So, we noticed some changes in the offending Washington Post report and reached out to the Ombudsman again with some of our on going concerns. Here’s the latest:

November 27, 2012

Mr.Patrick Pexton

Ombudsman

Washington Post

Dear Mr. Pexton

We continue to watch the evolution of headlines associated with the article we initially brought to your attention under the heading: Eating fish is wise, but its good to know where your seafood comes from. On the reporters WashingtonPost.com page the title became: The pros (mostly) and cons of seafood. Now we see the syndicated version sporting headlines like: Benefits of eating fish outweigh health concerns.

The current headlines, while accurate, are almost a complete 180 degree turn from the articles original theme. The 1,100 word diatribe is replete with reasons for caution and concern but finally reveals in the end that the benefits of seafood outweigh the risks.

While the headlines are now more accurate, the fundamental problems found in the original piece remain. Failing to report on well-documented, substantive science with regard to consuming seafood because it conflicts with a narrative that over emphasizes the risks is a fundamental journalistic failure.

In reiterating the fact that the content of the article blatantly contradicts one the Post published more than seven months ago (Eat More Seafood; Risks Overstated), I again ask that you review the reporting and editorial oversight that accompanied this article.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

Gavin Gibbons

Director, Media Relations

National Fisheries Institute