The press is seen as a cornerstone and guardian of democracy, but is it also capable of sparking a proper social debate about our food production? This relevant and complex question has guided PhD candidate Marie Garnier Ortiz in her work in recent years at WUR's Strategic Communication chair group. She examined the content and framing of over 700 articles in the UK media about British 'industrial meat production' in recent decades. Her conclusion: the media are too much controlled by the poultry industry.
During her PhD defence on 19 December, it became clear how Marie Garnier Ortiz came to reach this conclusion. First, she formulated a number of 'normative expectations' for the media. Newspapers should be able to spark public debate by putting multiple points of view into perspective. They must be able to articulate complex issues clearly and must be 'accountable', meaning they should be able to explain how they arrived at their texts. Finally, they need to critically examine and assess power relations.
Framing
She then went on to look at how seven British dailies wrote about poultry farming over several decades. In doing so, she looked at framing: what was the problem in the article? Who caused the problem, what was the solution, and who was responsible for solving the problem? This led to a huge dataset of issues, problems, and solutions. Most of the articles were about avian influenza, some about animal welfare, antibiotics, or economics. Rare were the articles that talked about the poultry sector or the food system as a whole, the PhD candidate concluded. She also stated that, to her surprise, the poultry industry was not identified as the cause of problems, but as a victim.
Opponents responded straight away by arguing that what Ortiz was doing was not value-free science. How was her underlying conviction? She said she was most charmed by an article in The Guardian entitled 'The dirty secret of UK's poultry industry', which brought to light the contamination of chicken with campylobacter. The reason: the article highlighted the broader food chain, including producers and supermarkets, and it was written by a group of journalists. She also liked the fact that The Guardian made its 'normative position' clear: politically leftist and activist.
This led to the question of why the PhD candidate did not opt for non-biased news and interpretations. Her answer was that this kind of independent position does not exist. All journalists are children of their time. Moreover, journalists operate in a social force field, where power is exercised and inequality prevails. Journalists and newspapers should be aware of this, and be transparent about their social motives, replied the PhD candidate from Costa Rica.
Expectations of journalism
This led her opponents to wonder whether Ortiz's expectations of journalism were not unrealistic. Earlier research had long since established that journalism does not live up to its exalted role of cornerstone and guardian of democracy, as one opponent noted. Most journalism is biased. So why did she take this as her starting point? "I still believe that they can live up to their social role." Not by no longer having prejudices - that is not possible - but by being diverse and bringing together multiple interests and viewpoints, said Ortiz.
The next opponent wondered: who is responsible for making sure that the media does this? Self-regulation is not an option; it doesn't work. And government regulation immediately suggests censorship. So what would work? Ortiz thought the solution might be a committee that could hold the media accountable. She also thought that journalists should more often involve citizens in preparing and writing articles, allowing them to use new angles and questions.
Journalism and science
Meanwhile, she was aware of the similarities between journalism and science: both had been cornerstones of democracy and were now under fire as truth-tellers. Like journalists, scientists needed to be aware of power differences and inequality, Ortiz said. Both journalists and scientists sketch the possibilities and options of others. That power requires them to be open towards the public about their 'normative position'.
