Since the COVID-19 pandemic began, and deaths started to be reported, a news cycle that was already ravenous and insatiable became even more so. Every day or, it seems, every hour new articles, infographics and videos related to the spread and impact of COVID-19 are released.

It’s a lot of stimuli to process, by any measure, but all of it does require processing. To not take things seriously and hold everything that comes at us under the banner of “information” to a set of accountability standards is to shirk a responsibility we all have in a crowded media space where individual players are fighting for our attention and our money using nothing more than weak and public analytics on what motivates our particular generation.

In March, Facebook’s fact checkers identified about 40 million posts containing false information on its platforms. This is a phenomenal number of posts. “On Facebook and Instagram, we’ve now directed more than 2 billion people to authoritative health resources via our Covid-19 Information Center and educational pop-ups, with more than 350 million people clicking through to learn more,” said Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg.

“We’re also continuing our efforts to reduce misinformation. Since the beginning of March, we’ve expanded our fact-checking coverage to more than a dozen new countries and now work with over 60 fact-checking organizations that review content in more than 50 languages. If a piece of content contains harmful misinformation that could lead to imminent physical harm, then we’ll take it down. We’ve taken down hundreds of thousands of pieces of misinformation related to Covid-19, including theories like drinking bleach cures the virus or that physical distancing is ineffective at preventing the disease from spreading.”

Throughout this pandemic, I have clung to the belief that our health experts should be trusted and their directives followed. This strict adherence to what I have deemed a credible source, however, puts me in a tribe, apparently. Information has become just that: tribal. There is enough information out there for everyone to only read the stuff that says what he or she wants to read.

Without a foundation from which to think differently about the information presented to us, people start to lose faith in media altogether, believing that outlets just say whatever they want and whatever people want to hear. This attitude is terrifying, but it exists.

Fear in the air

We need to take seriously how we digest information. In the ag world, I have been asked on many occasions how I think COVID-19 will impact the sector. I’m 40 and have only been back on the farm for eight years, so I have not endured tough times to the same magnitude others have. But I do know that, strategically, amid a crisis that is affecting a lot of people far worse than me, it is not wise to ask for additional government support that should and will clearly go elsewhere.

There is fear in the air. Farmers are distributing damning videos from sources that don’t even call themselves news and treating those as the gospel truth. I’ve heard comments that allege the major news outlets are keeping the truth from people and that some of these rogue information outlets are the only ones courageous enough to say what needs to be said.

I cannot emphasize enough the difference between recognizing that certain media outlets have a bias or slant, and determining whether or not that same outlet is credible. These are not the same considerations. Bias should be assumed and isn’t a huge accusation to level against any group, but to call them liars and instead defer to a post on Facebook is something different altogether.

What makes us trust a Chinese conspiracy video made by a no-name “news” outlet over experts? The Salem witch trials, McCarthyism and many other moments in history should come to mind.

When I told people I may not have access to fertilizer this spring, some were quick to reach the conclusion that, see, things are not going to be okay for farmers.

But, I was able to revise my order. The person I was dealing with just wasn’t sure and had to check. She checked and not only were they able to satisfy my order, they were also certain they’d be able to apply my fertilizer in a timely manner this spring.

The post Toban Dyck: What makes us trust a Chinese conspiracy video over experts? appeared first on Grainews.

Writers are people too, and they all have an agenda. My agenda is long: I’m trying to do well at my job by putting together a publication you’ll enjoy — something that’s entertaining, but also includes information that will help you make more money on your farm. I try to make sure everyone at Grainews is writing the truth, even if that may sometimes irritate our advertisers. And, I try my best not to have a bias that influences my writing. Because my husband is a seed grower, I make a point of not promoting varieties he sells. Last month, Grainews field editor Lee Hart covered a conference in Calgary. When I realized my cousin was on one of the conference panels, I did not ask Lee to specifically cover that talk (though I really wanted to), because I don’t want readers to think my relatives get more pages in Grainews than anyone else.

I thought a lot about bias this week as I pulled together our coverage of the seed royalty consultations that are underway. Freelancer Sarah Hoffman has a great understanding of the details and knew how to put her notes together in a way that would make the issues clear to Grainews readers. But — if you read her byline at the bottom, you’ll see that Sarah is also a seed grower. Does that mean her coverage is biased toward solutions that could benefit seed growers?

Well, maybe it does. But it also means that Sarah’s been following this issue for a long time. She’s given it a lot of thought, specifically because it will impact her business. You might argue with her conclusion, but you can’t claim that she doesn’t understand the facts. I decided readers would rather read something from Sarah with a potential bias than something from someone who is new to this topic and doesn’t understand the history.

Knowing that seed royalties are potentially controversial and that some readers might be concerned about Sarah’s bias, I asked Sarah to write a disclaimer at the start of the article where she provides her personal opinions about the consultation. Here’s what she put together. I went as a farmer, seed grower and a person deeply interested in the policies that shape the success of the cropping industry in Western Canada. As a professional writer, I am used to reporting what other people have to say about an issue, but I have given this topic a great deal of thought myself, and, because I am so personally invested, I wanted to share what I think.

