The annual State of Local News Project report from Northwestern’s Medill School of Journalism tells the story of small towns—particularly in the rural South and Midwest—that are in news deserts.
By the numbers:
- ⅔ of non-metropolitan counties have zero or one news outlet
- Since 2005, the U.S. has lost nearly 2,900 newspapers and 43K reporters and editors
- Roughly 2.5 local newspapers close each week
Why it matters: Local news coverage correlates with better civic engagement, voter turnout, and economic outcomes. It also protects against misinformation. Without local news, citizens can become uninformed, unable to hold local governments accountable, and less engaged in their communities. In the ag world, this lack of local news could mean less tailored information on local or national policy that impacts their farms, or fewer updates on things like weather events or disaster relief programs. This is especially important for the rural areas that may not have reliable internet access to find other news sources.
Communities who lose local newspapers are not likely to get a replacement. And some remaining single outlet papers are “ghost papers”—with no local reporting.
Possibilities and programs: Philanthropists have put their money where there’s no longer a mouth, committing $500M to support local news. Rural newspapers are exploring different business models or converting newspapers into nonprofits.
Student success: Some propose leaning on the 598 rural colleges that are within or near a news desert. Students can help sustain local newspapers through their reporting, while also gaining real-life experience. The University of Vermont’s Center for Community News has already fostered collaborations between university-led reporting and local news outlets.
Short Corn Packs a Punch
Dynamite comes in small packages—which can be true with new seed technology. What’s...
Congress to EPA: What’s Your BEEF with Meat Packers?
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is considering new regulations that take aim at meat and poultry processors.
And some members of Congress have a BEEF with the EPA’s proposals.
The proposed rules: In late January, the EPA released the details of its proposed “Clean Water Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Meat and Poultry Products Point source category.”
Huh?
Basically, the EPA formally published its proposals to combat wastewater contaminants that come from slaughterhouses.
Okay… that makes more sense.
At the heart of the rules proposal is a concern from environmental groups about nitrogen and phosphorus pollutants that originate from slaughterhouses. In some cases, the wastewater goes directly into waterways. In other cases, the water goes to municipal wastewater treatment facilities.
But not everyone is on board with the EPA’s suggestions…
Congress responds: Last week, two U.S. representatives—Eric Burlison (MO) and Ron Estes (KS)—pushed back against the EPA and introduced the “Banning EPA’s Encroachment of Facilities (BEEF) Act.” If passed and signed by President Biden, the law would prohibit the EPA from finalizing, implementing, or enforcing the rule.
According to the lawmakers, the proposed rules place undue burden on small processors—costs that can be absorbed by larger companies.
Soundbite: “The… proposed regulation isn’t just an attack on family-run small businesses, it’s an attack on rural communities,” said Burlison. “These meat and poultry processors are the lifeblood of our communities. The BEEF Act… lets these hardworking Americans do what they do best, produce safe, affordable food for our families.”
University of Illinois Makes Big Mooves in Milk Production
Pump it up: Scientists led by Matt Wheeler at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign are...