IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/gjagec/356495.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Wertschätzung für die Landwirtschaft in der öffentlichen Kommunikation. Eine inhaltsanalytische Untersuchung zum Einfluss des ersten Lockdowns auf die Berichterstattung über Landwirtschaft in den Massenmedien

Author

Listed:
  • Kussin, Matthias
  • Berstermann, Jan
  • Albers, Antonia

Abstract

The call for greater societal appreciation of agriculture has been a recurring theme in recent years, both within and outside the sector. The following article examines the extent to which social value communication can be found in media articles compared to other evaluative statements about agriculture and the effects that occurred at the beginning of the Coronavirus crisis. Using quantitative analysis and based on a theoretical concept of recognition, statements of social esteem and disrespect are collected and contrasted with acceptable and critical statements in issues of the mainstream, regional and farming press in 2019 and 2020 and evaluated in terms of their authorship and references to agricultural issues. In this context, it can be shown that even before the Coronavirus crisis, the level of social esteem accorded to agriculture in public communication was higher than the level of disrespect. It then increased during the first pandemic lockdown, combined with a significantly higher number of references to the issue of security of supply. At the same time, it is clear that the type of statement most often published in the media is not a direct expression of social esteem or disrespect, but rather a perception of disrespect for agriculture. The sources of these statements most often come from the agricultural sector itself. Die Forderung nach mehr gesellschaftlicher Wertschätzung der Landwirtschaft hat innerhalb, aber auch außerhalb der Branche in den vergangenen Jahren wiederholt öffentliche Aufmerksamkeit erfahren. Der folgende Beitrag untersucht, in welchem Ausmaß wertschätzende Kommunikation im Vergleich zu anderen wertenden Äußerungen über Landwirtschaft in Medienbeiträgen zu finden ist und welche Effekte sich zu Beginn der Coronakrise zeigten. Ausgehend von einem anerkennungstheoretischen Begriffsverständnis werden wertschätzende oder akzeptierende und missachtende oder kritische Äußerungen in Ausgaben von Leit-, Regional- und Branchenmedien aus den Jahren 2019 und 2020 erfasst. Diese werden mittels einer quantitativen Inhaltsanalyse hinsichtlich ihrer Urheberschaft sowie ihrer Bezüge zu landwirtschaftlichen Themen ausgewertet. Dabei zeigt sich: Das Maß an geäußerter Wertschätzung gegenüber der Landwirtschaft war bereits vor der Coronakrise in der öffentlichen Kommunikation höher als das an Missachtung. Es stieg dann im Zuge des ersten sogenannten Lockdowns noch einmal an, verbunden mit einem auffällig höheren Bezug auf das Thema Versorgungssicherheit. Zugleich wird deutlich: Nicht die direkte Äußerung von Wertschätzung oder Missachtung, sondern vor allem die Wahrnehmung von Missachtung gegenüber der Landwirtschaft ist die am häufigsten veröffentlichte Aussagenform in den Medien. Urheber dieser Äußerungen stammen dabei am häufigsten aus der Landwirtschaft selbst.

