IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/joafsc/360297.html

Media coverage of a pandemic's impacts on farmers and implications for agricultural resilience and adaptation

Author

Listed:
  • Jackson-Smith, Douglas
  • Veisi, Hadi

Abstract

The COVID-19 crisis has revealed weaknesses and placed great stress on the agri-food system in the U.S. Many believe that it could be a catalyst event that leads to structural changes to improve the food system’s resilience. We use a sample of 220 articles published in prominent national newspapers and agricultural trade journals from March to May 2020 to explore the extent to which farmer responses to COVID-19 covered in the media represent examples of resistant, adaptive, or transformative strategies. The pandemic disrupted the U.S. food system and impacted farmers by reducing access to markets, lowering commodity prices, restricting access to farmworker labor, and shifting consumer demand. Media coverage of farmer responses to these stressors were coded into three alternative pathways: (i) reactive or buffering responses, (ii) adaptive responses; and (iii) transformative responses. Most news media coverage focused on the pandemic’s disruptive impacts on the U.S. food system, related negative impacts on farmers, and short-term responses by institutional actors, including policy-makers and food supply chain industry actors. Farmer responses to pandemic stressors were mentioned less frequently than farmer impacts and responses by institutional actors. The most common examples of farmer responses highlighted in the media reflected farmer reactive and buffering behaviors, which were mentioned significantly more frequently than adaptive or transformative responses. National newspapers were more likely to cover farmer responses and present examples of adaptive and transformative strategies compared to agricultural trade journals. Our findings suggest that news media coverage in the early months of the pandemic largely characterized the event as a rapid onset ‘natural’ disaster that created severe negative impacts. Media devoted more attention to short-term policy responses designed to mitigate these impacts than to farmer responses (in general) or to discussion of the deeper structural causes of and potential solutions to the vulnerabilities revealed by the pandemic. In this way, both national newspaper and agricultural trade journal coverage seems to promote frames that reduce the likelihood of the pandemic becoming the seed of a more resilient system.

Suggested Citation

  • Jackson-Smith, Douglas & Veisi, Hadi, 2021. "Media coverage of a pandemic's impacts on farmers and implications for agricultural resilience and adaptation," Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development, Center for Transformative Action, Cornell University, vol. 10(2).
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:joafsc:360297
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ageconsearch.umn.edu/record/360297/files/930.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Matthew Gentzkow & Jesse M. Shapiro, 2010. "What Drives Media Slant? Evidence From U.S. Daily Newspapers," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 78(1), pages 35-71, January.
    2. Hilchey, Duncan, 2020. "IN THIS ISSUE: Open Call Papers and Early Responses to COVID-19," Journal of Agriculture, Food Systems, and Community Development, Center for Transformative Action, Cornell University, vol. 9(3).
    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. Charles Angelucci & Julia Cagé & Michael Sinkinson, 2024. "Media Competition and News Diets," American Economic Journal: Microeconomics, American Economic Association, vol. 16(2), pages 62-102, May.
    2. Bernhardt, Lea & Dewenter, Ralf & Thomas, Tobias, 2023. "Measuring partisan media bias in US newscasts from 2001 to 2012," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    3. Simon P. Anderson & John McLaren, 2012. "Media Mergers And Media Bias With Rational Consumers," Journal of the European Economic Association, European Economic Association, vol. 10(4), pages 831-859, August.
    4. Mueller, Hannes & Rauh, Christopher, 2018. "Reading Between the Lines: Prediction of Political Violence Using Newspaper Text," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 112(2), pages 358-375, May.
    5. David M. Arseneau & Alejandro Drexler & Mitsuhiro Osada, 2022. "Central Bank Communication about Climate Change," Finance and Economics Discussion Series 2022-031, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (U.S.).
    6. Max Nathan & Anna Rosso, 2017. "Innovative events," Development Working Papers 429, Centro Studi Luca d'Agliano, University of Milano, revised 08 Apr 2019.
    7. Luis Felipe Gutiérrez & Neda Tavakoli & Sima Siami-Namini & Akbar Siami Namin, 2022. "Similarity analysis of federal reserve statements using document embeddings: the Great Recession vs. COVID-19," SN Business & Economics, Springer, vol. 2(7), pages 1-28, July.
    8. Hinnosaar, Marit, 2019. "Gender inequality in new media: Evidence from Wikipedia," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 163(C), pages 262-276.
    9. Andrea Bassanini & Eve Caroli & Bruno Chaves Ferreira & Antoine Reberioux, 2025. "Don't Downsize This! Social Reactions to Mass Dismissals on Twitter," Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 64(4), pages 580-597, October.
    10. Zilinsky, Jan, 2009. "Média, vlastníci a tlaky: súhrn poznatkov o trhu s informáciami [Media, owners and pressures: our understanding of the market for information]," MPRA Paper 13660, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    11. Matthew Gentzkow & Jesse M. Shapiro & Daniel F. Stone, 2014. "Media Bias in the Marketplace: Theory," NBER Working Papers 19880, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    12. McCannon, Bryan & Zhou, Yang & Hall, Joshua, 2021. "Measuring a Contract’s Breadth: A Text Analysis," Working Papers 11013, George Mason University, Mercatus Center.
    13. Biondo, A.E. & Pluchino, A. & Rapisarda, A., 2018. "Modeling surveys effects in political competitions," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 503(C), pages 714-726.
    14. Nathan, Max & Rosso, Anna, 2014. "Mapping information economy businesses with big data: findings from the UK," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 60615, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    15. Ghosh, Saptarshi P. & Jain, Nidhi & Martinelli, Ćesar & Roy, Jaideep, 2023. "Responsive democracy and commercial media," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 222(C).
    16. Germano, Fabrizio & Gómez, Vicenç & Sobbrio, Francesco, 2026. "Ranking for engagement: How social media algorithms fuel misinformation and polarization," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 255(C).
    17. Hungerman, Daniel & Rinz, Kevin & Weninger, Tim & Yoon, Chungeun, 2018. "Political campaigns and church contributions," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 155(C), pages 403-426.
    18. Dewan, Yasir, 2019. "Corporate crime and punishment : The role of status and ideology," Other publications TiSEM 08d87b94-7449-4a1f-a3ae-0, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    19. Giovanni Facchini & Anna Maria Mayda & Riccardo Puglisi, 2017. "Illegal immigration and media exposure: evidence on individual attitudes," IZA Journal of Migration and Development, Springer;Forschungsinstitut zur Zukunft der Arbeit GmbH (IZA), vol. 7(1), pages 1-36, December.
    20. Jingjing Deng & Yi Li & Yu Ding & Fengqi Liu, 2025. "Effect of media attention on corporate green technology innovation: mechanism and evidence from China," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 68(2), pages 697-727, February.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    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:joafsc:360297. 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: .

    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.