Do a search of news headlines about agriculture, and you are likely to be depressed. Very few of them will be positive, actually most will be negative.

On issues such as food safety, animal care, ethanol, trade, the farm bill, fertilizer, CFOs and crop protection chemicals, the stories will almost always focus on the negative. This is because negative stories attract more readers, viewers or listeners.

A threat to our food supply or our environment, a waste of taxpayer dollars, cruelty to animals, or hikes in food or fuel prices will always get our attention. Stories about the positive things in agriculture are relegated to the Sunday feature section or public affairs programs that air at 3 a.m. So what can we in agriculture do to get some positive coverage of our industry?

To help answer that question, I went to a communications expert at Purdue University. Chris Sigurdson is head of the Ag Communications Department and would cringe at being called an expert. Yet, I value his viewpoint because of his knowledge of the agricultural sector and his experience trying to explain ag to both the farm and non-farm media.

Sigurdson suggested that agriculture needs to stop trying to talk to everyone and focus on talking to the audiences that matter.
“There are some stakeholders and critics that you have to communicate with and, while it is good in theory to talk to all of the public, nobody can afford it and nor does all of the public care,” he said.

For example, he said the ethanol industry needs to decide who can affect their destiny, and who do they need to talk to and why.
Sigurdson believes in communicating by objective. “Not to make ourselves feel good, not to make all the bad press go away, but to accomplish objectives that benefit your industry,” he explained.
He admitted bad press hurts and acknowledged that agriculture is particularly sensitive to criticism. But he added that agriculture is a mature industry. “We are playing in the big leagues,” Sigurdson said.

This means there is going to be bad press, and there are going to be people that say negative and often untruthful things about it. Sigurdson said the trap is to try and answer each and every attack. A better approach is for agriculture to speak meaningfully to the audiences that it cares about, and who care about it. He cautioned this means external audiences.

“We spend a lot of time talking to ourselves,” Sigurdson added.
Another communication concept that Sigurdson urged is transparency. This is especially important in the livestock industry. He cited the success of Proposition 2 in California this fall to the lack of transparency by the livestock industry.

“We don’t really show people how animals are produced so, when the Humane Society of the United States does, they can make it look as bad as they want to,” he explained.

Finally, Sigurdson calls for honesty and consistency in the message we send about agriculture.

“Tell the truth - be up front and honest, and people in a democratic society will make the right decision,” Sigurdson said.

He said on issues and policy we need to take the long view. We may face some tough times and sharp criticism now, but we need to consider how the issue will be resolved in the long run.
These are just some things to keep in mind next time you see a negative headline about agriculture. Don’t worry; I am sure there is one just around the corner.

The views and opinions expressed in this column are those of the author and not necessarily those of Farm World. Readers with questions or comments for Gary Truitt may write to him in care of this publication.