Consumer Reports sent me an email asking me to support Universal Health Care.
How can I trust an organization which is biased politically to not be biased about the products they evaluate? What if the product’s manufacturer donated to a cause opposite to one supported by Consumer Reports?
I read a take down of Consumer Reports a few years ago - it was pretty sad. Not about anything political bias but bout how they go about doing their job. They rate products that are sent to them by companies. Most often, the exact type of item they rate ( Like an Iron Chef 4800 toaster, for example) is not actually sold in most stores. At stores you might find the Iron Chef 5000 toaster, the Iron Chef 400i Toaster, and the Iron Chef 4800z toaster. So the ratings and discussions in the magazine aren’t really about the product on the shelf. They say that have to take samples sent by the manfucturer because they must rate stuff months before it becomes available.
Not surprisingly, there are some that use this to their advantage, getting great reviews for the one well made (and impossible to find) version of their product. Putting crappier versions out there and hoping nobody figures out the difference.
But i think the connection you’re drawing here is a spurious one. Consumers Union, which publishes Consumer Reports, defines its purpose as “to work for a fair, just, and safe marketplace for all consumers and to empower consumers to protect themselves.”
If they believe that this goal is best served by Universal Health Care, then it’s not problematic for them to support such a policy. And nor does it imply that they will take bribes or use extraneous political considerations in their product evaluations. As long as they focus on their mission to keep consumers’ interests at the forefront, there’s no contradiction here at all.
And it’s not like this is the first time CU has weighed in on policy issues. As their own website says:
True - under a previous leader they were heavily anti-SUV (a bias that has waned markedly in recent years).
You could argue that supporting universal health care is not a political stance, despite how heavily the issue has been politicized. Or that SUVs are ultimately not good for consumers.
Consumers Union could promote ways of combating global warming which is detrimental to consumers, and refuse to rate, or downgrade products which have heavy carbon footprints (or it could flat out tell its readership not to consume so goddamn much).
Or it could stick to its prime directive of helping consumers pick products that have reliability and value, while dispassionately including information that will help them make socially responsible choices if they want to.
This might be a tricky balance to achieve at times, but I prefer a Consumer Reports that isn’t overtly trying to lobby me for an agenda, regardless of how much I might agree with that agenda.
Weighing in on a single issue is not evidence of political bias. It’s evidence of a stance on a particular issue. Obviously, it’s also an issue which has a great deal of significance to consumers.
If they e-mail you asking you to vote for/against a ban on gay marriage, get back to us.
Are you sure about that? I used to read the magazine regularly and I was under the impression that they bought everything they rated (including the cars) at retail stores and in fact had people around the country purchase stuff for them.
I agree with Dewey - CR makes a big deal about the fact that they buy everything anonymously.
But I also agree with the OP. CR markets itself as a bunch of product testers, and then go out and use membership dues to lobby for things that many members don’t support. I myself have taken several free trial offers over the years, but I never subscribe because I dislike their political agenda.
As to whether it biases them, I don’t know.
But I do think they are sometimes biased, specifically against brand-name products that are heavily advertised. CR sees as it’s mission to expose heavily advertised but unimproved products, and I think this makes them prone to find this. Especially on subjective matters. Over the years I’ve seen them do all sorts of taste tests, and they generally find that the most popular soft drinks or whatever are over-rated. Personally I think there’s no point to such taste tests to begin with, as anyone can decide for themselves what they like best, and that CR runs them for the primary purpose of concluding that these products are being oversold to a gullible public (that needs CR to show them the way).
Regarding testing “products that are sent to them by companies”, the mission statement on the website says in fact, “To maintain its independence and impartiality, CU accepts no outside advertising and no free samples and employs several hundred mystery shoppers and technical experts to buy and test the products it evaluates.”
Yep, according to their website, they have over 150 anonymous shoppers across the country buying the products that they test. If the items they report on in the magazine aren’t available in stores, it’s probably likely that the product has been discontinued and replaced by a newer model.
Do you think it’s possible to think Universal Health Care is a bad idea that will make things worse for people on the whole? Or is the only possible basis for opposing it cruelty and narrowmindedness?
Ouch. While I’m all for UHC, and realize that a lot of opponents to changing the system are indeed heartless bastards, painting the entire side as such is a bit overbroad.
At its core, health care is a resource allocation issue – and therefore by nature a political issue.
Nor can I. Whether someone needs an MRI or an EEG to diagnose Creeping Freeper is apolitical.
However, given that health care has costs, what about the determination of how those costs are allocated among society? Since health care is a finite resource, what about allocating it among society? How are those not political questions?
I don’t know. I don’t care. It’s not my place to figure it out. It’s just that as far as I’m concerned, heath, education and safety should come before anything else, then allocate what’s left to everyone else.