McDonald's accused of 'acting like th Taliban' (Fast Food Nation related)

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

The author of the best-selling expose Fast Food Nation has accused McDonald's of behaving "like the Taliban" in its pre-emptive efforts to discredit his new book and a film on the subject.

Internal McDonald's documents reportedly show that the company is shifting into "crisis management" mode in advance of Chew On This, a young people's version of Eric Schlosser's book along with a forthcoming film adaptation of Fast Food Nation. The plans speak of mobilising a "truth squad" to attack both works, and of initiatives to "discredit the message and the messenger".

Plans sent to McDonald's franchisees, originally obtained by the Wall Street Journal, seek to reassure restaurant managers that "a lot of work is going on behind the scenes ... from a crisis management standpoint" - part of a "full-scale media campaign" to tell "the real story" about the world's largest restaurant chain.

"The book is not out yet, and they clearly haven't read it," Schlosser told the Guardian. "And they have not seen this film. And yet their instinctive reaction is to attack. You know what they did to the McLibel duo." He was referring to McDonald's seven-year court battle with two London-based environmental activists, which was a major public relations embarrassment for the firm.

More: http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,,1754350,00.html

[pinto]

1. A little hyperbolic. When armed thugs make me eat McFood, I'll agree.

I see his point about their media campaign, though.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

2. Don't laugh, I was kidnapped from Costco's parking lot by armed Walmart

greeters earlier today and was forced to buy a Jar of "Great Value" Peanut Butter.

I had to walk back to my car in the Costco parking lot.

It was a terrifying experience.

:evilgrin:

[Psephos]

5. LOL n/t

[pinto]

9. LOL.

[subterranean]

3. I would say they're acting more like the Bush administration

than the Taliban.

[Psephos]

4. Let me know when they start blowing up statues and shooting women

I'm getting a little tired of the Satanization of everything identifiably American, especially by people who stand to make a buck from doing it.

Pretty soon the tofu police are going to be legislating our menus. I haven't been in a Mickey D's in years, but they wouldn't be selling what they sell if people didn't want it. I have a great idea: if someone doesn't like McDonald's food (like me) then they shouldn't buy it.

Peace.

[Tom Yossarian Joad]

6. Do you feel the same way about tobacco?

[Psephos]

10. That's a good question

I used to be quite libertarian about control of substances we put into our bodies. Now, after experiencing the utter destruction of one of my friends by crack, and the near destruction of another, I've changed my view about cocaine and other substances that short-circuit the brain's pleasure mechanisms.

For alcoholics, alcohol is like a slow-motion version of crack, and tobacco has many of the same long-term destructive effects for its addicts, although through its effects on health, not behavior.

Now we can go a level lower, and say that sugar and highly-processed carbs also create a stimulus-response feedback loop, and are a major cause of health deterioration in their addicts.

In other words, there's no end to this. Driving is remarkably dangerous. Not exercising regularly creates major health issues.

As progressives, we want to see a better world, where human misery is abated, and justice is more even. Where we run into problems is when we think we know what's better for someone else than they do. Where we create chimeras is when we enforce our worldview through legislation. One size does not fit all, and human behavior is intensely complex - the law of unintended consequences has brought ruin often when we thought we were doing good.

To finally answer your question about tobacco: each person should choose for him/her self. If someone chooses to smoke, they should have good access to the evidence of what smoking will do to them, and then the government should butt out. The rest of us (nonsmokers) should not have to subsidize the increased health costs of smokers, but don't forget, when you look at the actuarial tables, smokers contribute a lot to Social Security but then don't stick around to collect.

Government should get out of the business of subsidizing tobacco growers. The states showed what kind of principles they have after extorting billions from tobacco companies on the grounds of health torts, and then using the money for everything except health care. I would like to see that money redirected to its original purpose.

Peace.

[Terran1212]

8. What if it's addictive or culturally encouraged?

Shouldn't someone speak out against things that kill people, that people consume because they are addicted or depraved or being manipulated for?

I'm not asking for a Government approval of all food purchases or anything, but I think there stands reasonable arguments that people need to speak out against things that hurt people, because the companies that create these lethal products (in an economically unjust system) are already speaking much louder than we are.

[Psephos]

11. Yes, they should speak out. That's totally cool. What isn't cool is...

...painting everything in such Manichean terms. McDonald's = Taliban? Ok, so then what kind of language should we use when we run into actual Taliban behavior, such as beheading gay people or shooting people in soccer stadiums?

We now live in an age where it's acceptable to call everything you disagree with Satanic, or psychotic, or pure evil. This author knows that he will sell more books by painting McDonald's as Beelzebub, Inc. If that isn't hypocrisy, then I am Marie of Romania.

Remember, I don't even *like* McDonald's.

Peace.

[Terran1212]

12. I think it's just hyperbole; if you've read his books, you know he's very

He's very very reasonable.

[anitar1]

13. Yes, You are asking for regulation of any substance. You

are eager to speak "out" against anything you do not like or approve of. I can see it in your post. Start looking toward your own addictions and butt out of other peoples foibles.

[nerddem]

14. no offense, but if you actually read and thought about what he said

on edit: i just realized i was talking about someone else, the guy that mr. regulation is attacking.

he in fact doesn't want to automatically demonize all things non-far-left wing. he specifically suggested that if there were something a large group of people thought was dangerous, then they should be activists against it, but not rush to blindly demonize or seek the government's help in babysitting the population.

in a way, he has looked at his own addictions. when he said he took a libertarian position on drugs, it took people he knew and reflection to back away from such a hardline position.

and i like the vonnegut-ish "peace" at the end of his posts ;)

[Terran1212]

7. I read Fast Food Nation -- the Fast Food Industry is horrible.

The book mostly deals with the economics of the industry, not the lethal effects of the food. The companies are endlessly greedy -- Corporate America in overdrive.

I think a combination of Fast Food Nation and a viewing of Supersize Me should sum up the fast food industry. You might call it "left biased," but we live our lives in America already knowing the other side. This is the response, and I think it's right.