[image from abc. For those new to the Ethiopia coffee trademark issue, start here]

Some of you’ve asked what I mean when I say “The mainstream media sucks, and doesn’t actually do any careful analysis of these issues.”

I mean, at least some of these outlets’re quoting Oxfam and giving voice to some Ethiopian farmers. Some of them even seem to concur with Oxfam’s viewpoint.

Well, I’ll explain. The problem: The mainstream media will offer a viewpoint from 1 side, then a viewpoint from the other — then without any analysis as to which side may actually be making a sound argument and which side might be bullshitting, the coverage will just end.

You’ve seen this problem often with global warming stories. We get a quote from a respectable scientist — representing the viewpoint of the vast majority of credible scientists — saying human activity’s at least in part responsible for climate change. Then we get a quote from a “scientist” — usually one of just a few voices paid for by Big Oil — saying global warming’s a crock. The story never mentions who might be the more reliable source or who might be making the more credible argument.

This is what’s happening with the Ethiopia trademark issue coverage. We get a quote from Oxfam saying Ethiopia should be able to trademark cuz it’ll bring the country much-needed funds. Then we get a quote from Starbucks saying trademarking will only further impoverish farmers. End of coverage.

Saying that one side argues this and the other side argues that does not constitute adequate coverage of an issue — especially one that’s supposed to have a lotta money at stake for Ethiopian farmers. I wanna know who’s making a credible argument, who’s bullshitting, and who’s just looking out for their own self-interest.

Lemme give you some examples. I’m not even gonna use examples from silly sources, like any of the US TV networks. I’m just gonna talk ’bout the more respectable ones, like the BBC.

The BBC article intros with a “Oxfam sez this, Starbucks sez that.” Then the 2nd section, “Backwards Step,” goes a lil deeper into Oxfam’s viewpoint, with a quote from Berhanu Kebede, Ethiopia’s ambassador to the UK. The 3rd section, “Reduce demand,” explains Starbucks’ side. End of story.

Now, I take you to the Guardian UK. The vast majority of the article’s about Oxfam’s side, quoting Oxfam peeps, Fitsum Hailu from the US Ethiopian embassy, and Tadesse Meskela, head of an Ethiopian coffee co-op (and star of Black Gold), who’re all not happy with Starbucks. There’s a lil blurb from Starbucks, which argues it cares deeply about Ethiopian coffee farmers, paying an average of $1.23 an lb last year. Again, no analysis of whose arguments are more valid — and no clarification of the fact that Starbucks often knowingly buys through middlemen, who siphon a chunk off the $1.23 dealio.

Now check out NPR. Granted, it’s radio, which often doesn’t allow for much analysis time. Still, NPR’s smarter in some ways — at least from an attention-getting standpoint, cuz after covering Oxfam’s side, it quotes a very different type of person — Dean Cycon of the 100% fair trade Dean’s Beans — to agree with Starbucks’ viewpoint. [Update, 5/2/07: Dean's changed his mind now, and has signed the Ethiopia trademark agreement.]

Dean left for a trip to Ethiopia before I had a chance to talk with him, but on the NPR piece, his main beef with the trademarking deal seems to be that the Ethiopian govt isn’t required to directly give the money it might make via the trademark deal to coffee farmers themselves.

But instead of analyzing this complex debate, NPR simply sez that Dean doesn’t think govts should own trademarks (despite the fact that Dean goes on to say that he’d advise for a trademark if the money went to farmers) and that he suggests appelations. Then the piece ends.

My next post: A list of Qs I wish the MSM could help me answer, which I’ll try to get some answers to myself.

Update, 11/21/06: The questions I have about this Ethiopia / Starbucks issue, stated.