Why bother with the facts when they ruin a funny story?
By Gina Spadafori
June 22, 2009
The Christian Science Monitor has a light little piece on the release of the official portrait of Bo, the First Dog:
But this is Washington. There’s always something sinister lurking. And leave it to the guys at Gawker to track it down.
You can thank John Cook in particular — who may just be the 21st century version of Woodward and Bernstein (he’s that good — he’s both people ) — for having the courage to track down this story.
If you look closely at Bo Obama’s baseball card, you’ll notice that the First Dog has listed “tomatoes” as his favorite food. Cook didn’t think that sounded right. So, just like the famed Washington Post duo from the early 1970’s, he did some investigating.
After voraciously pounding the pavement surfing the Internet, Cook discovered that tomatoes are poisonous to dogs.
Does this mean that the Obamas are slowly poisoning Bo? Or was Bo so unhappy he was trying to end it all?
Would have been nice if Gawker or the CSM had checked with the experts at the ASPCA’s Animal Poison Control Center, which reports that tomato plants may be a minor problem, but ripe tomatoes are not.
And you know … that took me like two minutes to find. But you gotta wanta bother to look …
Update: As noted by John Cook in the comments thread, my snark about not bothering to look for accurate information should have been more clearly directed to the Christian Science Monitor. John talked to a professor of vet med at Colorado State to produce his post, although the end result wasn’t terribly helpful, since it isn’t clear in his article that tomatoes aren’t “poison” — although tomato plants can case some illness.
Bo Obama doesn’t eat tomatoes, anyway. But other pets do, so accurate information is always important. Even if having it ruins the joke.
Now, I may be biased, I really enjoy Gawker and it is my favorite “news source” even as I recognize it is not, perhaps the most accurate, unbiased, or moral.
But for their original article, they *did* do some research on the net(just not the ASPCA site), and even call up a Veterinary Professor. Not exactly hard-hitting, well-sourced journalism, but they did “bother to look”. Christian Science Monitor, however, did not.
The more important scandal in the Gawker article, is that Bo doesn’t even eat tomatoes! We are being lied to! What if he doesn’t even want to make friends with other foreign dognitaries?
Comment by Christine H — June 22, 2009 @ 9:00 am
OMD, Obama’s a puppykiller too!
Comment by AmandaS — June 22, 2009 @ 9:06 am
No tomatoes for dogs! Max would be heartbroken. He’s chosen tomatoes over grilled hamburger when both hit the ground at the same time.
Comment by Patti and Max — June 22, 2009 @ 9:08 am
But for their original article, they *did* do some research on the net(just not the ASPCA site), and even call up a Veterinary Professor. Not exactly hard-hitting, well-sourced journalism, but they did “bother to look”. Christian Science Monitor, however, did not.
Christine, when I’m teaching information literacy to community college students, one of the first things I show them is how far astray Google and Wikipedia can lead them if they don’t already know the subject well enough to recognize what’s good or bad information. Was the Veterinary Professor a veterinary nutritionist? Why not check the ASPCA site—a site that, if he cared about dogs rather than about scoring points, he’d know was a good, reliable source for that info?
And what justifies CSM in picking up his blather and running with it, without checking the facts? Lousy journalizm on their part.
Comment by Lis — June 22, 2009 @ 9:20 am
Lis, Gawker’s efforts undoubtedly could have been better, I was merely pointing out that there was more research on their part than CSM implied, which I think is unfair and poor journalism on their part.
Cook didn’t just “surf the net,” he found a veterinary website, called an “expert” and spoke to a White House Spokesperson (who, I actually think maybe should have also had the information from the ASPCA). It wasn’t just a Wiki search and calling it a day.
My point, was more related to your second one, CSM should have done a bit more research of their own.
But yes, your point is also valid. Cook is more about scoring points than caring for dogs, because scoring points is a bit more job-relevant for him.
Comment by Christine H — June 22, 2009 @ 9:41 am
Sometimes you have to do enough research to ask the right QUESTIONS. I’m not sure whether Gawker asked specifically about eating tomatoes, as opposed to tomato plants. If the reporter just asked about “tomatoes” then the vet school prof was absolutely right, that everything tomato-related EXCEPT ripe tomatoes could cause some illness (probably nothing fatal, however).
But the so-called “concern” wasn’t about tomato plants but rather about ripe tomatoes. And that answer was wrong.
It’s interesting what people believe despite evidence to the contrary: Dr. Marty and I recently had an article in Parade magazine about pet poisoning hazards. Dr. Steve Hansen of the ASPCA Animal Poison Control center specifically debunked the Internet-driven urban myth about Swiffer products being deadly.
No matter: Parade still got a irate e-mails from people who insisted that the Swiffer e-mails were TRUE and berated Parade (us, and Dr. Hansen) for “covering up the truth.”
As we often note: You’re entitled to your own opinions, but not to your own facts.
