With the internet and its plethora of bloggers and wannabe experts on every subject, we are  inundated with information that in some cases may actually be “mis”-information that is proffered with a hidden (or not-so-hidden) agenda.

Such is sometimes the case with agricultural subjects, especially when it comes to the advent of new technology and its adoption by producers.  A recent example was cited by my colleague Elton Robinson in a recent Farm Press blog.

In the Sunday June 23^rd edition of the Knoxville News Sentinel, there was an interesting article entitled “Opinion journalism needs ethical guidelines” that was written by Mark Harmon, a professor of journalism and electronic media at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville.  Below, I use some of his points and some additional ones in an appeal that deserves special attention from those who write or speak both for and against agricultural technology in today’s various media forms.

• In today’s world of multiple media outlets, all dissemination of information should be prominently identified as either an opinion or a fact-based presentation.  Opinions vary and are often fueled by hysteria and/or personal agenda.  Credible fact-based presentations will provide conclusions that are based on cited evidence.


• Writers who dispense information should seek, use, and identify the primary source(s) of that information.  With today’s easy access to documents, that is not a hard task.  For those who post writings on the internet, it is a simple task to provide a link to that source or sources.  That allows the reader to decide for himself/herself if the source is credible.


•  Writers should not assume cause and effect when items are correlated, or when there may be multiple causes of or reasons for an occurrence.


•  Not all supporting information for an occurrence is equally strong.  Supporting data for a claim is stronger when corroborated by more than one source rather than when supported by a single experiment or example.  With today’s internet posting of information, it is easy for the writer to present information as fact even though that information may not be supported by credible science or is uncorroborated.


•  Research data that support a position should be derived from sound experiments that are conducted in accordance with the accepted scientific method.


•  Ignoring sound science that supports a conflicting position is a disservice to the reader and identifies the writer as a biased purveyor of misinformation.


•  The peer-review process should never be skipped in academic research.  That is the final necessary step in validating the conduct of and results from that research.  In essence, this means that we science practitioners are often at a disadvantage because so much of the information available to the public nowadays can be presented as fact when it is posted on someone’s blog or facebook page.


•  When information disseminated by a writer is shown or found to be factually false, that writer should promptly, prominently, and voluntarily come forth with correction(s).

I realize that those I am intending to reach with this article likely will not see or read it.  But maybe those of you who do will bookmark it and recommend it or pass it along so that it might eventually reach those who will benefit from its subject.  Then again, more than likely my intended audience does not want or care to be bothered by ethical guidelines for presenting information that will influence the readers’ view of a subject.  They simply want to put forth gonzo journalism that supports their cause or agenda without regard to the truth or facts.

Sadly, we in the agricultural sector are usually behind the eight ball in the activity of educating the public about agricultural topics.  We are often left to dispute or combat opinion(s) presented as fact after the initial misinformation is already presented. Then we appear as if we are trying to defend our position, when in essence we are the ones left to correct a presentation of misinformation or dispute a non-fact-based opinion that was presented as fact.

We in the agricultural sector must exercise constant vigilance against those who seek to disparage the gains in agricultural technology.  We must always be ready and willing to discount myths with hard evidence which is readily available from our scientists and researchers.

Composed by Larry G. Heatherly, June 2013, larryheatherly@bellsouth.net