Considering the theory of the interlocking public, I am the poster child for the “involved public” when it comes to the food and dining section of any news chronicle. I’m not sure if it is my passion for food journalism, or just a plain fact that stories about food are just more interesting. Food is the one common thread that ties together every person on this planet; we all need it to survive.
In class we discussed the fact that a lot of news stories seem to leave out a certain group of people. Political news, for example, can be extremely intimidating and hard to follow for someone who suddenly decides to take up an interest in politics. It is typically for people that know the in’s and out’s of the government and can pick up any paper and know every Tom, Dick, and Harry that the article is describing. In my eyes however, whether or not you have a passion for food like myself there is something relatable about about every article dealing with food because every person encounters food. I’m not talking about articles that state the proper way to brine a turkey, I’m talking about the larger issues we face with food today.
It is not just these two previous weeks of journalism class that has brought out my love in food journalism. Food articles have typically always rung true to me. There isn’t any political jargon. The articles typically have a clear motive that is backed up by a variety of facts. Food journalists tend to add a personal touch which ads a strong and interesting voice to the piece.
Just like a cheating boyfriend who you catch trying to hide something from you and then denies it, there has to be a reason that the boyfriend was hiding something in the first place. I compare political news in this case to a cheating boyfriend. Why exactly is it so hard to put all the clues together in these articles for the average reader? It could just be that the government is incredibly intricate and setting up the story with background information all the time would be impossible. However, policies within the food system are also intricate and the authors seem to be upfront with their motives in the opening paragraphs of their articles. This is why food journalism has not only earned my undivided attention, but my trust as well.
I have chosen to compare a political article with a food article for this weeks journal. Because we face enormous issues with our food system, and with our politics as well, it is important for any reader to be able to pick up a magazine or newspaper and understand one article just as well as another. However, I don’t feel this is always the case.
POLITICO published an article called “Special House Elections a Moment of Truth for Dems.” The opening paragraph is,
“A Republican win in Nevada’s GOP-friendly 2nd Congressional District was all but guaranteed even before polls closed. But Democrats were increasingly panicked at the prospect of a loss in New York’s 9th District, a strongly Democratic seat that should have been an easy hold. Missteps there by Democratic candidate David Weprin and defections by Jewish voters unhappy with President Barack Obama forced the national party to spend heavily in the closing days to hold former Rep. Anthony Weiner’s seat.”
Whats a GOP-friendly 2nd Congressional District? Why would Democrats panic at the though of losing the 9th district seat? Why are the Jews unhappy with Obama? Some of this I can piece together, but not without a little trip to google to freshen up my memory and fill in the blanks. The entire article goes on like this. Jumping around between names I have never heard of, using terms and phrases unfamiliar to me, and never backing up any of these statements with some easily understandable background information.
I went to a hippie-esque private school in Woodstock, New York that prided themselves on teaching self-esteem. Maybe in doing so they skipped out on teaching some core parts of the government. Maybe it’s just me that is confused by this opening paragraph. However, I can’t help but think that if I am confused, someone else out there is. It is a turn off to read an article like this. As I said earlier, this style of writing makes me feel like there is something to hide and in turn loses my trust. Not only that, but its frustrating to read. I don’t like to feel stupid, and I’m sure as hell most people don’t. The problem arises when people stop putting themselves through the frustration of muddling through articles such as this, and just stop reading about politics altogether.
If you look at the opposing article I chose which is about rare forms of E.Coli in our nations meat which will now be banned, I did not run into any of the same problems I had with the article prior. The article’s paragraph states that any meat contaminated with the strains are being banned. It goes on to say that these strains are related to the E.Coli Americans are more familiar with and have seen contaminate a good amount of food in the past. It discusses what the other strain has done in the past in terms of sickening people. The article has quotes from the food safety board, a valid and well-known source. The article is incredibly thorough in talking about problems in the past with E.Coli, as well as the problems at hand. This background information clarifies any confusion one might have about the issue of E.Coli and the reasons for banning these new strains. It is the clarity of this article that makes its truthfulness and accuracy seem easily understandable. It makes it a more interesting read for the average person like myself.
It is certainly a phenomenon with political writing that it can be very insider-y. I share your frustration with that. What do you think the answer is? It gets to that point of the interlocking public doesn't. How do you engage all the people who do know what all that stuff means and not lose the people who don't. It's a tough balancing act. I wonder if with food writing, the assumption is people know nothing so they're better at explaining the background.
ReplyDelete