A bit of a stretch
Southern Living
Over at Southern Living Steve Bender known as “The Grumpy Gardener” has written an article titled, “Who wants to kill the birds?” It’s about the recent fines Scotts Miracle-Gro received for selling poisoned bird seed. In the article Steve say’s, “Grumpy loves birds. He fills his feeder twice a day. So imagine his shock when he learned that Scott’s Miracle-Gro admitted to selling bird seed tainted with pesticides. Was Scott’s, the maker of a slew of popular lawn and garden products, in league with the devil? To find out, Grumpy paid the company a visit last week at their corporate headquarters in Marysville, Ohio.”
It’s great that Steve goes straight to the source for some investigative journalism. However, Steve mentions at the end of the article, ”Scott’s paid my airfare and lodging for my visit. The Scott’s haters will immediately conclude that Grumpy was bought. Not so. I only agreed to hear Scott’s side of the story with no promise that I would report on it positively, negatively, or at all. Lots of companies in the garden industry send me stuff. If I try a product out and conclude that it’s good for my audience, I recommend it. If I don’t, you never hear about it.”
Sure Steve.
I guess ‘Grumpy’ believed the photo in the last post with the Clematis was true, just because the AHS sent him something for free. Scott’s is a ‘CHEMICAL’ company, so to say they didn’t read the small print, or check under the hood, is like saying ‘I didn’t realize a hot cup of McD’s coffee was HOT!’.
It’s good that you bring this up Trey. Efforts for Pro-Active positive PR go a long way and paying for the travel expenses and hospitality in that case would not be questioned. Maybe it would have been better if the paper had paid for his expenses, but he’s not an investigative reporter so that’s probably not in the budget nor a reasonable expectation.
Even though we read the disclosures about products being provided for testing we still read about the product and the transparency that the sample was provided or the trip was paid for can build trust.
Like I said, garden companies send me products all the time, hoping I’ll mention them in my blog or in Southern Living. How many of them make the cut? Why don’t you review past blog posts or past SL issues to see? Very, very few. I write for the 99.5% of the audience, not the .5% who think the government has placed tracking chips in our necks or that fluoride is a Commie plot. If I think a product will make their lives easier, I’ll tell our readers about it. If I don’t, I won’t. End of story.
Steve,
Two issues stand out for me.
The first is, Scotts has not provided a answer as to how one person could be responsible for it’s current problems. According to Scotts CEO one person was responsible for this entire affair. Why did this person do this, and how could they do this? If this has been answered somewhere I ask simply to see it. Instead we are asked to accept at face value Scotts explanation, which really doesn’t address the core issue. How one person could have pulled this off, and why did they do this?
The second is labeling people who disagree with Scotts on this issue “Haters”. Your not the only one. It seems to be a trend in garden media these days. I don’t hate Scotts, never have. I don’t believe the government is placing tracking chips in our necks or that fluoride is a “Commie plot”. Yet, because I ask a legitimate question I am a “hater”? Really all I would like to know, and nobody has answered yet is, how and why did this one person manage to create this mess at Scotts? Maybe you know where we can find this information? That’s all I am asking.
This is the difference between investigative journalism and public relations. The who,what,where,when,why can only be accepted if it’s discovered independently, , not bought & paid for. It’s fine to offer an opinion, but it wouldn’t be considered reliable by others.
Question for Steve Bender. Did you contact Scotts about this issue, or did they contact you to arrange your visit?