18 pages, via online journal article, On April 2016, the weekly Farm News cut its ties with veteran freelancer Rick Friday who drew a cartoon that called attention to how much the CEOs of large agricultural corporations are paid. This study examines the determinants of people’s attitudes toward Mr. Friday’s firing. Using data gathered from a national online survey of newspaper readers, this study traced the antecedents of these attitudes. While the incident drew strong negative reactions, we found that public attitudes were strongly mediated by readers’ attitudes toward Big Ag advertisers. That is, those who saw Big Ag in a positive light were more inclined to report less negative attitudes toward the firing. Another factor that influenced public reaction is the way people perceived the relationship between the farm press and their large corporate advertising sponsors. These findings indicated audience awareness of the synergy between content making and profit making in the farm news business, and that readers saw the relationship between big advertisers and the press as not necessarily adversarial. Those in agricultural states tended to see the editorial cartoon and the firing incident as more relevant to their lives than their counterparts in non-agricultural areas. However, the perceived relevance of the editorial cartoon and the firing incident had no bearing on people’s attitudes toward the incident. Implications of the findings on fostering a healthy relationship between farm newspapers, their readers, and the agribusinesses that advertise in them are discussed.
Lundy, Lisa K. (author), Rogers-Randolph, Tiffany M. (author), Lindsey, Angela B. (author), Hurdle, Clay (author), Ryan, Heather (author), Telg, Ricky W. (author), Irani, Tracy (author), and University of Florida
Format:
Online journal article
Publication Date:
2018
Published:
United States: New Prairie Press
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 152 Document Number: D10155
16 pages, via online journal article, Farming, by the very nature of the occupation, is riddled with uncertainty. The risks associated with the agriculture industry are just as diverse as the industry itself. For all risks, one challenge is the development and dissemination of safety communication materials tailored for diverse audiences. Valkenburg, Semetko, and Vreese (1999) examined common frames used in news media. Their analysis pointed to four commonly used news frames: conflict, human interest, responsibility and economic consequences. The purpose of this study was to describe the agricultural and health safety issues discussed in Florida news media during the year 2016, discussing the prominence of the frames outlined by Valkenburg et al. (1999). In this study, the most prominent frame was the human interest frame, followed by responsibility, economic consequences, and conflict. Frames carry a great deal of weight in shaping individuals’ opinions, attitudes, and actions towards agriculturally based messages; therefore it is essential for agricultural communicators to understand the framing of agricultural health and safety issues. Acknowledging the frames used in the reporting of agricultural issues allows agricultural communicators to enter into informed interactions with media outlets and better prepare the resources they provide to them. These framing analyses also provide agricultural communicators with a solid foundation on which to best position and frame their messaging on behalf of the industry. Further research is recommended to examine frames from an audience perspective and to investigate the impact of human interest frames in the presentation of agricultural news articles.
14 pages, via online journal, Social judgement theory was utilized to determine if men and women showed different acceptance of messages about genetically modified (GM) foods. The primary objective was to determine if females and males had a different latitude of acceptance toward statements about GM foods. Researchers found significant differences between males and females with more males accepting messages about GM foods than females. Additionally, there were several statements with wide latitudes of acceptance across genders. These statements represent a common ground and are a good starting point for conversations about GM food.
16 pages, via online journal article, This meta-analytic study reviewed experimental studies that examined the effects of message framing on public engagement with climate change. We included 10 studies that used self-reported measures of climate-related attitudes and behaviors, with 26 comparison pairs. The results suggested that message framing generally has a positive effect on individuals’ engagement with climate change and its two sub-categories – behavioral intentions and support for climate policy. More specifically, we found message frames that emphasize the environmental, economic, and moral dimensions of climate change have a small-to-medium size impact on individuals’ engagement with climate change. In contrast, message frames around public health implications or geographical identity barely influence individuals’ engagement with this issue. We discussed the implications on strategic communications of climate change.
Telg, Ricky W. (author), Lundy, Lisa (author), Wandersee, Cassie (author), Mukhtar, Saqib (author), Smith, David (author), Stokes, Phillip (author), and University of Florida
Kansas State University
Texas A&M University
Format:
Journal article
Publication Date:
2018
Published:
United States: New Prairie Press
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 1 Document Number: D10163
14 pages; Article 5, via online journal article, The Cattle and Climate Conversations Workshop for Cooperative Extension and Natural Resources Conservation Service, the last activity funded through a multi-regional United States Department of Agriculture’s National Institute of Food and Agriculture (USDA NIFA) grant, took place in October 2016 in Denver, Colorado, for Extension and Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) representatives in the Southwest and Mountain West who work extensively with cattle producers. The purpose of this study was to identify how Extension agents and NRCS personnel in this workshop viewed the issue of “trust,” as it relates to communicating the topic of climate change to cattle producers. Three focus groups, comprised of 29 attendees of the workshop, were conducted simultaneously at the end of the conference. Specific themes about trust included the politically charged nature of climate change, climate change data manipulation, negativity of media surrounding climate change, weathercasters getting predictions wrong, agriculture getting a “black eye” with the public, and participants’ relationships with cattle producers. Findings indicate varying levels of distrust, related to sources of information and influence on the topic of climate change, greatly impact how and whether Extension Service and NRCS employees actually talk “climate change” to cattle producers. Based on the study’s findings, it is recommended that for Extension and NRCS employees to talk about controversial issues, like climate change, it is important to create relationships with clients. In addition, communication and education professionals working with cattle producers should avoid politicizing the topic of climate change if they want climate-related programs to be accepted.
