| dc.description.abstract | Media coverage of animal welfare legislation and can impact voters perceptions of agriculture, specific legislation, and their voting choices. The purpose of this study was to evaluate selected newspaper coverage of the 2008 California Proposition 2, including framing, sources used, and tone of relevant newspaper articles. A content analysis was used to examine selected newspaper coverage of Proposition 2 in newspapers in the agricultural districts of California. The scope of the study included news articles, columns, editorials, feature stories, and reader-generated responses published between January 1, 2008, and December 31, 2008, regarding Proposition 2 in the largest circulating newspapers available from each agricultural district in California. Coders came to a consensus on 8 frames present throughout the selected newspaper content, including animal welfare, animal rights, endorsements, results, voting guide, economic impact, food safety, and political. Animal welfare was a dominant frame among reader-generated responses, perhaps because of the passionate nature of the topic. The economic impact frame was used noticeably less, although it was the most often used in the news category. The most frequently cited source was a nonprofit organization, and within that category the most often cited source was HSUS, who proposed the legislation. Few reporters went out of their way to contact sources who would have beneficial information for the voters on this proposition. The selected newspapers from the two districts with the most agricultural production were more positive toward agriculture than the other districts. The tone for all selected newspaper content generated by the newspaper, including the news, column, editorial, and feature content types, was mostly neutral. Previous studies found that the vast majority of reporting was accurate and fair (Irlbeck, et al., 2011), a conclusion echoed in this study. Reader-generated responses were the most negative, showing that the public, or at least those passionate enough to submit their opinions to a newspaper, had negative views of agriculture. | |