There is a lot of bias in the ag industry, or in any industry. But it’s not all bad. When I want to ask a researcher about a new herbicide there are some unbiased, knowledgeable scientists I can call, at governments and universities. But it would be foolish for me to ignore the knowledge of the highly qualified scientists working at the companies that are selling the herbicide. We try to talk to unbiased agronomists whenever we can, but we know there are also many highly skilled, honest agronomists working with for-profit companies who will do their best to give unbiased advice to Grainews readers.

We don’t always run disclaimers at the start of Grainews articles. Lee Hart and Scott Garvey are full-time staff writers with nothing to sell you. When they give you an opinion, they’re telling you what they really think. We also don’t run disclaimers at the start of our columnists’ opinion articles, though we have clear bylines at the bottom. As a retired university professor, Les Henry is as unbiased as they come. However, even Les has a book to sell. You might find he uses his column to make you so interested in how water moves through soil that you want to buy a copy of Henry’s Handbook of Soils and Water (this scheme worked on me).

One of our most popular features in Grainews is Casebook. I love the mystery-solving aspect of this piece, and so do our readers. But if you check the fine print at the bottom, you’ll notice that the Casebook sleuths are always working on a case for a Richardson Pioneer customer. Richardson works with us on these great pieces as a way of sharing knowledge with farmers; the Richardson Pioneer writers are always very careful not to mention their products or services in a way that turns the Casebook story into a biased ad.

Whether you’re reading Grainews or the National Enquirer, read every article carefully, and use your own standards to decide if a writer is telling the whole story. As the editor, my job is to make sure it’s easy for you to see which writers and experts have which biases.

As a reader, it’s your job to let me know if I’m not doing it right. My inbox is open at leeann@fbcpublishing.com.

The post Editor’s Column: Searching for the truth appeared first on Grainews.

Several factors go into whether or not a story makes it onto the pages of Grainews, and they’re not all within the control of the person pitching the idea.

But some things are. Here are the ingredients for a solid pitch, and a few things that can spoil the soup.

Know the magazine

Grainews’ motto is: “Practical production tips for the Prairie farmer.”

Before sending a story idea or press release, make sure the topic fits that tagline. If it does, send it to the writer who covers those types of stories, or to the editor who manages that section.

My beat for Grainews is crop production and ag science in Western Canada. I don’t regularly cover vegetable production, hydroponics, marijuana production (at least not yet), politics, or corporate corruption. I’m much more likely to say yes to story ideas or event invitations that are related to my beat.

If it’s related to a story that Grainews has covered recently, try to think about how your pitch advances the story (i.e. how is it new or different from the story that’s just run).

Be transparent and honest

Usually I have an idea where people are coming from when they’re making a story pitch. A public relations person is working on behalf of a client. A reader might want coverage on a problem that affects them somehow, or perhaps on a new product or practice they’re promoting. All this is (usually) fine, as long I can figure out what is motivating the person, and take that into account when I’m researching the story and talking to people.

Sometimes someone contacts me who seems to have a chip on their shoulder, but I’m not sure why. If they’re evasive about their relationship to the story, I’m wary. I’ve even had instances where I’m not sure the person contacting me is using their real name.

The last thing any reporter wants is to be manipulated into fighting someone’s fight for them, especially if they don’t even know who the source is or why they’re upset.

Sometimes you’ll see news stories where the source’s identity is concealed. It’s very rare that we even quote unnamed sources in Grainews. And generally the reporter knows (or should know) the source’s identity and background. They aren’t truly anonymous, at least not to the reporter.

Don’t make it personal

Sometimes I receive story pitches from public relations folks that start with: “Good morning, Lisa, I hope you’re well, etc., etc.” These pitches seem personalized, so I feel obligated to respond.

But when I forward it to Leeann to see if she wants me to cover it, I find out other reporters (and often Leeann herself) have already received it. These kinds of pitches can potentially flood our inboxes. It would save us all time if the communications person would just send it to one person. Often Leeann is the best person, as she’ll assign it to a reporter if it’s a fit for Grainews.

I don’t run into this problem with the press releases that have clearly been sent to a large distribution list. Typically I’ll scan those subject lines, and if it looks interesting, I’ll read the news release. If I want to write a story on it, I’ll check with my editor. I appreciate receiving good old-fashioned news releases like that, especially when they’re closely related to my beat. Keep sending them my way.

Feel free to follow up

I get a lot of email and my email program has an aggressive automatic email filter, so I miss stuff sometimes. I also sometimes forget to respond. If you’re hoping for a definite response, or if you invited me to an event you think I should cover, do follow up. I’ll let you know either way.

The post Perfecting your pitch for farm reporters appeared first on Grainews.

