...what do you think about his objectivity in relation to the article? Do you think that he does a good job in giving citizens "truth?"
I came upon this editorial in the NYT. I think Schlosser is a great example of an editorial writer who values informing the public about human rights issues. Is this a bias? Absolutely, as he obviously sides with the idea that Florida's migrant farm laborers deserve better treatment and pay. However, he does a good job of including facts to support his convictions. He also attributes his quotes well, and he does a great job of persuading the public that this is an issue worth caring about.
Finally, and most importantly, this is an editorial, and the reader is expecting to hear a public opinion about a public issue.
His most eye-opening assertion, in my opinion:
"The prominent role that Burger King has played in rescinding the pay raise offers a spectacle of yuletide greed worthy of Charles Dickens. Burger King has justified its behavior by claiming that it has no control over the labor practices of its suppliers. “Florida growers have a right to run their businesses how they see fit,” a Burger King spokesman told The St. Petersburg Times.
Yet the company has adopted a far more activist approach when the issue is the well-being of livestock. In March, Burger King announced strict new rules on how its meatpacking suppliers should treat chickens and hogs. As for human rights abuses, Burger King has suggested that if the poor farm workers of southern Florida need more money, they should apply for jobs at its restaurants."
One of the last opportunities to comment...what do you think about his objectivity in relation to the article? Do you think that he does a good job in giving citizens "truth?"
4 comments:
Lookin' good....stop putting my blog to shame.
You're killing us with your "doing what you're supposed to."
I really enjoy reading your analysis of the news (I wrote this on Joe's blog too) because both of you manage to find articles that are more interesting than mine, and because I think you dissect them so impressively.
That said, I agree. I totally slid on commenting mid-quarter. Way to keep me on my toes, woman!
The quotes in the article are really good. I especially liked the one where Burger King said that if the migrant laborers needed more money they should just start working for Burger King. Even though the piece was biased, I really liked it.
Post a Comment