Just did a LexisNexis Academic search of “Major U.S. and World Publications” under the following two sets of keyword searches

- “industrial farming” “swine flu”
- “factory farming” “swine flu”

I got nothing other than two letters to the editor (Toronto Star, NYT) and a couple of UK Guradian articles. Depressing, but not surprising.

I think a number of different things are converging that virtually assure that the “factory farming” angle won’t get significant mainstream coverage (unless perhaps thousands of Americans start dying):

- basic mainstream news norms and values, most notably “objectivity,” which “hogtie” journalists in terms of really digging hard at tough why/how questions
- mainstream ideology outside of the newsroom which treats any kind of discussion about the slaughter of animals as taboo.

These two are both quite powerful forces and when they come together, look out.

No, I’m not implying conspiracy. Conspiracy is the deliberate, conscious effort on the part of a few individuals to try and ensure X, Y, or Z happens. Social forces like mainstream news values/norms and mainstream ideology surrounding meat consumption are not individual. Nor are they the result of conscious effort on the part of individuals to shape society in a particular way, they’re the collective outcome of mostly unconscious actions by millions of people.

Interesting blog entry on the factory farming angle here–>
http://thebovine.wordpress.com/2009/04/28/swine-flu-a-result-of-industrial-farming/

I think it’s maddening, and predictable. Mainstream media typically don’t bother to provide much historical, larger context, and they’re typically loathe to pursue “why” and “how” in great depth because, of course, doing so takes the veneer off the sheen of “objectivity.” What, who, where and when are easier in terms of keeping journalists within the cage of “objectivity”.

Personally, I think the real danger doesn’t lie in scaring the public by covering a real angle, and a really important one — factory farming. The real danger lies in not covering this angle. Not only does it do a disservice to journalism and global humanity in general, it actually contributes to the very thing that feeds fear itself — a profound lack of knowledge on the part of the public.

Here’s another UK article/column that you probably have already read –>http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/apr/27/swine-flu-mexico-health/print

I hear you. I suppose some news organizations could have removed a few of their reporters from the pack to do the kind of broader investigation you’re looking for.

But that’s not the way newspapers cover a four-alarm fire, a plane crash, or an earthquake in the first or second day. I think our perceptual difference on this stems from when swine flu became a runaway story. I contend it was over the weekend, when the scope of the outbreaks became clear. As soon as that happened, everybody became focused on how worried we should about the disease’s spread and lethality.

Its legitimate to argue that the mass in media should provide for more varied coverage. But that never been how how broadcast or newspaper journalism works in the early days of a disaster.

And while I don’t believe your post is sensationalistic I do believe that the substance of your claim, combined with the headline, has the potential to stoke unnecessary fear.

The possible link between factory farming and the emergence of novel viruses should have been today’s story — or tomorrow’s at the latest. Let’s hope we see it. The next broad context story should focus on what this outbreak reveals about the possible development of a future deadly pandemic, and how well the world is prepared to deal with it. This story will be much more difficult to tell, and it will surely take awhile to report. But it must be told. There are some indications that the initial response in Mexico wasn’t what you’d hope for. The Washington Post reported on Sunday that Mexican health authorities delayed informing their counterparts in the United States for almost a week because of what they described as a “paperwork” issue.

That’s just what we need: Paper-pushing bureaucrats standing in the way of an effective response to a future pandemic that could kill millions.

Another question: How many cases in the United States are going unreported right now because there is no way to test people to see if they are infected with swine flu? A friend of mine, in fact, says she has come down with flu symptoms, yet she says her doctors insist there is no way to test her where she lives. So might this outbreak have already spread much more quickly and widely than we know now? And what does this say about our biosurveillance systems?

I’m sure we’ll see this story in due time from what the Boykoff brothers once called “the prestige press.” But I’m not holding my breath when it comes to CNN, Fox News, etc.

The headline simply speaks the truth. Mainstream media are not, in fact, telling us about the possible link between factory hog farming and the emergence of novel pathogens. If I’m wrong, please point me toward a story that has focused on this.

And nowhere in my post do I state or even imply that news organizations are “deliberately keeping this element of the story from us.” Quite to the contrary, in my post I use language like “slow out of the blocks,” and I refer to broadcast and cable news operations as “torpid.” That phraseology does not even remotely suggest conspiracy. It suggests the same intolerably slow, unaggressive response as we saw in the coal ash controversy.

As to the news coverage being caught up in health-related angles, of course those need to be covered. But we live in a 24/7 news cycle, and quite frankly the outbreaks in New York and other places in the United States, as well as the worrisome situation in Mexico City, were breaking news yesterday. It’s time for the second-day story — because it is, in fact, beyond the second day. My concern is that unless media critics push and cajole, we won’t get the broader context that these kinds of stories provide. Broadcast and cable news in particular seem utterly incapable of broader context, focusing instead on flashy, easy-to-tell stuff that doesn’t require much in the way of sophisticated investigation. So if you want to criticize journalists for sensationalism, I’d suggest you turn your attention to them. I’m advocating probing, responsible, hard-hitting journalism that quickly moves beyond yet another story about new cases of flu.

I expect we’ll see it soon from the likes of the Times and Washington Post. It takes awhile for them to marshall their forces. But as we saw with the coal ash catastrophe, once the Gray Old Lady gets her dander up, you’d better watch out. And then mark my words, the knucklehead producers in the broadcast and cable outfits will be racing to copy that coverage.

I take issue with your headline, which has a conspiratorial tone, and your broad characterization of the coverage.

First, I don’t think the news media are deliberately keeping this element of the story from us, which is what your headline implies. Nor would I say they are being negligent, as the swine flu story really only took off over the weekend.

Secondly, the primary threads of news coverage today are health related– A)the outbreaks in New York City and other places in the U.S.; B) the worrisome situation in Mexico City, and C) service related news intended to inform people about precautions they can take.

This story will obviously have major legs, so it’s only a matter of time before attention turns to the farm animal links.