A Times news article criticizing actress Scarlett Johansson's work for SodaStream reports:
In a promotional video about the making of the SodaStream commercial scheduled to air during the fourth quarter of the Super Bowl, Ms. Johansson mentioned that she was particularly drawn to the product for ethical reasons — that it eliminates the need for plastic soda bottles, which contaminate the environment.
That's inaccurate in two ways. First, it inaccurately describes the claim made by Ms. Johansson in the video. She never says the SodaStreem eliminates the need for plastic soda bottles. Second, the product in fact does not eliminate the need for plastic soda bottles. There may be one version that has glass carafes, but by far the largest seller is the product that works with a re-usable plastic bottle.
The article's treatment of the Middle East policy issues is just as sloppy. It never mentions that the Israeli "settlement" where the SodaStream factory is is relatively close to Israel's capital, Jerusalem, and has bipartisan support in Israel. It is not some far-flung or unauthorized outpost. It doesn't question why Oxfam, an aid group, is choosing to get involved in the Arab-Israeli dispute, which is far from its mission. The article includes 18 paragraphs critical of SodaStream, Israel, or Johansson, and a mere 10 that are either neutral or positive. Is the Times news department's position that Jews should be forbidden to operate companies on this land, where Jews have lived for thousands of years and that the Bible says God gave to the Jews?