Suggested Citation

  • Kussin, Matthias & Berstermann, Jan & Albers, Antonia, 2024. "Wertschätzung für die Landwirtschaft in der öffentlichen Kommunikation. Eine inhaltsanalytische Untersuchung zum Einfluss des ersten Lockdowns auf die Berichterstattung über Landwirtschaft in den Mass," German Journal of Agricultural Economics, Humboldt-Universitaet zu Berlin, Department for Agricultural Economics, vol. 73(1), April.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:gjagec:356495
    DOI: 10.22004/ag.econ.356495
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/356495/files/1272_Kussin_et_al..pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.22004/ag.econ.356495?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Maike Kayser & Justus Böhm & Achim Spiller, 2011. "Die Agrar- und Ernährungswirtschaft in der Öffentlichkeit – Eine Analyse der deutschen Qualitätspresse auf Basis der Framing-Theorie," Journal of Socio-Economics in Agriculture (Until 2015: Yearbook of Socioeconomics in Agriculture), Swiss Society for Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology, vol. 4(1), pages 59-83.
    2. Astrid Artner-Nehls & Sandra Uthes & Jana Zscheischler & Peter H. Feindt, 2022. "How the Agricultural Press Addresses the Slurry–Water Nexus: A Text Mining Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(16), pages 1-22, August.
    3. Kromka, F, 1992. "Zwischen Agrarromantik und Agrarfeindschaft Die Irrtümer der ökosozialistischen Agrarsoziologie," German Journal of Agricultural Economics, Humboldt-Universitaet zu Berlin, Department for Agricultural Economics, vol. 41(10).
    4. Kliebenstein, James & Barrett, D. A. & Heffernan, W. D. & Kirtley, C. L., 1980. "An Analysis of Farmers' Perceptions of Benefits Received from Farming," Staff General Research Papers Archive 10641, Iowa State University, Department of Economics.
    5. Niki A. Rust & Rebecca M. Jarvis & Mark S. Reed & Julia Cooper, 2021. "Framing of sustainable agricultural practices by the farming press and its effect on adoption," Agriculture and Human Values, Springer;The Agriculture, Food, & Human Values Society (AFHVS), vol. 38(3), pages 753-765, September.
    6. Puttkammer, Judith & Grethe, Harald, 2015. "The Public Debate on Biofuels in Germany: Who Drives the Discourse?," German Journal of Agricultural Economics, Humboldt-Universitaet zu Berlin, Department for Agricultural Economics, vol. 64(04), December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Busch, Gesa & Bayer, Elisa & Gunarathne, Anoma & Hölker, Sarah & Iweala, Sarah & Jürkenbeck, Kristin & Lemken, Dominic & Mehlhose, Clara & Ohlau, Marlene & Risius, Antje & Rubach, Constanze & Schütz, , 2020. "Einkaufs- und Ernährungsverhalten sowie Resilienz des Ernährungssystems aus Sicht der Bevölkerung: Ergebnisse einer Studie während der Corona-Pandemie im April 2020," DARE Discussion Papers 2003, Georg-August University of Göttingen, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development (DARE).
    2. Schüler, Stefan & Noack, Eva Maria, 2019. "Does the CAP reflect the population's concerns about agricultural landscapes? A qualitative study in Lower Saxony, Germany," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 240-255.
    3. Gómez-Limón, José A. & Gutiérrez-Martín, Carlos & Riesgo, Laura, 2016. "Modeling at farm level: Positive Multi-Attribute Utility Programming," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 17-27.
    4. Marilena Gemtou & Konstantina Kakkavou & Evangelos Anastasiou & Spyros Fountas & Soren Marcus Pedersen & Gohar Isakhanyan & Kassa Tarekegn Erekalo & Serafin Pazos-Vidal, 2024. "Farmers’ Transition to Climate-Smart Agriculture: A Systematic Review of the Decision-Making Factors Affecting Adoption," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(7), pages 1-34, March.
    5. Nyaupane, Narayan & Gillespie, Jeffrey & Ken, McMillin, 2014. "Goal Structure of U.S. Meat Goat Producers: Is Farm Performance Consistent with the Goals?," 2014 Annual Meeting, February 1-4, 2014, Dallas, Texas 162502, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    6. Juan Carlos Pérez-Mesa & Mª Carmen García Barranco & Mª Mar Serrano Arcos & Raquel Sánchez Fernández, 2023. "Agri-food crises and news framing of media: an application to the Spanish greenhouse sector," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 10(1), pages 1-12, December.
    7. Besser, T. & Mann, S., 2015. "Which farm characteristics influence work satisfaction? An analysis of two agricultural systems," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 141(C), pages 107-112.
    8. Valeria Ferreira Gregorio & Laia Pié & Antonio Terceño, 2018. "A Systematic Literature Review of Bio, Green and Circular Economy Trends in Publications in the Field of Economics and Business Management," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-39, November.
    9. Foyuan Kuang & Jiatong Li & Jianjun Jin & Xin Qiu, 2023. "Do Green Production Technologies Improve Household Income? Evidence from Rice Farmers in China," Land, MDPI, vol. 12(10), pages 1-15, September.
    10. Spiller, Achim & von Meyer-Höfer, Marie & Sonntag, Winnie, 2016. "Gibt es eine Zukunft für die moderne konventionelle Tierhaltung in Nordwesteuropa?," Department of Agricultural and Rural Development (DARE) Discussion Papers 260780, Georg-August-Universitaet Goettingen, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Development (DARE).
    11. Michael Carolan, 2025. "Sustainable Protein Transitions or Transformations: Contested Agrifood Frames Across “No Cow” and “Clean Cow” Futures," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 17(6), pages 1-22, March.
    12. Grunenberg, Michael & Henning, Christian H. C. A., 2019. "Communicational and lobbying power in German farm animal welfare politics," Working Papers of Agricultural Policy WP2019-01, University of Kiel, Department of Agricultural Economics, Chair of Agricultural Policy.
    13. Sitienei, Isaac & Gillespie, Jeffrey & Scaglia, Guillermo, 2016. "Goal Structure of U.S. Grass-Fed Beef Producers," 2016 Annual Meeting, February 6-9, 2016, San Antonio, Texas 229565, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    14. Feuerbacher, Arndt & Laub, Moritz & Högy, Petra & Lippert, Christian & Pataczek, Lisa & Schindele, Stephan & Wieck, Christine & Zikeli, Sabine, 2021. "An analytical framework to estimate the economics and adoption potential of dual land-use systems: The case of agrivoltaics," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 192(C).
    15. Viaggi, Davide, 2018. "Towards an economics of the bioeconomy: four years later," Bio-based and Applied Economics Journal, Italian Association of Agricultural and Applied Economics (AIEAA), vol. 5(2), September.
    16. McCamley, Francis & Kliebenstein, James B., 1985. "Safety -First Models Based On Sample Statistics: A Discussion," Regional Research Projects > 1985: S-180 Annual Meeting, March 24-27, 1985, Charleston, South Carolina 271811, Regional Research Projects > S-180: An Economic Analysis of Risk Management Strategies for Agricultural Production Firms.
    17. Shepler, Ryan & Suter, Jordan F., 2017. "An Analysis of the Impact of Tenure on Groundwater Use and Attitudes Concerning Groundwater Conservation in Colorado’s Republican River Basin," 2017 Annual Meeting, July 30-August 1, Chicago, Illinois 258219, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    18. Weaver, Robert D. & Rauniyar, Ganesh, 1993. "The Economics of Adoption of Environmentally Beneficial Agricultural Practices: (EBAPs): An Analytical Review of Evidence," Staff Paper Series 256847, Pennsylvania State University, Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural Sociology.
    19. Mijailoff, Julián Daniel & Burns, Sarah Lilian, 2023. "Fixing the meaning of floating signifier: Discourses and network analysis in the bioeconomy policy processes in Argentina and Uruguay," Forest Policy and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 154(C).
    20. Novak, Frank S. & Schnitkey, Gary D., 1994. "The Effects Of Including Bankruptcy On Dynamic Investment Decisions," Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Western Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 19(2), pages 1-12, December.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ags:gjagec:356495. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: AgEcon Search (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/iahubde.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.