Summary:
Monsanto Company (Monsanto) is a global provider of agricultural products and systems, and the leader in the agricultural biotechnology industry. The world’s largest supplier of genetically modified seeds, the company also produces in-the-seed trait technologies for farmers, and manufactures herbicides. The US is Monsanto's major market, employing about 21,700 people; however, Monsanto also has substantial operations abroad, covering the regions of North America, South America, Europe, Asia, Australia, and Africa. The company grosses more than US $5.5 billion, an income larger than the GNP of most developing countries.
Monsanto is a very controversial company around the world. Not only does it have former employees within the US government, but the company has been investigated numerous times for engaging in unfair or deceptive practices in marketing and possible violations of antitrust laws. Numerous lawsuits have been brought against Monsanto primarily for environmental violations, though they have been investigated numerous times for violations against human health. It has also brought lawsuits against small farmers for alleged cross-contamination. Additionally, Monsanto is thought to have pursued ownership interests in a wide variety of potential competitors, not only to expand and consolidate its existing seed-trait monopolies, but also to block development and market entry of alternative herbicide-tolerant seed varieties that would have facilitated increased competition. These are just a few of the main practices that create a global cloud of controversy around Monsanto.
Monsanto most interested our group because it is astonishing that a leading global corporation like Monsanto, with such a controversial stance, would be able to largely escape the attention of mass media, and in some cases garner its support. Our informal investigation of communication by and about Monsanto revealed another enigma - while disparaging stories about Monsanto are prolific in alternative media, they are relatively absent in the mainstream.
Research Question:
What communications strategies have been used to inform the public about Monsanto?
Theories:
We chose to use Critical Theory because evidence suggests that Monsanto is a hegemonic presence in mass media. Further, our discourse analysis reveals Monsanto as part of this power-wielding, elitist hegemony.
Media Dependency Theory presented itself because of the complexity of agricultural biotechnology and the way this factor turns people to the mass media, whom they may trust, for information and education about Monsanto. Monsanto seems to manipulate this reliance.
Discussion Questions:
- Based on our summary, suggest a second research question and explain why you would choose this research question.
- What is another theoretical perspective we could have chosen? How would it apply to our case study?
- Do you think audiences are as passive as media dependency theory suggests?
- How could Political Economy Theory apply to this case study?
Links:
Listed below are three sources we investigated in our project. We attempted balance by including Monsanto’s Website, an anti-Monsanto consumers’ campaign and a French documentary on the company.
www.organicconsumers.org/monlink.cfm
www.youtube.com/watch?v=hErvV5YEHkE
Brooke, Cassi, Danielle, Tess
Hey guys,
ReplyDeleteI would have chosen the same 2 theories as you. However, to answer #2, I wonder if spiral of silence might apply. It's not as strong an argument as the other theories, no, but since you are looking at the silence of the mainstream media it may be enlightening to look at where that started. Did the government's reluctance to step in and condemn Monsanto's monopoly/shadiness feed into the big media's reluctance to cover it, feed into the smaller mainstream (local news channels etc.)'s hesitation to voice complaint? And did this lead to the general lack of discussion about it in mainstream society?
Here there is a vocal alternative media, which is why I don't think spiral of silence is as strong per se, but it still interesting to look at the difference between the alternative media's behavior and the mainstream media's. Also, it'd be interesting to see if this theory could work backwards, creating a sort of "unspiral of silence." :) by that and mean, has/will increasing alternative media coverage gradually made Monsanto an easier subject for the mainstream media (and then the public in general) to talk about?
On a slightly unrelated note, it'd be fascinating to see how coverage of Monsanto varies in different countries (ratio of alternative to mainstream press coverage, issues focused on etc. I noticed the documentary you posted was French, for instant. How many more exist in other langauges?
This is a really interesting topic. I have an uncle who is an agronomist at Monsanto and whenever we get into any kind of political/social/economic discussion it usually doesn't turn out well.
ReplyDeleteI like the two theories you guys chose. They seem to be appropriate for this topic. In regards to question 4, I think political economy could have been another theory to analyze this case. Given Monsanto's power in the global market, I think it would be interesting to identify all the connections this company has with large media corporations. The lack of mainstream media coverage on many of these issues suggests to me that Monsanto has some pretty powerful connections that are preventing them from receiving any bad publicity. I know you mentioned that some of their employees were formerly working for the government, but I wonder if there are also some financial connections between Monsanto and the media conglomerates.
It was also interesting to compare the two different websites; in particular Monsanto's mission included "a declaration that compels us to listen more, to consider our actions and their impact broadly, and to lead responsibly." It seems like their mission statement isn't being reflected in their actions.
