Bunker Mulligan "Let us endeavor so to live that when we come to die even the undertaker will be sorry." ~Mark Twain

I’ve not yet looked at Hugh Hewitt’s new book, but intend to read it as soon as I can. But I heard something on NPR yesterday that brought the differences between blogs and MSM to light a bit more. Bill O’Reilly made a comment about the internet being a vehicle for destroying someone with a “simple click of the mouse”, in spite of seeing that happen in MSM with far greater regularity. And I cannot even think of a time where the internet destroyed anyone. Paris Hilton?

The NPR report highlighted the destruction of beef exports to Japan, and the hope that the Japanese ban would be lifted this week. It wasn’t. Because it wasn’t, at least one meat packer has had to lay off most of its employees. I have no idea how many others have already done so in the last year.

Before the ban, Japan was the biggest overseas buyer of U.S. beef, importing $1.7 billion of the meat in 2003, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

The ban began when a single cow was presumed to have Mad Cow Disease (Bovine spongiform encephalopathy). Japan and several other Asian countries cut off imports of beef from the US almost immediately. The fear was unfounded for many reasons:

BSE is spread only by the consumption of infected feed and is not transmitted from cow to cow.

So much for importing live animals. But what about the meat itself?

“One important thing to remember is that muscle cuts of meat have almost no risk,” Veneman said, emphasizing that the disease is typically spread by consumption of brain or nerve tissue, which did not enter the food system. “I know of no science to show that you can transmit BSE from muscle cuts of meat.”

Okay, so where is the link to Hugh’s book, and O’Reilly’s comments?

MSM did what they could to destroy the beef industry. Well, maybe not intentionally. But they built a story where there really wasn’t one. Yes, BSE being detected was something that needed to be covered. But the fact that it was immediately detected, and no other cases identitifed, should have been a signal that the safeguards in place worked. Instead, there was regular coverage of the potential epidemic, with little or no coverage of the science at work that makes the disease a non-factor for humans. Where was the coverage that explained why? Are MSM in business to provide information or simply build and destroy reputations–those of others and themselves?

We often talk about how MSM cover politics, but the recent tsunami coverage and this BSE issue show that their worldview is certainly far different than the one most of us have. They are quick to say Bush caused a turndown in the economy, but will they ever look into a mirror and ask themselves about personal culpability?