We will try not to get too much into the weeds on the issue of genetically modified organisms (GMO’s) or on the merits of Mansanto’s business practices or legal claims even though they were part of the focus of a protest held yesterday in downtown Davenport. And suffice it to say we tend to sympathize with defenders of Monsanto’s practical science. Unlike the protestors we do not feel farmers are stupid and we believe that they are notoriously wary and in a position to figure out the business and the science end of GMO’s. Issues regarding labeling we will study some more, although we suspect the usefulness is overwrought. Nothing stops non-GMO producers from labeling and marketing their products as not containing GMO content.
Our purpose here is to point out another instance of local media malpractice. The Argus – Dispatch (A-D) article regarding the protest is our focus. Our objection is aimed at the editing and the reporting because the reporter apparently was not even required to inform readers anything about the accused (Monsanto’s) side of the story, or those policy makers and scientists who do not share the protestors’ views. And certainly took no initiative to do so.
Local protests are newsworthy and it is not improper that the protestors get most of the play when it can be assumed that the readership is well aware of the arguments of the entity being protested against. This is not such a case. Indeed, something is way out of kilter when The Huffington Post has more objective reporting on the controversy regarding the so called “Monsanto Protection Act,” a prime rhetorical focus of the protestors, than the A-D has given its readers in their story about the protests.
Compared to more recent analysis of the A-D, this time our critique is not so much about the headline writer or the bias of the wire 
service used. The article in question was not a brief metro news item reporting the fact of a protest. In fact it is the top story of the front page of a Sunday section(C). The A-D has no one to blame for its dereliction. It is their story in its entirety. Negligence or bias is obvious.
We have bracketed at right the amount of space provided to Monsanto for its side of the story as it appeared in the print edition. The full story runs 488 words. The entire Monsanto’s defense is allowed the following thirteen words: “Monsanto’s website says there have been no harmful side effects associated with GMOs” That is it. Thirteen words. You are accused of poisoning the food stuffs of the world and predatory business practices and that is the space allowed for your rebuttal.
The space allotment for the Monsanto defense is followed by the devastating statement by an organizer of the protest: “I don’t know where they’re coming up with that. ” She and the reporter and editors of the A-D apparently have not heard of an opposing view.
We understand that genuine conservatives can also be concerned about GMO’s in general and caution is entirely in order. But when it comes to plant seeds and farmer’s informed choices, alarms from leftists who have never found a money making enterprise they appreciated other than abortion clinics, and never marched against human genetic engineering and cloning, well they deserve to be met with some healthy skepticism about the depth of their sincerity.
Forgive us our opinion of too many of such leftist protestors that they are more inclined, at root, to be misanthropes in spite of their protestations, and knee jerk business haters, rather than having rational concerns about feeding mankind. Strangely some of the same people seem rather nonchalant about supporting mandatory ethanol usage regardless of the resultant amount of cropland devoted to produce it.
The Quad City Times reported on the protest as well,. Somehow they received a prepared statement from Monsanto in response to the protest that was not not available to the A-D?? The Monsanto statement was drawn from in the QCT article. The Monsanto response the QCT used related to their insistence that that they are concerned with the environment and feeding a growing world population. Any response from Monsanto to other criticisms of the protestors were not provided.
The particulars regarding the so called “Mansanto Protection Act” were not addressed in either local article, but were in the HuffPo article. Reading HuffPo, one sees there is not much, so to speak, “there there” — that it is a pumped up controversy susceptible to the “Monsanto Protection Act” rhetorical demagoguery of their detractors. We suspect that the “protection” is more about stopping meritless lawsuits. We presume that common sense legal liabilities and consumer regulatory protections still remain regarding farmers using Monsanto products. We doubt that the tears being shed by the protestors really related to farmers being somehow victimized.
We suspect that the protestors have a view of agriculture that revolves around a sentiment dangerous to human well-being that weeds and food crops are not in competition for the same ground . . . and that bugs and man are not in competition to eat them. We think the protestors should maybe demonstrate their sincerity with a hoe in hand and walk the beans eight hours a day for those victimized farmers.
I have a good buddy who works on the farm and they think Monsanto is the devil. They claim they genetically put pesticides into the seeds. Which make crops grow bigger but in return means you are eating crap. So I side with the locals.
The thing about Monsanto that has always intrigued me is how much the “pro science” Democrat Party who believes in Global Warming have been so anti-science when it comes to Monsanto and GMO.
Oh well the “Monsanto Protection Act” is Obama’s baby now. His base of idiots can blame him.