(NOTE: THIS WAS DONE AS AN EXERCISE FOR NEWSWRITING)
Spurlock chews fat on questions
Thursday, October 6, Morgan Spurlock came to Seton Hill University to talk about his new book, Don’t Eat This Book, a companion read to his documentary, “Super Size Me.” There were many people that agreed with
what he said.
“It’s toxic,” said Cathy Coppula of Mount Pleasant, “But he [her son] still eats it.”
“I feel that eating McDonald’s, or any fast food, the way he did isn’t healthy. In appropriate portions, however, McDonald’s is acceptable in your diet.” said Aaron Shumar, a tenth grader from Mount Pleasant Area High School.
“Spurlock’s new book has many problems,” said Radley Balko, a Fox News reporter and blogger, “Spurlock writes in his book that McDonald’s uses beef that has been fed the ground up remains of other cows. But the FDA in 1997 banned this practice, so Spurlock is essentially accusing McDonald’s of breaking federal law for the past eight years.”
However, in his book, Spurlock names no sources to this information, and when asked about it, he said, “Talk to the LA Times.” Spurlock then started to talk about chickens and their dirty barns, instead of beef.
“He probably didn’t know the source, or he wants to protect the source,” said Coppula.
Many of the people, however, disagree with Coppula.
“Everything he said could be used against him as slander. It seems everything’s his way, he doesn’t tell people the whole story,” said Shumar.
“That was a nice question that went unanswered,” said JoAnne Boyle, president of Seton Hill University.
Spurlock said, “I’m pro-personal responsibility.” But he also said, “There is a basis here for contradiction…” In “Super Size Me” as well as Don’t Eat This Book, he blames McDonald’s food, as well as other fast food restaurants, of causing the obesity in American society. Spurlock even went as far as to use an NWA song to call Ronald McDonald a drug pusher.
“Everything that McDonald’s did after the movie, they claim is a bunch of ‘coincidences.’ For example, May 6th, the day before the movie came out, one of their coincidences was the “Go Active Adult Happy Meal,” Spurlock said, “When the movie opened in the United Kingdom, McDonald’s sales dropped 75 percent.”
Spurlock throughout the lecture showerd his bias towards McDonald’s, even using quotes from other sources to get his point across.
“An Australian journalist, after I told what [McDonald’s CEO] Charlie Bell said about his cancer and the previous CEO’s heart attack, said “Crikey! God must hate McDonald’s!” Spurlock said.
“He ingested big McDonald’s meals three times a day for 30 days, then blamed McDonald’s for his bloated body, and dodgy health,” said Debbie Schlussel, of the Wall Street Journal in criticism of Spurlock.
Spurlock got his message across, as evidenced by the standing ovation he received, and the long line of people waiting to buy his book.
Tell ya what Henry..I'm gonna keep your post up..thank you for showing me how intelligent people can be.
Posted by: Lou Gagliardi at October 27, 2005 08:14 PMsuper size me was good Mcdonalds suks
Posted by: fuck you at October 27, 2005 07:56 PMKatie,
I respectfully disagree with you, just because in the past (when i was like 8 or 9 years old in 1991) i have seen commercials where ronald, grimace, the cheeseburglar and the mcfries all ate the food. I've even seen the cheesie videos where they all do.
Spurlock was comparing the two and it was wrong.
On a side note--Morgan also forgets to mention that McDonald's also owns Boston Market.
Posted by: Lou Gagliardi at October 15, 2005 12:19 PMI think when Spurlock used the song he was setting up a comparison between the fact that in the commercials the clown does not consume the food, just like in the song the dealer isn't supposed to deal from his supply; I do not think Spurlock was comparing Ronald McDonald to a pusher.
Posted by: KatieAikins at October 15, 2005 11:00 AMI am most definately sorry for your loss, but I really don't think that my commenting has anything to do with my decency concerning your loss. Also, I certainly don't think that it is ignorant of me to stick up for myself when somebody is bashing me.