I like the point you guys made about media dependency theory in this case. I think agriculture is an area that the average American does not know very much about or is not interested enough to actively search out balanced media on this topic. If Monsanto has a stake in the media conglomerates, then the American public will never hear about these inconsistencies between Monsanto’s mission and their actions. It would be interesting to learn more about how Monsanto is perceived around the world, particularly in the developing world.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAgenda Setting
ReplyDeleteMuch of the agenda setting in the U.S. is linked to the U.S. government’s agenda. It is likely that Monsanto manages to avoid mainstream media sources in its quest for world domination because of the media agenda which has been set by the U.S. government. Due to the lack of information about Monsanto in the media, the audience does not recognize Monsanto issues as salient. I feel the U.S. government has a vested interest in hiding the Monsanto unethical practices for a number of reasons (I am sure there are many reasons, but I limit my simplified accusations to four.):
1. The FDA and other government product testers have allowed Monsanto’s products to be sold in the mainstream market. There are probably huge consequences when retracting an FDA approval. There would be an enormous backlash if the FDA suddenly admitted certain chemicals or products aren’t safe for consumers.
2. According to the film, Monsanto and the media have been intentionally hiding and failing to report pollution and unethical practices for years. If these accusations are brought to light, the EPA will need to investigate and “clean-up” after Monsanto’s experiments. This could cost enormous sums of money and who would be responsible for the lives lost? Follow-up on these accusations looks like opening a toxic can of worms the U.S. government is not interested in engaging.
3. The U.S. government farm subsidies probably have a lot to do with American interest in Monsanto’s products. Many of the farmers in Michigan grow soy beans, because that is what the government will provide subsidies to grow. The U.S. government are often aligned with certain products.
4. One of the primary rolls of U.S. Foreign Service and the U.S. Embassies within the Department of State is to support American interests abroad. The U.S. Sate Department’s website says, “They represent the people and advocate the interests of the U.S. to the rest of the world.” If a company, like Monsanto, moves to a country and contacts the U.S. embassy about beginning a business in that country, the FSO officers at the post have a duty to support them, whether or not they agree with the company’s business practices. The U.S. government probably does not want everyone knowing what roll they have played in Monsanto’s business expansion outside the U.S.
These all seem like good reasons for the U.S. government to divert media attention from Monsanto.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete3. In my opinion, audience activity is very contextual, while in most cases it depends on the individual I do not think media users are as passive as the media dependency theory assumes. There are some exceptions, for example children cannot consume media subjectively and even adults use mainstream media to shape their views and opinions. On one hand, if certain information is not covered in the media people are not able to choose whether or not to consume it. However, the uses and gratification theory contradicts the media dependency theory assuming that audiences play an active role in choosing and using media to gratify certain needs. They interpret and integrate media into their lives and are responsible for choosing media to meet their needs.
ReplyDeleteI would chose agenda setting because the more salient issue is shaped by the US government, like Julie said. If Monsanto was charged with the crimes identified in the Organic Customers Association article, would their business still be operating? They would lose the $5.5 billion and incur many fines for their practices. Your summary referred to 21,700 Monsanto employees in the US alone, not counting how many employees were in other countries. The US government is particularly interested in creating and sustaining jobs, which would lead to extreme dissatisfaction if this company gets shut down. Julie also identified that Monsanto would have to take responsibility for lost lives, which is not what companies or humans like to own up to. The public attention to lost lives and disabilities would be tremendous, not to mention personal guilt that Monsanto employees would have to deal with. If the public, at large, found out about these problems it is likely that we would pay more attention to the Monsanto situation.
ReplyDelete3. I think that the majority of people are passive in their quest for news. I know that sounds weird in a room full of people who probably aren't passive about the information they are receiving, but I know plenty of people who are. People depend on the media of their choice to inform them. Their choice of media may be Fox News or Rachel Maddow. There is a huge difference between the two, but I don't know a lot of people who watch both just to get another perspective. People watch what makes them happy, not what they will constantly disagree with. So if someone's media source isn't reporting about Monsanto then they will know nothing about it (assuming they aren't personally affected by it or know someone who is). Does that mean that Monsanto isn't important? No, but to the millions of people who have no idea about it, it's not. The media has the power to make it important, and so far the mainstream media has chosen to look the other way.
