The hardworking staff asked the other day, “Why Is ABC Letting Claire Shipman Shill For Agribusiness?”
At issue:
[Today] an outfit called U.S. Farmers & Ranchers Alliance is hosting The Food Dialogues, “a town hall-style discussion to address Americans’ questions about how their food is grown and raised and the long-term impact of the food they are eating – on their own health and the health of the planet.”
Moderator: Claire Shipman, senior national correspondent at ABC’s “Good Morning America.”
This is an agribusiness front group with a grubstake of $11 million dedicated to solidifying its monopoly position in the food chain.
It’s obvious why agribusiness is funding this effort. But why is ABC allowing Shipman to front it?
In response, an agribusiness flack sent this:
Ms. Shipman is not “shilling” for the U.S. Farmers & Ranchers Alliance (USFRA), agribusiness or any other organization. She is serving as an emcee for the entire program which includes panel discussions in four different geographic locations. She is not participating to express opinions, but to keep the program going and on schedule. Each panel discussion will have a diverse group of participants representing many points-of-view on today’s agriculture, and will be moderated by four distinct individuals, none of which is Ms. Shipman. I would encourage everyone to participate in the “Food Dialogues” by visiting http://www.fooddialogues,com to learn how. Thanks!
No – thank you.
So Claire Shipman is not a shill – she’s just a traffic cop.
Not sure that makes things any better.
Campaign Outsider 
Funding for the Food Dialogues is being provided by America’s farmers and ranchers (not agribusiness) who are committed to continuous improvement in how food is grown and raised to provide healthy choices for people everywhere. Join the discussion, then decide. Go to http://www.fooddialogues.com.
A shill is someone who appears to be a customer or a disinterested observer, but is actually delivering the advertiser’s message.
So if Claire Shipman wasn’t a shill before, she certainly is now, after the PR department has asserted that she is a disinterested observer.
Good point, John. My first thought when I saw that ad was: “Gee, when did she resign her TV news position?”