BLOOMBERG BIAS? PART 2

FoieBlog knows it was just one line, a statement of fact, in fact, but it's placement turned us the wrong way, perhaps with good reason. Turs out we aren't alone.

In an earlier post, we voiced our concern over a line inserted into a Bloomberg News interview with Mark Hix, Chef Director of The Ivy restaurant in London, that went out of it's way to point out that his restaurant had been targeted by anti-Foie Gras protestors - in an article that had nothing to do with the subject. To this date, neither the writer nor the Bloomberg editorial staff has responded to our e-mails. However, sources in the UK culinary community similarly concerned about the article tell us that it was not the work of the writer, Richard Vines. Our apologies for any offenses made to him. On the other hand, we understand that it was the editor of the article that was responsible for its inclusion - which raises even more concerning questions. Was this merely the work of some overzealous newsroom hack trying to look smart, or, worse, make his own point? Or was it that said editor was following an internal directive on the subject?

FoieBlog will continue to try to get to the bottom of this, but we urge our readers to be wary in the meantime, and send in tips on any similar occurrences you come across. History has shown that even one sentence, however small, can have great effects.

"Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall." - Ronald Regan, 1987

"Can't we all just get along?" - Rodney King, 1992

"I'll be back." - The Terminator, as played by Arnold Schwarzenegger, 1984

British restaurants are under a full-on assault from the anti-Foie Gras activists - including many in the liberal media there - and it's going to be up to the restaurateurs themselves to man the battlements. To paraphrase Winston Churchill, "we shall fight in the press."

(OK, doesn't have the same ring without the Cuban cigar and Siren Suit, but you get the point.)

UPDATE: GrasGuy finally heard back from Richard Vines and we can confirm that it was not he who was responsible for the line. While he did protest its inclusion, Mr. Vines says the editors added it for purely "informational" purposes. Again, we apologise for any offenses made to Mr. Vines and appreciate his forthrightness on the issue. We of course still have questions about the editor's motive behind including this "information," but for now will leave the issue alone and keep it in mind while perusing the news outlets of the world.

FoieBlog's motives, of course, remain no mystery.