Topic: Media Research Center
Dan Gainor headlined his April 2 MRC Business & Media Institute article, "ABC’s Avila Slimes Mother Whose Son Died from E Coli." And how did Avila purportedly "slime" this woman? By telling the truth.
Gainor has been been attacking ABC for reporting on the use of "pink slime" -- beef scraps treated with ammonia -- used as filler in meat products, while trying to put the best possible face on the use of this stuff. What has Gainor's panties in a bunch this time is that ABC reporter Jim Avila shifted his focus to Nancy Donley, founder of a group called STOP Foodborne Illness, whom Gainor depicts as "a mother whose 6-year-old son died from E coli." Donley's group hascome to the defense of BPI, the company that makes "pink slime."
What did Avila do that so offended Gainor? He pointed out that Donley's organization is funded in part by BPI. That's it.
Yet, Gainor insists on portaying Donley as the victim:
Donley said she is "very grateful" for the support from BPI and other companies.
"BPI has never asked for a single thing, ever. We will never be compromised in our position of protecting consumers from pathogens in the food supply. My goal is to put my organization out of business so there are no foodborne victims any more.
The funny thing is, Gainor engages in this same sort of "sliming" all the time. Gainor has repeatedly attacked certain news organizations for taking money from George Soros-linked groups (despite the fact that the money Gainor cites as being donated by Soros over a decade is much less than what one right-wing billionaire spends to keep one conservative newspaper in business for one year).
What's the difference between that -- for which Gainor established no quid pro quo -- and Donley's group being funded by a company she's now defending? None, really, except the apparent quid pro quo is much more obvious with Donley's group. Gainor's double standard couldn't be more blatant.
Gainor is just upset that facts were reported. Sad, isn't it?