Made in China: If it doesn’t bleed it doesn’t read…
As a newcomer to writing columns and articles for public reading, I rely on major websites to help guide my articles for better conviction. After doing a little homework on CNN.com and Slate.com, I came across an article titled “5 tips for smarter holiday shopping: Experts offer secrets to scoring special sale items, buying safe products and making money while you shop” dated 10/10/2007 on CNNMoney.com’s front page. I immediately thought to myself, “Great, maybe the experts can help me with the article I wrote for our customer’s about holiday shopping tips.” So, I read on hoping that CNN.com, my primary source of news and current events, would support my own experiences in shopping for the holidays. Instead, I found that the accountability of a major news syndicate is no match for ugly side of business. (article)
Any news articles, blog postings, or printed information at face value does not always providing the reader with the most accurate information. It is truly up to the reader to make decisions on whether the writer has presented a balanced argument on a particular topic. I truly feel that the syndicated news on CNN.com did not provide their readers with a balanced report on the manufacturing quality of Made in China products. It saddens me as an Asian-American to read such biased articles against Made in China products because it affects me on both fronts. I am proud of my Asian background and heritage, but I was born and raised in Southern California and my entire educational background was based in and around the Los Angeles area. You can see my dilemma.
Shopping Smarter and “Safer”
This particular CNNMoney.com article intends to offer its readers “shopping tips” on ways they can shop smarter and shop “safer” for the upcoming holiday season. The author cited two “experts” including a retail analyst who is also the chairman of America’s Research Group and a consumer advocate who is also an editor of Consumer World.
The article goes on to give great tips on shopping. The author advises to team up with friends to find the best deals in the store, to try and use expired coupons to see if store would honor them, to find buyer rewards programs for additional saving, and to wait until the very last moment to purchase a flat-panel TV. However, the one cautionary shopping tip was suggesting readers to “Buy ’safer’ toys.”
Wait a minute, why is buying ‘safer’ such a concern in 2007? Oh yeah, the quality of Made in China products scare we had earlier. I get it.
Many questions popped into my mind: Is this really a relevant shopping tip that should be advised along with money saving shopping tips? Or is this really just an attempt to spice up the article so that it doesn’t look like the same 5 shopping tips they posted last year around this time? (The fifth tip being: “There’s nothing wrong about a “me-too” gift” seriously check it out: (http://money.cnn.com/2006/10/11/news/companies/shopping_tips/index.htm). I’m sure the author knew exactly what she was doing.
“There are no unselfish good deeds.”
The article advises its readers to purchase gifts that are “safer”, which is a reference to Mattel’s toy recall during this summer and posted a hyperlink for an article that was posted on CNNMoney.com, August 15, 2007. The referencing article criticized Mattel’s actions to “sub-contract” their products to manufacturers in China and then the article concludes that China manufacturers are the source of all quality issues for Mattel. Yet it’s ironic, how Mattel has been working in China for 25 years and 65% of Mattel’s products are manufactured in China but it was only recently quality issues has become a problem. It is obvious that this is simply an attempt to draw more attention to more compelling news story rather than writing about the same shopping tips year after year.
With such a high profile recall, any author would love to refer to a more compelling news article such as Mattel’s lead-tainted toy recall because of this potentially dangerous crisis and the imminent holiday season to bolster her article as a relevant source of information. The shopping tip specifically advises its readers to research whether or not a company posted recalls within the last year so that they can consider other toy buying options. Although this is great advice, this seems to be another attempt by the author to win over the reader by showing her concern of its readers.
It is commonly understood that if you consider the well being of a stranger, you can be trusted because you have no personal gain from your action. Most sales pitches start in this manner, “I’m not supposed to be doing this, but I can give you a better discount than another salesman can.” The author is gaining reputation, gaining accountability, and gaining more subscribers to her network. By referencing the quality issue from Made in China products, she is generalizing the entire concern by hyper-linking to an outdated article.
The Quiet Apology
Why refer to an article that was posted over two months ago? Umm, this article is already out dated and there are more recent news articles stating that Mattel already accepted responsibility for the recalls stating it was a design flaw rather than a manufacturing problem.
Wait here, let me find it.
That’s odd, if you search “Mattel apology” in CNNMoney.com site search, the search results will display the following message: “Article matches for “Mattel apology” from CNNMoney.com, Result pages: 0“. Hmm, so much for comprehensive news
Now, let’s try CNN.com site search for “Mattel apology”, success! But the results for the CNN.com site search doesn’t even display its own articles except for a blog/article posted by Fortune, Reuters, and other popular online news centers.
CNN.com did report on September 21, 2007 that Mattel’s executive vice president for worldwide operations, Thomas A. Debrowski, issued an apology to Li Changjiang and “the Chinese people” for very ambiguous reasons. CNN.com noted that the apology was “carefully worded” and did not think that the apology amounted to much. Why? The apology was given a full month after the articled dated on August 15, 2007. Although the apology was appropriate, it did not seem to be delivered with any conviction. Mr. Debrowski should be apologizing to the American people for allowing experts and critics to go on writing articles without the entire information at hand.
It is the responsibility of the mainstream news syndicates to write unbiased articles based on the most up to date information available. And albeit the article dated on August 15, 2007 was accurate at the time, our shopping tips article dated October 10, 2007 should have referenced articles with more updated information.
Making the mundane less mundane
There has been so much hype over quality issues because of the mainstream media scare about “Made in China” products. If Mattel directly took responsibility from the beginning, the recall would have potentially isolated to the toy industry and maybe even just within Mattel. However, I do not understand why Mattel did not initially take responsibility of their mistake because it ultimately led them to shooting themselves in the foot and making the situation worse.
The media, like the paparazzi, created a media frenzy that prompted writers to go “a day without Made in China” and other poorly conceived articles. For instance, CNN even has a ‘specials‘ section that deliberately and aggressively portrays China manufacturers as the source of quality problems. Notice, you do NOT see any word of an apology in the headlines regarding Mattel taking full responsibility, nor do you see news regarding a Chinese CEO’s suicide because of the increasing pressures that resulted from the quality issues from Made in China product.
It’s shocking how the media is still adding fuel to a fire on a topic that is being portrayed incompletely.
Here’s a tip, keeping the consumer is very important, however, saving “face” may not be as important than saving lives.
If you enjoyed this post, Subscribe to my Free Newsletter!
{ 0 comments… add one now }