Biased poultry reporting

Commendably, Linda Ensor’s article in The Times (Clucking in a chicken coop, March 24) articulated arguments for both sides, but the one in Business Day (Measures for poultry relief on the wing, March 24) lacked balance and therefore does not make for healthy debate.

It seemed to lean precariously towards the South African Poultry Association (Sapa) in word count and stance, depicting them and the local industry as the aggrieved, needing urgent government intervention. It went on to weave in as an afterthought the fact that dumping should not be singled out as the scapegoat. This, when dumping happens to be the key “weapon” used by Sapa to demonise the position of the Association of Meat Importers and Exporters (Amie).

There is unanimity among government and industry interested parties that the South African poultry industry is facing a grave crisis. When reporting on an issue of this magnitude, it is important to foster healthy debate. Surely this is what responsible journalism is all about? The aftermath of the poultry industry crisis could be dismal if not treated with kid gloves. Here, the media has a key responsibility to ensure fair and responsible journalism.

Amie agrees critical government intervention in the form of a thorough investigation is needed. However, it should be made clear that rather than lauding one industry stance over another, this investigation should seek to identify the root causes of the current industry crisis objectively.

Whoever then gets called out — Sapa or Amie — is a side issue. May the chips fall where they will, as long as the real issues are tackled.

For Amie, this is no sparring match. South Africans’ livelihoods are on the line here. We are poised for the outcome of the government’s objective and thorough investigation.

David Wolpert

CEO, AMIE