Its no secret that these days that news organizations, especially on line operations, are hungry for content and inexpensive ways to develop it. MSNBC.com appears to be harnessing the power of the ever under-paid and often under-prepared student journalist to bulk up its offerings.

And while ripe with learning opportunities and great potential exposure, in this case MSNBC.com has done a huge disservice to one set of novice reporters by failing to check their work carefully. They cubs who wrote Tainted seafood reaching American tables, experts say missed huge swaths of available data and were essentially duped by anti-competition groups that want to regulate imported seafood out of the market .

The fake food safety scare that has been created by special interests groups opposed to imported seafood is well known to responsible, seasoned journalists. Encouraging cubs to dig into its origins would be an appropriate direction but allowing them to be manipulated through absentee editorial direction is a disappointment of the highest order.

Shame on MSNBC.com

October 5, 2011

Jennifer Sizemore,

Editor in Chief MSNBC.com

VIA Email

Dear Ms. Sizemore,

I am writing to express concern that the content you published today on MSNBC.com in partnership with News21 is not up to the editorial standards of MSNBC.com or NBC News. We ask that you immediately remove the report while you conduct an internal review.

Specifically, I am referring to errors of omission and selective research or sourcing that presents not only a sensationalized report but one that is ultimately inaccurate. The report runs under the headline Tainted seafood reaching American tables, experts say.

In paragraph eight the reporter states that seafood is especially risky because of the sheer volume that is imported compared to other goods. This is quite simply not true. A new, independent report from the Emerging Pathogens Institute at the University of Florida titled Ranking the Risks: The 10 Pathogen-Food Combinations with the Greatest Burden on Public Health shows seafood, imported or not, has a public health impact (created by pathogens) that is far less than poultry, complex foods, pork, produce, beef, deli/other meats and dairy products. Writing that seafood is especially risky in a report about food safety is an exaggeration and is inaccurate.

Further example of the hyperbole in this report can be found in the very next paragraph where the reporter, in writing about the risks associated with imported seafood, notes an example of such risk can be found in a 2007 case where 10 consumers were sickened.

MSNBC.com has devoted 1,300 words to a risk that is illustrated by 10 cases of illness four years ago. More than a dozen people died from eating cantaloupe in the last four weeks, and MSNBC.com devotes 1,300 words to a story that illustrates a risk with 10 illnesses four years ago?

In paragraph 10, the writer reports on the FDAs regulatory system that relies on preventative controls rather than testing a large volume of the imported product. Nowhere is it reported that this system, the Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP) system, is the very same system used to regulate domestic seafood. Throughout the piece the regulatory controls on imported seafood are targeted as inadequate, but it goes unmentioned that those are the very same controls used for domestic seafood.

In perhaps the most concerning omission the writer reports, beginning in paragraph 20, on the Alabama Department of Agriculture and Industries testing 258 samples of imported fish. The reporter simply leaves out the fact that the USDA tested 733 samples of both imported and domestic fish, 10 came back positive: five domestic and five imported. All were at levels below regulatory concern. (Page 10439: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/OPPDE/rdad/FRPubs/2008-0031.pdf) When you look at the thorough, balanced and independent USDA data a very different picture emerges.

Whats more, in paragraph 27 the writer describes domestic lobbying efforts to get FDA regulation replaced with USDA regulation of domestic catfish. Again, nowhere is it clearly examined that this is an anti-competition move designed to exclude imports from the market. It goes unreported that a shift to USDA regulation would immediately halt imports. This is not an inside baseball, regulatory play that a cub reporter could miss. In fact, the Wall Street Journal has very publically offered its opinion on the issue, four times (see attached.)

We would be glad to play a role in any internal review you conduct. We look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

Gavin Gibbons

National Fisheries Institute

cc: Charles Tillinghast

President MSNBC.com

Jody Brannon

National Director News21

Kristin Gilger

Associate Dean, Walter Cronkite School of Journalism