New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s controversial ban of large soda and sugary drinks was overturned March 11, yet the liberal media continued to promote such a ban.
NBC portrayed Bloomberg’s law as a noble fight for the health of New Yorkers. CNN “Starting Point” anchor Soledad O’Brien threw away her objectivity in an interview by announcing she had been a “long supporter” of the soda ban. CNN host Piers Morgan also chimed in support for the overturned law. But MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” co-host Mika Brzezinski had a complete meltdown, referencing it as a “serious issue” and calling sugar “poison” four times and “toxic” twice.
That’s just a taste of the media’s attitude towards soda. The New York Times had a front page story  on March 13 dedicated to the “Soda War Allies.” In an article attacking the supposed soda lobby, the Times pointed out that not only did the industry profit, but advocacy groups for minorities had also teamed up with beverage industry to fight increased soda taxes and bans.
Bloomberg stated to the New York Post on March 12 he was implementing his soda ban because poor people “don’t have the ability to take care of themselves .”
On March 11, NBC’s “Nightly News” anchor Brian Williams declared  that Bloomberg’s battle “isn’t over yet.” Correspondent Rehema Ellis continued the Bloomberg-will-not-be-defeated campaign, proclaiming “the Mayor says his fight to make New Yorkers healthier will continue.”
Several CNN anchors also seemed unhappy about the law’s demise. On the March 12 edition of “Starting Point,” O’Brien proudly proclaimed  that she had been a long time supporter of Bloomberg’s soda ban. She then harassed the New York Restaurant Association’s Andrew Moesel, asking if he was “standing up for something that ultimately is unhealthy for children and adults, too?”
On the previous night, Piers Morgan also defended  his support for Mayor Bloomberg’s nanny-state laws, declaring that “he wants New Yorkers to be fitter and healthier. What’s wrong with that?”
None of this compared to Mika Brzezinski’s March 12 rant on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.” Brzezinski called sugar “poison” four times in five minutes and charged that the “American Beverage Association is relieved because they can continue to make money poisoning people.”
Brzezinski continued her tirade by praising Bloomberg, calling him a “visionary” for his soda ban attempt. “It’s killing us, it’s killing our children. It’s liquid sugar, and sugar is poison,” she stated.
She then told consumers to be mad at themselves for buying this “stuff” which encourages companies to “produce poison for you and your children.”
The irony of all of this paranoia over soda consumption is that consumption peaked in 1998 and has fallen by 17.3 percent, according to Beverage Digest . All without the help of Bloomberg.
The media had been hyping Bloomberg’s soda ban for some time. From Jan. 1 to March 13 2013, all three network news broadcasts demonized soda 18 times. NBC and CBS both consulted “experts” from the Center for Science in the Public Interest, or CSPI, without noting that they are a pro-regulatory group that has attacked dozens of different foods and beverages.
CSPI has been relentless in its war against soda. In fact, it was one of the leading activist organizations that led to the ban of soda  in public schools in 2005. Many in the media praised it for its efforts and even provided a platform for CSPI Director, Michael Jacobson, to speak. Jacobson called for warning labels to be put on all sodas that they can cause obesity on CBS’s “The Morning Show.”
In 2006, ABC promoted CSPI’s war against 7Up afer Jacobson filed a lawsuit against the beverage maker for its advertising. “We’re saying the company should be honest with consumers and really honest in the marketplace,” Jacobson said as he took aim at high fructose syrup. He claimed it is not a natural product; therefore, 7Up’s label was misleading.
When mentioned, CSPI is rarely, if ever, labeled as a liberal organization – they are consulted as experts  on all things bad for you. CSPI‘s solution to everything is more regulation or taxation instead of allowing people to make choices for themselves on what to consume.