PRE-EMPTING what someone is going to say and “pre-bunking” it before they have the opportunity to say it was the theme of a webinar held by an organisation called Covering Climate Now.
The organisation put up two PR professionals and one journalist to advise other journalists on how they can “inoculate” their audiences against climate disinformation.
Most of the conversation was about communities opposing renewable energy projects and how to identify fossil fuel public relations campaigns.
But it seems a similar approach is being taken in reporting on the beef industry, with multiple articles trying to negate the industry before it has a chance to make its point. The most recent example has come from notorious beef industry detractor and Guardian journalist George Monbiot who wrote that there is “no such thing as a benign beef farm” in preparation for a new regenerative agriculture focused film called six inches of soil.
Against this backdrop, livestock industry leaders are expressing frustration that climate scientists, plant-based meat companies and mainstream media often ignore large bodies of science showing methane emissions from livestock are not the same as emissions from fossil fuels.
Cattle Australia has been one of the loudest voices calling for a change in methane policy to recognise that cattle are “not one way emitters” like fossil fuels.
CA’s push to recognise the updated science was backed up by SunPork CEO Rob van Barneveld, who expressed his frustration at the reporting on the industry in his Queensland Rural Press Club speech yesterday. He said credible science was key to backing the industry’s side of the argument.
Free “pre-bunking” information for journalists
But if this month’s webinar was anything to go by, getting crucial context into discussions about the beef industry’s impact on climate will be a tough ask when journalists are being taught to work out why the industry is wrong before they even engage with it.
The session was run by an organisation called Covering Climate Now, which was set up by The Guardian, the Columbia Journalism Review, The Nation magazine in and the New York public radio station WNYC started Covering Climate Now to improve climate coverage across the world.
It now has more than 500 partner news outlets from 60 countries– including reputable companies like Reuters, Bloomberg, NBN News and The Conversation.
CCN regularly holds webinars with tips for journalists, gives out journalism awards and shares articles from partner news outlets – many of them pushing for a move away from fossil fuels or a move towards plant-based diets.
Attacking funding sources
According to last week’s webinar, the best way to dismiss someone before you talk to them is to look at their funding sources, mainly to see if they were funded by the fossil fuel industry.
While funding may be a motivation to say something, is it enough to “pre-bunk” their argument?
It appears that has been the case with the beef industry recent times, with several scientists having their work de-bunked on account of their funding sources.
Several articles have been directed at University of California Davis professor Frank Mitloehner, an air quality specialist urging Governments and industry to recognise the short-lived nature of methane. He was the source of a series last year implying that his industry funding made his work not credible.
A month later, The Guardian wrote an article about the Dublin Declaration, a document signed by 1198 scientists across the world calling for regulators and scientists to recognise the societal role of livestock. The article claimed many of the signatories had “close ties to the industry”.
“The only argument we ever hear is that scientists who emphasise the benefits of livestock are corrupted scientists, which is very problematic, very insulting and unacceptable,” Belgian scientist and one of the declaration’s authors Dr Frederic Leroy told Beef central after the criticism last year.
On the subject of funding, CCN’s website says it has numerous foundations and individual philanthropists backing it. It has a list of foundations on its website who donate, with Washington-based The Fund for Constitutional Government being the main fiscal sponsor.
Beef Central asked exactly who the philanthropists donating to it are and what the organisation’s position on the beef industry is.
We also pointed out to CCN that “pre-bunking” may be good for public relations professionals and asked how it actually benefits journalists trying to give readers a full picture of a situation.
This article will be updated if a response is received.
There is a structural problem that most rural people and primary industry people have a natural tendency to mind their own business, to not tell others how to live their lives. This is at odds with those who oppose our industry who think they are morally right to coerce others into living the way they’ve decided we should live. So they get on the front foot with their pre-bunking anything that doesn’t suit their agenda. Unfortunately, although we’d all just prefer to produce delicious meat and useful wool, as an industry we also need to fight fire with fire.
I say we set up a fund called the ban red meat fund and then go highlight all the scientists who are promoting farming as having proven their objectivity, because although they’re funded by ban red meat they actually support it!
Polite reminder than full, and genuine names required for future comments please John – as per our long-standing reader comment policy. Failure to conform will simply see submitted comments not published. This requirement is outlined also in the comment box. Editor
Its about time journalists put both sides of the argument or issue into the article and not just putting their own opinion. In the past reporting was about news and not journalists own point of view. Mainstream media is attrocious today – not worth listening to – however Beef Central is one of the good guys.