More Inconvenient Truths: Bias and Pay-to-Play Journalism
Recently, Raleigh’s News & Observer ran a rather lengthy Op-Ed authored by Samantha Gasson, who owns a small family livestock farm in Northwest Durham County. It is well written, and like any good farmer, she is promoting sales as the newspaper hot-linked to her farm’s webpage, which allows the online visitor to order expensive pasture-raised pork, non-GMO Turkeys, and free “ranger” chickens that have been running and playing all day long.” Her operation even sells dog treats made from their pastured pork offal. They also dabble in agritourism with educational classes for youth. Their thoughtfully designed website even displays cute, cuddly pictures of their farm animals along with the family dogs.
In the article, she presents herself as a small niche “primary farm caretaker” whose husband works in a 9 to 5 job, and their high school and college-age kids help out. For some reason, this small operation is interested in the upcoming reauthorization of the Farm Bill in Congress. She is especially interested in an effort to protect North Carolina’s largest farm gate income producer – animal agriculture. Another Bill introduced in the US Senate – Ending Agriculture Trade Suppression Act – S. 219 is of particular concern to her. This bill was filed in response to the recent US Supreme Court ruling against the farm and agribusiness community on California’s Prop 12 initiative. The resulting state mandate will ultimately regulate pork production throughout the country if the product is to be sold within California. The Supreme Court ruled that Congress, not the courts, should settle this issue. Ms. Gasson even cites a recent analysis by Harvard Law School that states the law, if enacted, will supersede “thousands” of state laws. Our 2 US Senators are original co-sponsors of the bill that directly responded to the US Supreme Court ruling that Congress should settle the issue. This bill seeks to correct a situation causing a massive disruption in the marketplace.
What caught my attention was the unusual detail. Ms. Gasson quotes an obscure Harvard Law School publication and deceased Supreme Court Justices. I did a little checking.
The News & Observer cited at the end of the Op-Ed that “Samantha Gasson is an independent NC farmer. She and her husband, Scott Stirrup, and their children operate Bull City Farm in Rougemont”.
Well….she is far from just a small independent farmer. Here is the rest of the story: Samantha Gasson is the Humane Farming Program Manager for FACT “Food Animal Concerns Trust” out of Chicago. The Trust enjoys $1.5 million in receipts and holds $1.4 million in assets. They are concerned about the health effects of modern farming practices on public health. They have a media outreach strategy. They don’t like confinement ag. Like magic, a well-written, well-cited Op-Ed is written and submitted to the local news through a local farmer. Oh, by the way, no mention that the farmer also has a day job working for a nonprofit organization that works against modern farming practices under the guise of public health concerns! Yet again, we intend to call out the N&O on sloppy/misleading journalism.
Many of you may say that “no one reads the legacy newspaper” or “I’m not a part of this area of the Ag Family.” Or “I am just part of the NCDOL’s or NCDA&CS’ regulatory mission,” or “it doesn’t affect my farm or my business.” First, when it is on the web, it lives forever. Anyone can easily access these stories through search engines. It will far outreach the paid subscriptions of the N&O and can quickly become campaign fodder in close elections.
Second, depending on the whims of wealthy funders, we have seen an explosion of nonprofits desperately trying to change modern farms. From scaring people about the next epidemic from farming to an outlandish suggestion that we should not kill cockroaches, mice, and rats but learn to co-exist in nature with them. Recently, the storied AP – a fading institution that is still trusted as an honest broker of news – had their rating changed by the media bias rating group All Sides, from center to leans left. They altered the rating after noting a shift in word choice bias and bias by omitting news. This change coincides with media reports that the AP is taking millions of dollars from left-leaning groups to focus on issues important to donors.
If this biased local reporting goes unchallenged, it will easily “infect” our elections with misleading information. Our down-ballot offices – such as Commissioner of Agriculture, Commissioner of Labor, and Attorney General- can all be affected if there is no voice defending farming and business-friendly candidates in the marketplace.
Media outlets try to wallpaper over any impact the funding may have on their reporting. The funders may not actually write the articles, but the grants often focus on reporting on their specific special interest. Time and time again, we see the pay-to-play funders’ objectives appear in the produced articles.
Shame on the News & Observer.