Garrett M. Steede (author), Courtney Meyers (author), Nan Li (author), Erica Irlbeck (author), Sherice Gearhart (author), and Texas Tech University; University of Minnesota - Twin Cities
Format:
Journal article
Publication Date:
2018
Published:
USA
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 149 Document Number: D10103
Article 4; pgs. 1-16, On January 1, 2017, the final rule of the Veterinary Feed Directive (VFD) was put into place requiring
antibiotics approved for both humans and animals to be discontinued for growth promotion. This change was
brought on by the role growth promoters in livestock production play in the development of antibiotic
resistance. Antibiotic resistance increases the costs associated with human health care by increasing the length
of stays in the hospital and requiring more intensive medical care for patients. The purpose of this study was to
explore sentiment and characteristics of social media content and the characteristics of the key influencers
whose opinions had the greatest amount of reach on social media in regard to antibiotic use in livestock and
antibiotic resistance. Nuvi, a social media monitoring program, provided sentiment for each tweet and coded
64.8% of the content (n = 129) as negative compared to 38.2% (n = 76) humans coded as negative. The
contrast between human coders and Nuvi indicates there could be discrepancies between how Nuvi codes
content and the way a human might interpret the content. No key influencer discussed antibiotic use in
livestock positively. Findings suggest agricultural communicators should not rely completely on the output
from sentiment analysis programs to evaluate how the public discusses issues related to agriculture,
particularly controversial issues. Further, agricultural communications practitioners should prioritize
monitoring the content shared by key influencers in an effort to better understand the content being shared by
the most influential users. Recommendations for future research are provided.
6 pages., Via online journal., The study of food is crucial since food is part of daily life of people. Also, food and gastronomy are a very important leisure and travel issue. This is reflected through the huge attention that media pay to food stories. Food journalism has become a field of increasing interest, and the study of journalistic narratives allows to understand concrete cultural and social realities. Within this context, the current paper analyses food in journalistic storytelling. The objective of the research is to define a methodological proposal of topics in order to study the food-based contents found in legacy media, particularly, in daily newspapers. To achieve it, the food contents of The New York Times, the world's food journalism referent, are revisited.
9 pages., Via online journal., This study traces popularity-driven coverage of climate change in New Scientist with the special aim of identifying which aspects of the issue have been backgrounded. Unlike institutional communication or quality press coverage of climate change, commercial science journalism has received less attention with respect to how it frames the crisis. Assuming that the construction of newsworthiness in popular science journalism requires eliminating, or at least obscuring, some alienating information, the study identifies prevalent frames, news values and discursive strategies in the outlet’s most-read online articles on climate change (2013–2015). With the official statement of the World Meteorological Organization (2014) as a reference, it considers which dimensions of the coverage have been backgrounded, and illustrates how language is recruited to de-emphasize some representations through implicitness, underspecification, or syntactic and compositional devices. It finds that the coverage relies on threat frames, privileges novelty and the timeliness and impact of climate science, avoids responsibility and adaptation frames, and endorses the so-called progress narrative. It discusses how this may forestall social and personal mobilization by placing trust in science institutions and technologies to confront the crisis.
Chris Clemons (author), James R. Lindner (author), Bruce Murray (author), Mike P. Cook (author), Brandon Sams (author), and Gwendolyn Williams (author)
Format:
Journal article
Publication Date:
2018-04-15
Published:
USA
Location:
Agricultural Communications Documentation Center, Funk Library, University of Illinois Box: 149 Document Number: D10105
Via online issue. Pgs. 283-252, The purpose of the study was to examine the confluence of agricultural literacy, what it means to
be agriculturally literate, and if a gap between agricultural literacy and being agriculturally
literate existed. Two primary research questions framed this study: 1) How do agriculture
professionals define agricultural literacy? 2) What does it mean to be agriculturally literate? While
the terms literacy and literate are often used synonymously they have important and different
meanings. This study used the Delphi Study Technique for determining consensus. The Delphi panel
consisted of engaged agricultural professionals from seven states. These professions represented
a broad spectrum of agricultural careers and experience. Each panel member was recognized as
a leader in his or her field. The findings indicated that participants did not discern a difference
between agricultural literacy and being agriculturally literate in regards to reading, writing, and
speaking about agriculture. This study supports the conclusion that the terms agriculturally literate
and agricultural literacy are used interchangeably. Agricultural professional may not be aware of
the inherent differences between possessing agricultural literacy and being agriculturally literate.