:)
Comment by Gina Spadafori — June 22, 2009 @ 10:07 am
Gina-
It’s obvious that you didn’t read what I wrote, which should cause anyone who reads your commentary about what constitutes journalism to take it with a grain of salt. First, as has been noted in the comments, I called Tony Knight, a professor at Colorado State University’s College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, to ask him about dogs and tomatoes. Second, I quoted him saying one or two tomatoes won’t do anything to a large dog. Third, it should have been obvious given the forgoing that my accusation that the Obamas were poisoning their dog was deliberately hyperbolic for comedic effect. The expert I spoke to told me that dogs weren’t designed to eat tomatoes, and that while ripe tomatoes are harmless, it’s best to avoid them because it’s difficult to systematically judge precisely how ripened they are and whether all the glycoalkaloids have been metabolized. I hope that when you teach information literacy to community college students you teach them to read things before attacking them.
john
Comment by John Cook — June 22, 2009 @ 11:08 am
I did read what you wrote, John, and I still believe you pushed bad information just to make a funny point. Not cool.
The excerpt was from the Christian Science Monitor, by the way, and if you don’t like the way they characterized your reporting, you should probably take that up with them.
I don’t teach information literacy. That was another commenter, which suggests maybe you should take your advice and read before attacking.
What I do is write a syndicated column and books about pets. But even though you don’t, I think you still could have found the correct information if you weren’t so busy trying to score points.
Which you still are.
And you’re still wrong about tomatoes, according to the leading experts on what’s toxic to pets, the veterinarians at the Animal Poison Control Center. They aren’t, as you claim them to be in your post, “poison.”
Good journalists correct their information when they’re wrong, by the way. Use the strike-out code and fix your error, instead of getting on your high horse with me.
Comment by Gina Spadafori — June 22, 2009 @ 11:26 am
Whoops—sorry about mistaking you for a commenter. So you’re telling me that, after reading my post, you sat down to write that it “would have been nice if Gawker…had checked with the experts at the ASPCA’s Animal Poison Control Center” and “that took me like two minutes to find. But you gotta wanta bother to look.” You read where I wrote that I spent 90 minutes trying to find a professor of veterinary medicine to talk about tomatoes and dogs, and then criticized me for not bothering to look for information? And you think that was a fair characterization of what I wrote? None of this even remotely matters, but I actually did try, in earnest, to find an answer to the question. And I actually did find someone who knows what they’re talking about to answer it. And I actually did communicate his answer. So your “you should check your facts!” sneer is out of order. If you wanted to criticize what Tony Knight told me—that it’s inadvisable to feed tomatoes to dogs, but that one or two tomatoes won’t do anything to a large dog—you should have done that. But you decided instead to attack me for, what—getting taken in by the anti-tomato lobby? For being too naive in relying on the expertise of a professor of veterinary medicine who co-wrote a book called “A Guide to Plant Poisoning”? No—for not checking my facts. See the sentence at the top of this post where I acknowledged my error and apologized? Now you try it!
Comment by John Cook — June 22, 2009 @ 11:41 am
Also—my claim that tomatoes are “poison” was obvious hyperbole. Most people who read that in context with Knight’s quote that “one or two tomatoes” won’t do anything to a large dog would have gotten that. You obviously didn’t.
Comment by John Cook — June 22, 2009 @ 11:45 am
I get the hyperbole just fine. Problem is, as person who gives advice for a living, I can tell you that many people won’t. There are already people in your comments thanking you for the “warning.”
Just fix your factual error. :)
Comment by Gina Spadafori — June 22, 2009 @ 11:48 am
I just went out back and beat all the tomato plants to death with my swiffer wet jet.
Thanks, John.
Comment by H. Houlahan — June 22, 2009 @ 12:39 pm
Ms. Houlahan, was that before or after you watched Cesar Milan and dressed up your Chihupoo?
Comment by Christine H — June 22, 2009 @ 6:09 pm
Jeez, and all I want to do is keep my dog from peeing on the tomato plants. Will that kill them, do ya think? ;0)
Comment by Susan Fox — June 22, 2009 @ 6:17 pm
Oh my. Is the first day of summer heat getting to people already. Spit, hiss, growl.
Comment by VJ — June 22, 2009 @ 7:21 pm
Who’s getting summer heat?!
Here in New England, we’re having a summer nor’easter.
Comment by Lis — June 22, 2009 @ 7:48 pm
I can vouch for the fact that many, *many* tomatoes will do absolutely nothing to a large (70 lbs.) dog. Did I mention many? All it takes is one stealthy tomato thief and unprotected vines. It’s a one rat study, but good enough for me. Oh, and he made his own salsa too by mixing the tomatoes with hot peppers.
I sure wasn’t checking to make sure the tomatoes were ripe enough. :-) All I knew is that my unripened tomatoes never got ripe! (Call me unobservant, but I was very busy with work at the time.)
Comment by Deanna — June 23, 2009 @ 7:29 am
Comment by Deanna — June 23, 2009 @ 7:29 am
Salsa, eh? I’m making sure my Dot doesn’t see this. She loves salsa and just about anything else involving fresh veggies. I can’t put my CSA bags on the floor or she’s in there like a vacuum. I was thinking I would have to deer proof my garden next year, but it now occurs to me I’m going to have to Dot proof!
Comment by straybaby — June 23, 2009 @ 3:30 pm