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.
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.
15 pages, via online journal article, Scientist-stakeholder partnerships are formed by scientists from academic institutions and industry representatives in an effort to address contingent science issues such as climate change, inform the public and influence public policies. Such organizations often lack expertise in communicating to the public and conducting outreach which are crucial components to building a good reputation. This study selected Florida Water and Climate Alliance [FWCA] as an example of such an organization, exploring its media attention and media framing to assess the visibility and reputation of [FWCA]. Results showed very limited media attention had been devoted to [FWCA]. The framing analysis results indicated that the coverage of [FWCA] is mostly introductory and descriptive information from public institutions, collaborators and funding agencies. These results demonstrate the need for such organizations to increase media visibility and build their reputations through strategic communication. Scientist-stakeholder partnership organizations like FWCA could gain from strategic collaborations with agricultural communications professionals and academic researchers. To better assist in building the reputation for these organizations, recommendations include developing strategic communication plans and conducting research about stakeholders’ and collaborators’ perceptions of an organization’s reputation.