And you should be concerned because that lack of basic scientific knowledge is driving distrust of modern agriculture.

“It’s a big, big issue,” Al Scholz told me. Al is the executive director and registrar of the Saskatchewan Institute of Agrologists. It’s going to be the biggest issue facing agriculture, if it isn’t already, he said.

The pressure is on farmers to produce more food for a growing population. How much more food depends on who you ask, but Al said the bottom line is we have to produce more with the same land — and half the inputs — to be sustainable.

“So how the heck are we going to do that? Well, we’re going to do that through research, through science,” said Al. But if researchers’ hands are tied, we’ll have challenges, Al added.

Part of the problem is media missteps. Al said he doesn’t have any concerns with farm journalists, but he does with urban media. It doesn’t take a lot of digging around to find examples of poor science reporting, whether or not it’s related to agriculture.

I think most journalists want their work to be balanced and factual. But we make mistakes, especially when it comes to science. Here are a few reasons why.

Controversy makes a good story

A few months ago, a local farmer was teasing me about how much reporters like hearing about farmers’ problems. And it’s true. Stories with a problem or controversy are interesting to write and read.

But controversy doesn’t always add up to good science reporting. For example, if all my sources agree on the science, does it make sense to then dig up someone who disagrees, but has no real background on the issue?

Excluding certain sources from a story opens a reporter up to accusations of bias. But always seeking out contrarians and giving them equal weight is not necessarily balanced reporting. And sometimes journalists need to ask sources how they know what they say they know. That single question would take care of many of these problems.

We love anecdotes

A well-chosen anecdote can frame the story and pull readers in. And sometimes all we have are anecdotes because the research hasn’t been done yet. Many farmers make very astute observations about what’s going on in the field and I’m reluctant to dismiss those observations.

But drawing sweeping conclusions from anecdotes puts us on thin ice, especially if those few anecdotes contradict valid research. Correlation doesn’t equal causation — in other words, just because two events seem to be connected, it doesn’t mean one caused the other. It could be sheer coincidence. This is one of the main fallacies with the anti-vaccination movement.

And even if we are sure one event caused another, we don’t always know that first event will cause the same reaction in every situation.

Let me give you a real-life example. A few years ago, my mom fainted at a potluck. Her blood pressure plummeted. Her lips turned blue. We had to call the ambulance. The doctors ran some tests but couldn’t pinpoint a cause.

A week or so later, we were at another potluck. She had one bite of salad and started to feel ill. A Benadryl eased her symptoms.

What was she eating when she had both these reactions? Quinoa.

(Who kept bringing the quinoa salad to these potlucks, you ask? Me.)

The allergy specialist couldn’t test for quinoa, but he agreed with her observations. And as quinoa is now mixed into crackers and bread, she’s been able to replicate the results at least once more.

It’s safe to conclude my mother has a severe quinoa allergy. Does this mean people should be wary about eating quinoa? Unless you’re my mom, the answer is no. It’s a rare, oddball allergy.

Strange anecdotes are interesting to read about. But we should be wary of so-called experts who rely solely on anecdotes to convince of us of widespread problems.

Sometimes junk science looks like the read deal

A few years ago John Heard, fertility specialist with Manitoba Agriculture, set out to prove how easily data can be manipulated. He set up a statistically valid research project, applying a “growth enhancer” to canola in place of nitrogen. At 11 of the 20 plots, the growth enhancer bumped biomass yield significantly.

What was in this growth enhancer, you ask? Diluted maple syrup.

But don’t throw out your nitrogen and load up on maple syrup yet. Heard had cherry-picked the results, grouping the positive yields together. At eight sites, the treated plots yielded less than the checks. Plus, he measured biomass yield, not grain yield.

Heard also treated spring wheat plots with maple syrup. Other plots received nitrogen. Those results looked promising, too, unless you looked at the check. Then you would see the untreated wheat did just as well. The previous year’s soybean crop had left plenty of residual nitrogen in the soil.

Heard showed us how easily data can be manipulated. Sadly, this happens in the real world, with dire consequences. You know that whole debate about whether vaccinations cause autism? That was launched by a medical researcher who cherry-picked his results to show a link where none existed. The study was published by The Lancet, a peer-reviewed medical journal, in 1998.

I could add many more reasons why we get it wrong. We work under deadlines, and with the Internet, many journalists have tighter deadlines than 20 years ago. Despite our best efforts, we sometimes give in to our own biases. We generally have word counts that limit how much detail and nuance we can add to a story.

But I’m cautiously optimistic that science reporting is improving. The Toronto Star faced plenty of criticism recently for running a hatchet job on a vaccine that prevents cervical cancer in women. And, as I write this, The Fifth Estate is promoting an upcoming story that promises to take a critical look at the anti-wheat food trend.

If we keep at it, science will cease being a bad word. Perhaps it will get the respect it actually deserves.

The post Science can be a dirty word appeared first on Grainews.