The Chicago Tribune and Toy Safety

Those who received the June 25, 2008 Chicago Tribune were greeted with a top of the front page headline that, though not the same size as the announcement of the bombing of Pearl Harbor, was still pretty big.   Here is that headline: “The Mattel loophole - Congress may back off pledge of independent toy testing.”

Written by Patricia Callahan and Amanda Erickson the article was billed as “a Tribune exclusive.”  Here is the opening paragraph: 

Some [toy] companies would be permitted to skirt independent lab testing of children’s products in favor of their own in-house certification, thanks in large part to lobbying by the world’s biggest toymaker, the Tribune has found.

Toymaker Mattel Inc. argued to lawmakers that it should be allowed to use its own labs to conduct these certification tests, which were supposed to be a hallmark of Congress’ efforts to overhaul the nation’s product-safety system. The House and Senate added provisions permitting companies with sophisticated labs to avoid the independent testing requirement by winning federal approval for their in-house testing facilities.

The Chicago Tribune has been all over the toy safety issue from the very beginning and is to be applauded for its coverage. I am puzzled, however, in the way they have covered this latest story. Specifically: Why place the article on the top of the front page and make the headline so prominent? Is the change in the safety amendment on a par with global warming and the war in Iraq?

The Tribune makes the point that the hallmark of the bill is independent testing. They feel that in-house testing will be less effective because of a conflict of interest. Fair enough, but the tone of the article seems, at least to me, to indicate that the move by Mattel is sinister.  That Mattel, and by guilt through association, the toy industry are cheating.

Here is how I see it. There is a case to be made for both independent and in-house testing. Some of the large toy companies have invested heavily in developing labs and understandably want to keep control over the process. It seems unlikely that Mattel or any toy company would cheat themselves by passing on dangerous toys and then facing lawsuits and further erosion to their brands.  

On the other hand, independent testing sends a message to the consuming public that they are being protected by an unbiased third party. Like a UL approval, it provides a sense of security.

I lived in Chicago for a number of years and learned to trust the Chicago Tribune as a source for prudent, intelligent and informative reporting. So, why is the paper treating this latest story in such a provocative fashion? 

Recently, the "Trib" as it is fondly known by Chicagoland residents has come under the same economic pressures that all newspapers are facing. Their circulation is decreasing rapidly and dangerously as younger readers turn to the Internet for news. It is so bad that the paper’s parent company, The Tribune Company, is putting its Chicago landmark Tribune Tower up for sale. 

Could it be that the paper may be so in need of boosting circulation that it forced to run scare headlines to increase street sales of its newspapers?  

Whatever the case, it would be in everyone’s best interests if the Tribune were a bit less histrionic and a bit more balanced in its coverage. These are troubled economic times with businesses facing enormous and in some cases unprecedented challenges.  Confronting hard times is tough enough.  Mattel and the toy industry don’t need gasoline poured on the fire.
The Chicago Tribune is a great paper, in part due to its ability to carefully weigh information and educate its readers. A bit more prudence on their part would seem to be called for.