Commentary

Most of you know that in a former life I was a newspaper/magazine reporter and editor. Journalism is one of those professions that’s always a part of you. I still attend meetings and have DC conversations which trigger that antenna in my head, and I start thinking: “Gosh, I wish I could write a story about this.”

So I view today’s journalists and their endeavors through a lens of my education and experience with the printed word. Most of the time I chuckle to myself. A good example is watching TV “journalism,” or the neverending struggle to fill a 24/7 newshole. While back in Minnesota for Christmas, my favorite moment was the teaser for a story on the “historic December blizzard” that threatened Minneapolis. The TV anchor/news reader, “teasing” the story for the next news segment, almost screamed into the camera: “Do you have travel plans for the holiday? Well, MAYBE NOT!!!”

More and more I’m just plain frustrated by what passes for “journalism” these days. Gone is the bedrock rule of objectivity in stories, gone is balance of viewpoint, replaced by “point-of-view” reporting, or “narrative journalism.” Call it what you will, most of it’s a crock — it’s editorializing and opinion mongering purely and simply, and done to sell subscriptions and advertising.

A good example is this week’s story from Associated Press with the headline “Pressure rises to stop antibiotics in agriculture.” Written by one reporter out of Mexico City and one reporter who’s a fellow of the Nieman Foundation at Harvard Universtiy, the piece is one of the most factually inaccurate and subjective stories I’ve read on the use of low-level antibiotics on farm. Statements on which products are/were used in ag and how they’re used are wrong and there are huge gaps in the context of antibiotic use, meaning are we talking human or animal use?

Now, in the interest of full disclosure, I represent a company which manufactures and sells livestock and poultry antimicrobials, and I’ve been involved in the antibiotics issue for more years than I can remember, both during my days as the head of government affairs for the American Feed Industry Assn. (AFIA) and as a consultant. However, what this experience has taught me is the science of the issue, the facts of the products’ use, the rigor of federal and state regulation, and the benefits inherent in keeping animals healthy, no matter what production system you may choose to use.

This article obviously was pitched to an editor by a reporter with a viewpoint. Now, keep in mind neither of the reporters who created this “narrative” have an obvious expertise or on-farm experience. They build the story off a farmer who developed a strep infection after being gored by a boar, and the obvious problem with his treatment was that his pig feed contained penicillin. Then there’s always the assumed Google search for “on-farm antibiotic use and why it’s just plain wrong.”

Most of the sources are avowed opponents of technology in agriculture. The general statements about resistance in humans to antimicrobials by medical folks are broad statements. No where in the story is there any mention of chronic overuse of the drugs by physicians and hospitals, no where are the critics’ statements and allegations balanced by experts/scientists who refute these claims. No where do they discuss the animal suffering and death that will almost certainly result from a loss of these products.

One colleague refers to this kind of reporting as “journalistic epidemiology,” the weaving of a science story implying an assumed cause-and-effect where none has been established. Apparently, the rule of the day is not to let facts get in the way of a good story.

This is our challenge — educating reporters so this kind of science fiction does not get passed off as fact. The public won’t check to see if the reporting is accurate, and they’ll buy into the “scariness” of the reporting.

The general media have always done a crappy job of reporting on what happens on the farm. Maybe it’s because there’s nothing “sexy” about feeding 300 million folks affordably, safely and sustainably.

That’s too bad, because to my mind there’s even less “sex” in watching animals get sick and die and folks struggling to make ends meet go hungry.