Headlines vs. Fact in agriculture

I was invited to sit on a panel at the recent rural/agriculture legislative forum titled "Headlines vs. Fact" the media's portrayal of food issues like pandemics and H1N1.

While I felt a little like I may be in the bulls eye on this topic, I was happy to explain the role of "the media" as it were and my role as editor of The Free Press.

Others on the panel included representatives from the pork industry, the ethanol industry and a public relations specialist.

For more than an hour we discussed how food scare issues and the H1N1 issues can be portrayed in the media in ways that are not always accurate or in some cases where facts are not complete.

One issue: Why does the media use the term "swine flu" when you can't get it by eating pork. The Free Press tries to avoid the term swine flu, and our headline writers are instructed to use H1N1. The key here: Do people know what you are talking about when you use the term H1N1. I contend they do.

Do people know you definitely cannot catch H1N1 from eating pork when you use the term "swine flu." My take: some do, some don't. So H1N1 in my mind is more informative, and accurate.

The caveat I mention to folks. Media rely on sources, and the biggest source in this case is the Centers for Disease Control. If you look on their Web site, they title their information on the issue just like this "H1N1 (swine flu)."

My key advice to the agricultural industries, is to engage the mainstream media. Officials say they tend to favor the trade media, like the ag publications etc, out of a comfort zone type of thing.

But, they must engage mainstream media, because mainstream talks to consumers, and it is consumers' confidence that directly affects the price of their products.

All in all a great panel, lots of positive feedback from the audience. One e-mail I got said our story on the event was even pretty darn accurate!!!