ReplyDelete3. I do think that a large part of the population is as passive as media dependency theory suggests. I would like to think otherwise but that would just be foolish. Why else would people rather watch 60 second news clips on HLN, FOX News, or MSNBC instead of spending time researching important news topics? It is because today’s American culture almost has an innate belief that what is put on news television is the absolute truth. If it wasn’t the truth then why would it be on CNN or Fox News which both use the slogan “THE MOST TRUSTED NAME IN NEWS.” I do think, however, that with the rise of social media people might be beginning to form their own opinions and look for alternative sources of information.
ReplyDeleteIt would be interesting to do a comparitive study to see how the representations of Monsanto in the mainstream media look internationally. Possible research question: How have Monsantos marketing and advertising strategies in the Latin America, The Middle East, Asia, and Europe, differed from those in the U.S., and how has the public recieved this information respectively?
ReplyDeleteI wonder if the falt and accountability of the negative outcomes of Monsanto's practices rests primarily with them or with the FDA. I also wonder how the accountability factor would manifest in other countries (whether it would be with Monsanto, or a national regulation agency) Also, will the controversy around Monsanto be incorporated into a negative international image of the U.S. in general?
4. The Monsanto case is a great issue that Political Economy Theory can be applied to. It would be interesting to see the dynamics of power relations between Monsanto and the major media conglomerates. Like you have mentioned there is little coverage in mainstream media so therefore people are not aware of the concerning issue. There has been a rise in America in the past years of people being more concerned with where their food is coming from: the big movement of "buy fresh, buy local." People can easily research where local farmers are located but few times would they think to ask where the seeds came from. Monsanto has kept their controversial issues under wraps through either political connections, you mention employees having worked for the US government, or economic power.
ReplyDeleteAlong with this you inform us "the company has been investigated numerous times for engaging in unfair or deceptive practices in marketing and possible violations of antitrust laws." This directly correlates with Political Economy Theory in that it shows the power relation that constitutes the production, distribution and consumption of media. Clearly Monsanto has great power over the media sources if these issues are not being presented to the public. Therefore news is not being delivered. Monsanto holds the power to influence the public’s beliefs through exploitation of the media.
3. I find this topic fascinating as I had never heard of Monsanto before this class. I watch the news and read mainstream papers very regularly, so I am using myself as a sort of mini- biased case study for media dependency theory in trying to figure out how I have never heard about Monsanto. Perhaps I am less informed than I like to believe. Perhaps another reason why I've never heard of it is sadly and simply that my life doesn't involve agriculture, directly...pushing Monsanto out of my sphere in a sense. If my family's farm, or my neighbor's farm had problems with Monsanto, then it would be something I was aware of. The issue here is that Monsanto just isn't covered.I don't think that means that the audience is neccesarily passive in nature, but that sadly the topic and the audience's relationship to the topic is a major factor in determining whether they would know about it. Monanto is in a specific topical sphere- that is unlike politics, tragedies, or other hot news topics. Of course, my view is filled with my own bias, which should be taken with a grain of salt- like any piece of media should be.
ReplyDelete2 I think it would be interesting to take a social sciences approach and consider the statistics on agriculture and growers, and the regions they dominate...then to analyze the coverage in those specific regions. My mind immediately went to the article Democratic Consequences of Hostile Media Perceptions. The article discusses how people percieve news coverage as biased. I generally think of bias as framing something as good or bad, and as giving a specific topic less or more coverage. I think that this topic, and the near abscence of Monsanto in mainstream media, points at a larger flaw in the system than mere bias. Agenda setting would work, and would argue that Monsanto clearly isn't on the political agenda, the media agenda, and therefore not the public agenda. This is a great topic.
I think you guys chose good theories. I could not access the film because it was removed from youtube due to copyright issues.
ReplyDeleteAs a former journalist, I strongly disagree with the notion that the audience is passive. Everybody gets different meanings of different messages. If the audience was as passive as media dependency suggests there would never be any mobilisation of citizen groups across the world standing up to people, corporations and governments. For Monsato, which is a powerful corporation, the idea of them exerting their power and influence seems plausible enough. No corporation today is below doing anything if it gets them what they want.
From a content analysis point of view, it would be interesting to see how Monsato tailors its message for different demographics. It would also be interesting to see how to respond to allegations from environmental activists etc.
Using Political Economy theory as a lens this reminds me of a similar case involving Antiretroviral therapy drugs and HIV/AIDS. Pharmaceutical companies in the US held the patents for the ARVs and were charging huge sums for them. Generic versions of the drugs were developed in India, but were quickly taken off the market because they conflicted with the patented producer's intellectual property rights. AIDS is most prevalent in developing countries where people can barely afford to eat let alone buy medication. Eventually the WTO resolved the situation by making an exception when it came to intellectual property rights and pharmaceuticals. Hopefully, the Monsanto fiasco will be dealt with similarly in the near future, although at the moment it's looking rather bleak. This brings up a big question though when it comes to increased globalization. How can laws formed in the developed world be modified so that basic needs, like drugs and seeds, be provided to those who needed it most in developing countries?
