Conversations with Gatekeepers: An Exploratory Study of Agricultural Publication Editors' Decisions to Publish Risk Coverage

Journal of Applied Communications 01/2010; 94(1-2).


The United States' agriculture industry is impacted by numerous f inancial, human, legal, and production risks. These risks are frequently reported in mass media and agricultural publications. Farmers often use agricultural magazines to help them make production decisions and learn about new technology, which both involve some element of risk. Gatekeeping is the process of determining what information is in-cluded in media coverage in which editors serve as gatekeepers and make decisions regarding what topics to report. The purpose of this study was to discover how agricultural publication editors, in their role as gatekeepers, make decisions regarding coverage of risk related to agriculture and to explore the forces that influence this coverage. Researchers interviewed seven purposively selected editors of national or regional agricultural magazines. The f indings indicated that the editors conceptualize risk in agriculture differ-ently from how agricultural risks are reported in the mainstream media for the more general public; many emphasized the issues in terms of marketing or f inancial risk. Editors emphasized that they report on risk from an action angle, providing advice or information on how to mitigate the risk. The public's perception of agriculture, advertisers, and personal topic preferences were cited as influencers of their risk coverage. When covering risk stories, agricultural publication editors prefer journalists who can write well and have an agricultural background or knowledge of the industry. Future research should be conducted to expand on the results from this exploratory study.

Download full-text


Available from: Katie Abrams, Oct 03, 2015
49 Reads
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This research analyzes sources of information used to make farming decisions. The findings are based on 2,537 questionnaires returned by famers in Indiana, Iowa, Illinois, and the Southeast. Farmers were discriminating in their use of 15 sources of information for nine farm level decisions. Sources of information did not vary widely among types of farm, years of farming, and region. There were wide differences in the use of written versus personal/service information forms and between public and private providers. These differences suggest segments of the information market that might best be served by different providers.
    Agribusiness 09/1989; 5(5):465 - 476. DOI:10.1002/1520-6297(198909)5:5<465::AID-AGR2720050505>3.0.CO;2-6 · 0.67 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Research on media communication of risks has become a reasonably well funded and popular domain for scholars around the world. Although one can find a great deal of collaboration among these scholars within countries, cross-cultural collaborations are far more rare. In this article, an American and a German scholar attempt to bring results from studies in both their countries to bear on some of the more popular questions being asked by risk communication researchers and practitioners. With a few exceptions, studies from the two countries demonstrate highly consonant results, suggesting great similarities between (1) the general social and technological cultures of these two developed countries, (2) the ways in which their scientific and journalistic cultures deal with the concept of risk, and (3) the ways in which risk communication researchers in these two countries conceptualize and operationalize this domain of inquiry. The review concentrates on studies that examine the construction of risk stories by journalists but offers a framework within which to examine story effects as well.
    Public Understanding of Science 04/1992; 1(2):199-230. DOI:10.1088/0963-6625/1/2/004 · 1.87 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: A national survey of newspaper editors examined how editors view the importance of different criteria in selecting foreign news to run. Results show that editors considered these factors important in making choices: threat to the United States and world peace, anticipated reader interest, timeliness, and U.S. involvement. Editors also regarded loss of lives and property as important but less so than other factors. Most editors appear to focus more on factors having significant impact or consequences, especially when American security and national interest are involved. Canonical correlational analysis indicates that editors' perceptions of foreign news factors are determined by individual differences and organizational constraints in the newsroom.
    Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 09/1992; 69(3):554-561. DOI:10.1177/107769909206900303 · 0.54 Impact Factor
Show more