For the mainstream media, agricultural reporting just means covering the controversy of the day

Wednesday, August 1, 2012

There was a time when the CBC's daily noon farm show gave depth and perspective to agricultural reporting. Today, agriculture is only newsworthy when there is blood in the water

by BARRY WILSON

It was almost a quarter century ago when Canada's national publicly-funded broadcaster, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, decided to end its long-running daily agricultural reporting from Ottawa.

Legendary reporter George Price was retiring and the CBC, facing budget cuts from the Progressive Conservative government of the day, took advantage of Price's departure to end the position.

For decades, he had reported agricultural news from government and farm groups to CBC noon shows across the country. It was a big enough issue that the then-agriculture minister, Don Mazankowski, criticized the decision and the House of Commons agriculture committee decried it, calling on CBC president Gerard Veilleux to justify the move. He wrote a letter promising that CBC reporters in Ottawa would continue to cover agriculture "with the same rigour" that they apply to other stories emanating from Parliament Hill.

As it turned out, what that meant was that, when there was controversy, conflict or scandal touching on agriculture, it would be covered. For background news and context about policy and political developments relevant to farmers, forget it.

In those late 1980s days, there still were several daily newspapers on the Hill that expected agricultural coverage from their resident correspondents. These days, not so much.

The point is best illustrated by looking at mainstream media coverage of two of the major issues roiling agricultural policy during the past year – the Conservative government decision to end the Canadian Wheat Board (CWB) monopoly selling power on Aug. 1, and the dream of anti-supply management advocates that prime minister Stephen Harper will take the same axe to supply management marketing boards.

To be fair, as CWB legislation made it through Parliament late last year with Conservative debate-limiting tactics, there was some modest coverage. And when a Winnipeg Federal Court judge ruled in December that agriculture minister Gerry Ritz had ignored the "rule of law" by refusing to give Prairie grain farmers a vote, it was covered in the context of a series of allegations about Conservative abuse of power.

Yet a much more interesting, and probably important, Federal Court of Appeal decision recently eviscerating that lower court judgment and argued that any government telling farmers they have a right to decide their own marketing future is wrong in law and subject to annulment by a future government, received scarce coverage.

By spring, 2012, the CWB was an old story and the context of farmer versus government power was a non-starter. Meanwhile, the steady drumbeat of arguments against supply management – it is anti-trade, bad for consumers, a discredited 20th century cartel model – has been receiving slavish media coverage.

It is sexy, it is confrontational and it is controversial.

Rarely a week goes by when another think tank doesn't publish another call for the demise of supply management, extensively covered. Prominent newspaper columnists denounce it and predict its demise.

CBC panels have suddenly discovered an agricultural controversy that has filled hours of debate time.

Supply management's impact on domestic prices and Canada's trade negotiating credibility are very legitimate topics for media debate. Export-oriented farmers clearly think so.

But for most media, it is the he-says-she-says controversy of the day, with little context or nuance.
For the 33 million Canadians who eat, agriculture should not be newsworthy only when there is blood in the water.

Where is George Price when we need him? BF

Barry Wilson is a member of the Parliamentary Press Gallery specializing in agriculture.