Comments on: Chiquita Secrets Revealed

Chiquita Secrets Revealed

brett — Thu, 07 Sep 2006 20:37:36 -0800

Chiquita Secrets Revealed - On May 3, 1998, the Cincinnati Enquirer published a series of investigative articles on Chiquita's business practices in South America, all in its own pullout section. The stories claimed the company sprayed workers in the field with pesticides and destroyed a village to stop union activity, among other offenses. A few weeks later, the Enquirer ran a huge apology on its front page for three days, and paid the company $10 million, because a reporter illegally accessed Chiquita voicemail in the course of his work. The renouncement became more of a story than the original articles, but one question remains: are the stories true? To this day, the Enquirer refuses to give a straight answer.

By: Eekacat

Eekacat — Thu, 07 Sep 2006 20:42:35 -0800

Will they give a gay answer?

By: Blazecock Pileon

Blazecock Pileon — Thu, 07 Sep 2006 20:43:56 -0800

The Invisible Hand has gone bananas.

By: allen.spaulding

allen.spaulding — Thu, 07 Sep 2006 20:46:33 -0800

I feel like I've seen this story a few times here, but I think only in comments. Nice job putting this together, for those who hadn't seen it.

By: mediareport

mediareport — Thu, 07 Sep 2006 21:40:12 -0800

I remember thinking at the time the apology ran that the Chiquita voicemails were only a small element of the story, and that there was so much else about the story that had been well-demonstrated (illegal toxins, workers exposed, horrid labor practices, etc.) that it was a damn shame the Enquirer renounced the whole thing because of the relatively unimportant voicemails. Re-reading the links, it seems clear the paper went overboard in large part because it hadn't followed its own normal editing procedure on the story, which probably left it wide open to a massive lawsuit. Even the Chiquita president seems to agree the voicemails were a minor piece (the "more of a story" link): Warshaw recalled that as he read the stories in May, he was shocked to see the Enquirer place such emphasis on the 2,000 voice-mail messages as a source for the series - both because he questioned how the paper could have obtained them and because he knew that the messages typically included little of substance. 'For the most part, they're just a lot of blah-blah-blah,' he says.

By: mediareport

mediareport — Thu, 07 Sep 2006 21:45:12 -0800

Yeah, this is the part that gets me, from the last link: It's clear that Chiquita demanded and got some sort of lawyered statement from The Enquirer that inexplicably and against all logic wiped out the entire Chiquita series. That included all the stories with no connection to the voice mails: the firsthand reporting from banana plantations in Honduras, Costa Rica and Panama (including photographs of a 15-year-old who had allegedly been shot by Chiquita security forces); the well-documented history of United Fruit Co., the company that founded "banana republics" and eventually became Chiquita; and the article about Chiquita's struggle with European banana quotas. [emphasis added]

By: five fresh fish

five fresh fish — Thu, 07 Sep 2006 21:53:52 -0800

Loverly. I guess the story can come out now that bananas are heading for extinction. (Well, our stereotypical long yellow ones, at least.)

By: one_bean

one_bean — Thu, 07 Sep 2006 22:13:34 -0800

For another example of somebody's story seeming mostly true, but attacked on a few minor details by the national press (and thereby discredited), see Gary Webb and his "Dark Alliance" coverage of the CIA/Nicaraguan cocaine drug cartel.

By: Heywood Mogroot

Heywood Mogroot — Thu, 07 Sep 2006 22:30:15 -0800

Wow... unusual to see any admission of 'complexity' in this fallen day and age.

By: pracowity

pracowity — Fri, 08 Sep 2006 04:03:55 -0800

...now that bananas are heading for extinction. Snopes says:

Claim: Bananas will be extinct within ten years. Status: False.

By: PinkStainlessTail

PinkStainlessTail — Fri, 08 Sep 2006 04:32:38 -0800

Claim: Bananas will be extinct within ten years. Status: False. Snopes does not dispute that the cavendish, the "stereotypical long yellow ones" that fff specifically mentions, are in danger.

By: pracowity

pracowity — Fri, 08 Sep 2006 05:31:24 -0800

Sure, that one variety is in danger of becoming commercially unviable. It would not mean the end of the banana or even of one variety of banana. Not extinct. A business, not a species, is threatened. See also: UN Food and Agriculture Organization

By: elpapacito

elpapacito — Fri, 08 Sep 2006 07:13:11 -0800

Don't tell me a corporation would do something illegal to obtain more profit at expense of others ! That just can't be true !...actually it isn't true...corporations are legal tricks, they are runned by people... Don't tell me upstanding moral work donators may do something shady to obtain more profit at expense of others ! Your boss actually GIVES money to you..where it comes from, why do you care ?

By: five fresh fish

five fresh fish — Fri, 08 Sep 2006 08:45:19 -0800

A business, not a species, is threatened. And, gosh, just what is it we were talking about here? Why, a fucking business. Did you have some sort of relevant point, pracowity, or were you just masturbating?

By: pracowity

pracowity — Fri, 08 Sep 2006 11:44:51 -0800

You said bananas are heading for extinction, I corrected you, and now you get pissy about it.

By: five fresh fish

five fresh fish — Fri, 08 Sep 2006 19:25:34 -0800

I as much said the Cavendish are going extinct. Learn to read.

By: hortense

hortense — Fri, 08 Sep 2006 20:43:18 -0800

Yes,we have no bananas

By: five fresh fish

five fresh fish — Sat, 09 Sep 2006 07:50:13 -0800

Ring ring ring ring Bananaphone!

By: etoile

etoile — Tue, 12 Sep 2006 12:40:40 -0800

It took me a long time to realize this was about the banana people.