Actress Natasha Richardson is dead.

Obviously, that’s a tragedy. She was a wife, mother and had an amazing talent.

But even so, there is absolutely no excuse for the Richardson Media Deathwatch that we’ve seen going on for the last week

I’m not naive – the media, in general, loves a story like this. Famous person, photogenic, unusual circumstance – you even can get a little bit of fear-mongering in there. “Should helmets be mandatory on ski hills? Should you go to a neurologist every time you bump your head?” It’s like hitting the rating sweet spot.

But still, things got a little ridiculous. So much of the stuff coming out of the media over the past week has been nothing but rumour and I disgustingly voyeuristic look at a family’s devastating loss.

Not to say I haven’t been part of this. I was on the desk when word of the accident first came through, and Richardson was taken to hospital after the fall. I was also editing when the news came yesterday that her cause of death had been pinned down by the New York Medical Examiner. I ran those stories – I thought that they were fair, and they were newsworthy. But throughout the week, I tried to stay away from running much on Richardson, just because there wasn’t anything new. Even though no one had anything of substance to say, Richardson Deathwatch 2009 continued.

Is she braindead? Are they pulling the plug? Could she have been saved if she went to the doctor right away?

It wasn’t reporting. It was rumour-mongering. Pictures were taken as Richardson’s family was entering the hospital. Sensational reports about a private tragedy were splashed on magazines and sprayed all over the six-o’clock news. Vultures with tape recorders and press passes perched outside her hospital bed, eager to clean the bones before the others got to it first.

I hope that these “journalists” are ashamed. I know that I am. And it’s not the media layoffs and or the worsening economic situation that most makes me question if I even want to do this job – it’s the fear that I’m going to end up like them.

(Up next – Why I hate my profession, pt. 2: Mickey Kaus – Wrong, even when he’s (sort of) right.)

Last summer saw a deadly listeriosis outbreak across Canada because of tainted meat from a Maple Leaf plant. And right now, everyone is freaking out every time they get anywhere near peanut butter. (Now I know how the 1% of Canadians feel.)

Now, given all that, you’d think it would be the time to step up and reaffirm the government’s dedication to food safety.

Of course, any astute observer of national politics knows that isn’t likely to happen. Instead, the powers that be think instead it is the perfect time to continue pushing for LESS oversight into the Canadian food industry.

From the CBC:

“Under the proposed changes, called the “poultry rejection program,” slaughterhouse employees would be responsible for monitoring birds as they pass through the production lines, a task usually carried out by veterinarians working for the Canadian Food Inspection Agency.

The changes would also mean slaughterhouses wouldn’t have to make public the reasons why carcasses were rejected, say the veterinarians.”

Okay, I can understand the thinking behind privitazation of social services and regulation. I mean, I don’t agree with it at all – I think it’s a system that is just asking for corruption and abuse. But at the very least, I can understand how someone might (mistakenly) think that it would be more efficient and focused than public agencies.

But I don’t get how this can seem like a good idea. It’s more dangerous than privatizing regulation, and it’s more insulting than simply deregulating.

I know that we’re all living in this post-Obama world of hope and change and good feelings, but no one is so idealistic that this can seem like a good idea. We have food safety rules for a reason – because we think it is important that what we eat in this country meets a minimum standard. If we were confident that the food industry would meet this standard all the time, we wouldn’t need the rules. If we aren’t naive enough to think that the industry will follow this rules, why on earth would we trust them with enforcement of the rules?

The fact is that human beings are hard-wired to cut corners. It is basic evolutionary psychology: an individual that can get the same result using fewer resources is more likely to survive and thrive. That’s why we have regulations in the first place – so that there is a penalty to cutting corners, one that outweighs the benefits.

We leave very few things up to self-enforcement. We don’t trust students to mark their own tests- we have proctors for that.

We don’t trust accused criminals to determine their own guilty – we have judges.

And we shouldn’t be leave the decisions on whether a product is safe for sale to the companies that sell it. It’s not just wrong. It’s absolutely mind-boggling.

This isn’t a partisan issue – this poultry “modernization” (as independent oversight is some how a medieval notion) started under the federal Liberals. But Harper’s Conservatives have embraced the idea whole-heartedly. (Just like his shameful handling of the government probe into last year’s listeria outbreak.)

There is no way the government can be idealistic enough to actually think this will make Canadians safer. So, the only option left is that they are cynical enough to believe that consumers and voters won’t make much of a stink.

And that’s the only thing in this mess they might actually be right about.