THE ABC current affairs program “Lateline” recently screened an interview with US writer Jonathon Safran Foer, author of a book “Eating Animals” which is highly critical of modern livestock production systems and in which Safran Foer advocates vegetarianism.
The interview followed a story detailing production practices on one Australian chicken farm, which had been raided by animal welfare activists.
The opening question by Lateline presenter Tony Jones gives a good indication of the tone of the entire interview: “Now, largely inspired by your book we (the ABC) sent a reporter out to investigate factory farming of chickens in Australia. She made contact with an animal rights activist group and they conducted a raid which they filmed on one of the factory farms and the images will have shocked many of our viewers I'm sure. Forty thousand chickens crammed into a giant barn; the maimed and dying birds unable to get food or water; dead chickens being cannibalised by the living. This, I imagine you would argue, is not untypical.”
If Safran Foer has any concerns before the interview that he might be challenged about his views, he was in no doubt from this syncophantic and almost worshipful question that he was in for a very ‘soft interview’. Leaving aside the question of whether or not encouraging illegal trespass on a farm should lead to the ABC being prosecuted, it was evident right from the start that the interviewer was completely sympathetic to Safran Foer’s views.
The interview commenced with a discussion of the chicken industry, but quickly broadened to a more general discussion of livestock production practices. During the course of the interview, Safran Foer made a number of either totally incorrect or highly contentious claims, but not one of these was challenged by Jones. The following are a few examples;
“An environmental group recently did a study to try to quantify simply the environmental costs of that 49-cent burger - leaving out the human health costs, which are tremendous - and they estimated that each 49-cent burger costs about $200.”
“We now feed corn and soy - these are foods that humans are capable of digesting - naturally to cows, which are not capable of digesting corn and soy naturally. We've taken them off of grass, which is a food of course that humans cannot digest naturally."
“I mean, does anyone not care about air pollution, water pollution, the fact that animal agriculture is the number one cause of global greenhouse gas emissions? In fact, it emits more global greenhouse gas than everything else put together."
The ABC Presenter did not clarify whether Safran Foer was talking about US or Australian agriculture, and nor did he question which environmental group had made the claim about the $200 environmental cost, or how it had been calculated. He did not query the statement about feeding cows, or point out the overwhelming predominance of grass fed cattle production in Australia. Nor did he challenge the assertion about greenhouse emissions, despite the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) identifying livestock production only being responsible for around seven per cent of global greenhouse emissions, and those emissions being absolutely dwarfed by emissions from the fossil fuel sector.
Safran Foer is a writer, with no particular expertise in or knowledge of agriculture, and especially of Australian agriculture. This does not mean his views should not be heard, but it should at least mean that the more contentious claims are subject to challenge by the interviewer, or at the very least juxtaposed with those of a person with relevant industry knowledge who could knowledgeably respond to some of the more ridiculous claims.
The fact that this did not occur means either that the interviewer was lazy and failed to prepare for the interview (the excellent ABC Rural Department could easily have provided relevant information), or ideologically supportive of the interviewee, and prepared to let his personal views override his professional responsibilities.
In either case, this raises serious questions about professionalism of those involved in the Lateline program, and more broadly the ABC. This is a particularly relevant question at present, given the recent speech by Maurice Newman, Chairman of the ABC, to senior ABC staff. In that speech, he stated
“There should be no public perception that there is such a thing as an 'ABC view' – we must be neither believers nor atheists but agnostics who acknowledge people have a right to make up their own minds. We must ensure that our town square is not a monologue. That people turn to ABC journalism knowing it will be challenging, surprising, and counter-intuitive. That there will be no selective scepticism – a tendency to listen to dissenters and doubters, so long as their doubts agree with our own.”
Australian agriculture has enormous potential and opportunity, and also faces challenges. The sector should not expect the media to be uncritical, but should expect that it will be balanced and fair. Unfortunately, this was not the case in this program, which has unfairly damaged the livestock industry, and Australian agriculture more generally. It has also created a distinct impression that the ABC has a ‘view’ about the merits of livestock farming practices, contrary to the Chairman's exhortations.
This also highlights a challenge Australian agriculture faces, as a consequence of its structure and its remoteness from most of the Australian population, 85pc of whom live within 50 kilometres of the coast. Policy decisions which affect the industry are coloured by the perceptions of the wider population, which in the absence of other information, are formed by programs such as Lateline and people such as Jonathon Safran Foer.
Despite his lack of knowledge of qualifications, he is an opportunist taking advantage of a communications vacuum created by growing consumer interest in the origins of food, and a failure by agriculture to adequately fill that vacuum. All organisations involved in agriculture need to look for opportunities to provide more information to consumers, and to highlight positive stories about the sector. They also a need to make sure knowledgeable personnel are available when media requests arrive, irrespective of the inconvenience. It would be a tragedy if media coverage such as the recent Lateline story were unbalanced simply because there was no industry representative available to provide that balance.
Email a friend