Posted by: AshleeLupchinsky at October 14, 2005 12:12 PMDo I care what your name is? No.
Do I care about your views? No.
Right now, I'm in mourning. If you have any shred of decency, you would have waited 6 (3 days per person) to comment.
This just shows your ignorance.
Posted by: Lou Gagliardi at October 14, 2005 11:42 AMFirst of all, it is ASHLEE. Second of all, if you would have read my Spurlock blog, you would have seen how I "supported my opinion." I am certainly not looking to be your friend...I was just commenting on your blog, which had a different view than mine.
Posted by: AshleeLupchinsky at October 13, 2005 11:30 PMGetting back to what Jay said -- controversy sparks thought. Too much controversy, without reflection, introspection and rational discussion, is bad. But this exercise shows how a whole class of peole can go to the same event and everyone comes away with a different version of the truth.
If nothing else, this shows why citizens are better served by several news sources than they are by one. Fox isn't always right, and it's not always polite. CNN isn't always right, and it's sometimes arrogant. And so on for all the other news sources. But the intelligent consumer can sample different voices, and we can at least hope that the REAL truth will somehow emerge when you put all the different voices side by side.
Posted by: Dennis G. Jerz at October 12, 2005 05:39 PMI disagree. I wasn't trying to bash Spurlock. I mean maybe at the end I did, but at the beginning I gave other people's opinions.
“It’s toxic,” said Cathy Coppula of Mount Pleasant, “But he [her son] still eats it.” for example. She agreed with Spurlock. Her son, however did not.
Fox News reporters did not agree with Spurlock.
What I think you are trying to do, Ashley, is just trying to express an opinion without looking at all the facts. Especialy if you read my blog entry stating that I had a bias against Spurlock.
Jay, let me say this first, I love ya like a brother that I can argue with but still get along with. As for looking as an observer, Jay, I did. I looked at it as, "Alright, well this man will answer my question(s) truthfully, he'll give a good time to all, and be informative."
But he wasn't! He gave an opinion, didn't answer a question--instead dodged it--and then ended the show basically right then and there. President Boyle, the President of SETON HILL UNIVERSITY, even commented that he didn't answer my question! So much for cynicism...
I also find it funny that you, Ashley, are merely giving an opinion. At least Jay gave an opinion and stuck around to explain his opinion.
I am not here, on this blog or in my newswriting or setonian articles, to make friends. I am here to be informative, which I did. I may have stated an opinion--but 9 times out 10 I also had that opinioned backed up with something he said.
Posted by: Lou Gagliardi at October 12, 2005 03:52 PMI have to agree with Jay. I think that your article basically just shows your opinion, while trying to bash Spurlock. Like Jay says, Spurlock is not a god, but there were good aspects of the lecture and I really think that there were a lot more people than you think, that enjoyed what he had to say.
Posted by: AshleeLupchinsky at October 12, 2005 03:38 PMLou,
You know how much I respect you, but note this:
An exercise for Newswriting can still be really interesting! I know that it is ridiculously hard to believe, but it's true.
Like you, I am not a health nut. If I want to go and get a burger at McDonald's once in a while, I will, and Morgan Spurlock can't stop me. At the same time, I do think that Spurlock did a lot of good for Seton Hill, and everyone he's marketing. There are people like you that say, he isn't going to stop me, and that's fine. He knows that he's not going to get everyone to convert (sometimes it did sound like a health religion lol). I really think you need to at least acknowledge that. I feel Morgan Spurlock wsa influential with his facts, and his observations through his project.
Back to the article, I must say that even though I am not a 100% fan of Morgan Spurlock, this was my favorite article to write. Do you know why? Because it was engaging, and controversial, and informative at the same time. I respect the man, he isn't a god. But I think that he is trying to do something good for society. I think that sometimes, cynicism is not the way to go everytime. Look as an observer, and not as a critic on this one. That was the overall goal of this.
Posted by: Jason Pugh at October 12, 2005 10:40 AM