ReplyDelete1. Another research question could be, How has Monsanto worked to have a socially constructed reality that deceives the public?
ReplyDeleteI would use this in conjunction with the theoretical approaches I suggest in #2. You could look at the Fox news coverage incident, the lack of knowledge in the public about Monsanto, what Monsanto says on their website in comparison with what they are actually doing, social media coverage on Monsanto, the control Monsanto exerts over people who use their products.
Uh oh! I tried to access the link you posted for the French documentary on YouTube about Monsanto. And what happened? It had been removed!!!! I ended up finding it doing a different search, but it did make me wonder if this was another attempt from Monsanto to silence people who try to speak poorly of them. Also, I have to say that these videos are not bedtime appropriate. Can you say nightmares?! I made yet another attempt to watch a Monsanto video before I went to bed and it was not a great idea, to say the least. This really freaks me about the foods I consume and others around the world. I try to be extremely conscious into what goes into my body by working to eliminate processed foods and things like high fructose corn syrup and hydrogenated oils. But Monsanto has taken this to another level. After first watching the video Danielle posted earlier in the quarter about Monsanto, milk and rBGH, I got pretty freaked out about what dairy products I consume. I found a video on YouTube to be helpful because it describes what companies do not use the product and what type of dairy to avoid.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UlKsdyTO7jE&p=7D557C48519ACD8E&playnext=1&index=47
2. I would propose using agenda setting theory. It would be interesting to do a content analysis of mainstream media and social medias coverage of Monsanto. Then by conducting a survey as to whether people thought various topics surrounding this issue were important. As I found in my group project, there are often other players into who is setting the agenda, not just media and the public. In this case you could look at how the government and Monsanto play a role in setting media and public agenda. Another theoretical approach that would be interesting to apply to your topic would be spiral of silence. As seen with the Fox news coverage they decided not to cover Monsanto after pressure from their media conglomerate and the Monsanto company. Obviously Fox news saw validity in covering the topic, but when they were found to not be in the majority they spiraled into silence.
3. Yes and no. I think a passive audience depends a lot on socio-economic background, level of education, how conscious people are who use media. A passive audience happens when the public merely observes an event, rather then actually participating in it. They become a submissive party being acted upon, not acting for themselves. They exhibit a low-intensity process of readership, as they do not feel burdened in their attempt, or lack thereof, to negotiate a text’s meanings. For an audience to be passive means for them to accept or allow what happens or what others do, without active response or resistance. But is this the audience being passive or is it part of the producers of the media’s attempt to provide content that only seeks to satisfy the passive element of viewers? If this is true, then the idea of an active viewer working to decode a text isn’t always fully possible, because the medium they are using is made in a way to be interactive. Stuart Hall stated, ‘texts are structured in such a way that they contain a preferred reading.’ He also goes on to explain that the sender positions himself to give identity or meaning to the audience from a place of authority, which reduces the reader’s range to interpret the text differently. This is a great example how it is not always up to the audience of how passive or active they can be, because the media provokes passivity in them. The sender works to reinforce the authority of the text they are sending. This can leave an audience open to manipulation by the sender.
ReplyDelete4. Political Economy Theory can be applied to the Monsanto case in many ways. First one could look at how Monsanto produces their products, and what genetically modified seeds/food mean for farmers and consumer. Then you could look at the buying of selling of these seeds, in how Monsanto places harsh restrictions on people who use them and how they have to buy more each time, as they are not allowed to use seeds from the crops in replanting. Also with this, you could look at how Monsanto acts in many ways to reduce their competition and makes it difficult for people who farm organically, and regular farming, to compete with the prices of their products. This theory also looks at relation with law, customs and government. Monsanto obviously had many ties with the government, as they have been able to control the amount of information published on their company that comes out in a negative light and Obama appointing people who work for the multinational into positions of power. Monsanto is a mother of a company and they work, along with many other companies of this size and wealth, to further perpetuate the uneven distribution of wealth.
ReplyDelete1. Another research question could be, "What is the relationship of Monsanto's corporate power to its portrayal (or lack thereof) in the media?"
ReplyDeleteThis is still a critical theory-based question, but I would be interested to know the answer. It seems highly unlikely that Monsanto hasn't flexed some of its financial and political power to stifle negative coverage.
