MSNBC.com’s recent article, “Tainted seafood reaching American tables, experts say,” has ruffled a few feathers at the National Fisheries Institute.
In a letter to the news site, NFI’s Gavin Gibbons calls for the article to be removed while an internal review is conducted.
“Specifically, I am referring to errors of omission and selective research or sourcing that presents not only a sensationalized report but one that is ultimately inaccurate,” said Gibbons.
Gibbons also calls out the story for hyperbole and inaccuracies.
“MSNBC.com has devoted 1,300 words to a risk that is illustrated by 10 cases of illness four years ago. More than a dozen people died from eating cantaloupe in the last four weeks, and MSNBC.com devotes 1,300 words to a story that illustrates a risk with 10 illnesses four years ago?”
The article claims that only 2 percent of U.S. fish imports are inspected, and many foreign nations have lower standards than the United States. But the article fails to mention that the same percentage of domestic fish are inspected, said Gibbons. He also mentioned the article’s use of a study conducted by the Alabama Department of Agriculture and Industries’ that tested 258 samples of imported fish. Gibbons said that the article leaves out the fact that the U.S. Department of Agriculture tested 733 samples of both imported and domestic fish, and 10 came back positive.
“All were at ‘levels below regulatory concern,’” said Gibbons. “When you look at the thorough, balanced and independent USDA data, a very different picture emerges. It’s no secret that these days that news organizations, especially online operations, are hungry for content and inexpensive ways to develop it. In this case, MSNBC.com has done a huge disservice to one set of novice reports by failing to check their work carefully. The fake food-safety scare that has been created by special interests groups opposed to imported seafood is well known to responsible, seasoned journalists. Encouraging cubs to dig into its origins would be an appropriate direction but allowing them to be manipulated through absentee editorial direction is a disappointment of the highest order.”
