13 pages, Agricultural fairs provide one of the last frontiers, and largest stages, for showcasing livestock agriculture to the public. However, public funding, attendance revenue, animal biosecurity, and public health concerns are all aspects worthy of conversation and increased research attention given the interaction between livestock animals and the general public in fair and festival settings. A prominent social media listening and data analytics platform was used to quantify online and social media chatter concerning agricultural fairs during a 27-mo period. A general search for online media referencing agricultural fair keywords was designed; social and online media mentions of agricultural fairs (n = 2,091,350 mentions) were further queried according to their reference to livestock, fair food, or the major agricultural product producing species of dairy and beef cattle (n = 68,900), poultry (n = 39,600), and swine (n = 31,250). Numbers of search results were found to be seasonal and Twitter was the single largest domain for all fair-related results; in contrast, the majority of livestock-related media was generated by news sources rather than from Twitter. On a weekly basis, the percentage of fair livestock mentions with species-specific reference was highly variable ranging from 0% to 86.8% for cattle, 0% to 85.7% for poultry, and 0% to 76.9% for swine. In addition to quantifying total search hits or mentions, the positivity/negativity of the search results was analyzed using natural language processing capabilities. The net sentiment quantified is the total percentage of positive posts minus the percentage of negative posts, which results in a necessarily bounded net sentiment between −100% and +100%. Overall net sentiment associated with mentions of agricultural fairs was positive; the topics garnering the highest positive sentiments were fair food and cattle (both 98% positive). Online discussion pertaining to agricultural fairs and swine was overall positive despite references to swine flu outbreaks. In conclusion, livestock and animal products had positive net sentiment over the time period studied, but there are multiple aspects of agricultural fairs worthy of further investigation and continued vigilance, including zoonotic disease risk and public perceptions of livestock industries.
20 pages, Knowledge of agricultural practices has declined in recent years, resulting in consumers becoming uncertain of where and how their food has been produced and the marketing tactics used to promote the product. Historically, the U.S. population’s rich agricultural heritage coincided with higher levels of agricultural literacy. Some scholars, however, have maintained that U.S. culture has begun to lose touch with its agricultural foundations. More recent evidence has demonstrated that consumers acquire knowledge about their food from various media, most notably the Internet and social media. Often these sources use incorrect information and promote food and agricultural marketing trends that may not be grounded in scientific data. In response, this historical narrative analyzed a reform effort that occurred in U.S. food labeling policy and practice in the 1900s, which contributed to food labeling issues and consumer distrust in the agricultural industry. Based on the findings of this investigation, we concluded that food labels were initially intended to provide consumers with more profound knowledge of the food they purchased. However, key legislative acts such as the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act and the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act shifted the food labeling movement into a branding device to differentiate products and brands. We recommend that agricultural practitioners explore new ways to communicate their message more effectively. We also call for producers to incorporate more personal and emotional appeals when marketing agricultural products to better compete with third-party branding efforts.
20 pages., Mass media is the main source of scientific information for most Americans, but inaccuracy of reporting has threatened the public’s understanding of science. Perceived media bias and fake news has also made the public skeptical of the media, and scientists’ perceptions are no different. Because scientists are the most trusted source for scientific information in America, it is important they remain willing to work with the media. This study used the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) to explore scientists’ perceptions of working with reporters, including their attitude, subjective norms, behavioral control, and intent to engage with the media in the future. In-depth interviews were conducted with 13 tenure-track faculty at the University of Florida’s Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences (UF/IFAS) in spring 2018. These participants represented low, moderate, and high communicators. The findings from this study indicated mostly negative attitudes toward reporters due to skepticism in their ability to accurately report science. Behavioral control was also limited due to time and ability constraints, but participants recommended trainings as ways to increase behavioral control. Subjective norms were somewhat mixed, with some positive norms from mentors but perceived negative norms from the public. Despite negative attitudes toward reporters, intent to engage with the media was mixed. However, subjective norms and behavioral control were often discussed as reasons to not engage with reporters. The findings from this study offered recommendations for both practice and research to help foster positive relationships between scientists and reporters.
21 pages, via online journal, How an agricultural organization handles the way the media reports a crisis can have an impact on the public’s perceptions of the organization, and sometimes the industry as a whole. The popularity of social media outlets as a venue for disseminating and gathering information and news makes the use of social media surrounding agricultural crises an important topic to investigate (Glynn, Huge, & Hoffman 2012; Hermida, 2010). A qualitative case study was conducted to investigate the use of social media tools during an agricultural crisis. The participants – communications directors, social media managers, and individuals with a close connection to the crisis under study – reported that social media was a major component of their communication efforts surrounding each crisis. Participants felt social media was very effective in these situations and had a major impact on their communication efforts. Although no participants reported using a structured social media strategy or crisis communication plan, they stated a need for such guidelines in the agricultural industry. From the data analyzed in this study, a model for using social media during a crisis situation, aimed specifically for use by those in the agricultural industry, was developed. This project was funded through the USDA's Beginning Farmers & Ranchers Project.
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 157 Document Number: D11631
Notes:
2 pages., Online via AgriMarketing Weekly. 2 pages., Revised name and mission of what was formerly the Agricultural Publishers Association (APA) and Connectiv Agri Media Committee.
25 pages, via online Journal, The spread of non-prescription opioid abuse has increased to the point that a person is now more likely to die from an accidental overdose than an automobile accident. Rural areas have been hit particularly hard, and many farmers indicate direct impacts resulting from the opioid epidemic. Researchers have recognized the role of the media in communicating complicated issues and influencing potential solutions. This study analyzed the frames and sources used to communicate issues regarding the rural opioid epidemic in The New York Times and five additional newspapers from states most affected by the opioid epidemic. A total of 115 news, feature, editorial, and other articles were analyzed. The most often used frame was “growth or spread” of the epidemic and the sources most frequently referenced were medical professionals and elected officials. Although a non-traditional issue in agriculture, agricultural communicators should not shy away from getting involved given the potential for harm to rural communities and, in turn, the agriculture industry. Future studies should investigate rural community member and journalist perceptions on the issue, as well as coverage in other states.
13pgs, With a focus on journalistic discourse, this paper argues for a re-envisioning of food-system communication that takes non-human animals into account as stakeholders in systems that commodify them. This is especially urgent in light of the global pandemic, which has laid bare the vulnerability to crisis inherent in animal-based food production. As a case study to illustrate the need for a just and non-human inclusive orientation to food-systems communication, the paper performs a qualitative rhetorical examination, of a series of articles in major U.S. news sources in May of 2020, a few months into the economic shutdown in the U.S. in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. At that time, millions of pigs were brutally killed on U.S. farms due to the impossibility of killing them in slaughterhouses overrun with COVID-19 outbreaks. The analysis finds that media reporting legitimated violence against pigs by framing narratives from industry perspectives, deflecting agency for violence away from farmers, presenting pigs as willing victims, masking violence through euphemism, objectifying pigs and ignoring their sentience, and uncritically propagating industry rhetoric about “humane” farming. Through these representations, it is argued, the media failed in their responsibility to present the viewpoints of all sentient beings affected by the crisis; in other words, all stakeholders. The methodology merges a textually- oriented approach to critical discourse analysis (CDA) with social critique informed by critical animal studies (CAS), and the essay concludes with recommendations for journalists and other food-system communicators, which should be possible to implement even given the current capitalist, industry-influenced media environment and the demonstrated ruthlessness of animal industries in silencing voices inimical to their profitmaking.