3. I think that different sectors of the public audience are varyingly passive. It seems likely that the more educated an audience is, the less likely it is to passively consume media or believe unquestioningly what they hear in the news. The better educated the population, the more active they ought to be in their media interpretation. But I don't think that educated audiences are necessarily more active in seeking out their own information. There are many factors for why people want to find out more about stories they hear, and many constraints to actually finding out more about those stories.
In the case of Monsanto, it would be hard for any lay person to have incentive to learn about the company because they have apparently done such a good job keeping a low media profile. Why would the average person not involved in farming have any reason to know about the company? In this sense, the audience is passive, and Monsanto has obviously allowed this passivity to work in its favor.
I myself knew little about Monsanto prior to our class; I can obviously attest to the lack of mainstream media coverage about the company's practices. I rooted around Youtube for a few videos about the seemingly endless controversy swirling around Monsanto, and it's shocking just how powerful they are - in silencing opposition and in continuing to expand its business at a breakneck pace even despite its "bad guy" label. This video is about how Fox News fired its reporters for wanting to expose Monsanto's rBGH, primarily because Fox wasn't willing to risk losing millions of dollars in advertising: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axU9ngbTxKw&feature=related. I'd be interested to hear more about the complex informal "partnerships" between corporations such as Monsanto that claim to support individuals (farmers) and their media elite counterparts like Fox News, who claim truthful reporting for its viewers. An alternative research question then might focus on just how much elites like Monsanto are increasingly reliant on media elites to exercise and legitimize their power and "manufacture consensus and consent", and what this ultimately means for unsuspecting media consumers.
ReplyDeleteLike Alexandra I like the use of Agenda setting theory and the spiral of silence. Below in my ‘rant’ section you will see how Monsanto in corporation with the US government sets an agenda on peoples of the world. Yes, the Media, and the agro business media specifically, reinforce its mouthpiece status.
ReplyDeleteOtherwise, Alexandra, your video was intense! I’ve watched numerous loved ones fight breast cancer, and watching this video was agonizing. Though not surprising . . .
Thaing your video! I’m sure if I watch it enough I’ll develop cancer from it. Sorry but … just so upsetting . . . I think both Lynn and your response that none of you heard about Monsanto until the class indicates that a spiral of silence theory here would apply. As does Fox News forcibly silencing reporters and firing them.
I also like the two theories the group chose. I love the topic and debated being part of that group since it’s such an interesting/disturbing/threatening reality we live in.
My rant (Jean Pierre and Sarah B. you both may be interested in this):
I’m always brought back to my central debate. In the US, conscious consumers know about Monsanto and it’s evils. We have more opportunities then others around the world to protect ourselves. But, what happens when others around the world do not know about the evils of this company and how it is actively destroying their lands, and produce. Please don’t assume mistakenly that we have more freedom of speech internationally then you do in the U.S. Monsanto silences everyone, and consumers in the rest of the world have even less consciousness around all of this. I have included a link to what the US government did for Monsanto as it graciously entered Iraq to ‘free’ the Iraqi people. I pose a question to Dhvani actually. In another group project you expressed frustration that the Indian government did not report on any of these topics. I don’t think it should or needs to, these are topics that directly affect us as US consumers but not necessarily do they affect Indians. HOWEVER, in the case of Monsanto and the atrocities it has committed --and blood it has on its hands-- I wonder, do you know about its operations in India? Now if the Indian media does not address Monsanto then we are in trouble. I hesitate to say this because I’m obviously not Indian but I’m drawing the parallel with the Arab world. No one in the Arab world knows about Monsanto, and the article I have listed below shows you they work hard there too . . . Again, we are in trouble. I don’t assume the silencing is random that no one knows in the Arab world, we follow the lead of these corporations; we cannot speak, so we don’t. We face the U.S. imperialist power if we were to voice concern. In the U.S. it’s hardly as serious a case. We could be invaded if we voiced dislike, or at least the excuse could be used as a scapegoat. In the US you get fired from jobs. The stakes are just a bit different. As the 2/3 of the world majority who are run by mostly US corporations that serve no interest but their own bottom line, we have already lost the battle.
Here’s the article but unfortunately I couldn’t find the one I was looking for. That one talks about destroying indigenous seeds Iraq had once the invasion happened. Iraq was a rich farming country for centuries . . .
Anyway, ‘enjoy’!
http://fooddemocracy.wordpress.com/2007/09/20/iraq-farmers-us-govt-gm-crops-monsanto-f-up-again/