Universiteit van Amsterdam, Graduate School of Communication Name: Jeanette van Eijk
The news media coverage
and public relations of
Monsanto in the Netherlands
Name: Jeanette van Eijk
Student number: 11121793
Master’s Thesis
Graduate School of Communication
Master’s programme Communication Science
Supervisor: dr. J.W. Boumans
Date of completion: 3 February 2017
U n i v e r s i t e i t v a n A m s t e r d a m
February
17
Acknowledgement
This Master’s Thesis could not have been completed successfully without the support of many people. Most importantly I would sincerely like to thank my supervisor dr. J.W. Boumans for his excellent advice, guidance and endless patience, and Mr C. Deen for his cooperation, openness, enthusiasm and the tour of Monsanto Enkhuizen. I would also like to express my gratitude to Mr I. Hastings for his final review, support and inspiring ideas that lead to the interesting topic of this research, and my family and friends for their endless encouragements. Thank you all.
Abstract
By using a triangular approach, this Master’s Thesis research reviews the actors and issues dominating the newspaper coverage of Monsanto, whether that media coverage can be considered balanced and which public relations strategies are used by this company in the Netherlands. By means of a content analysis 310 articles from nine Dutch newspapers were reviewed and coded, and an interview was held with one of Monsanto’s Site Leads in the Netherlands. Six hypotheses were formulated and tested, indicating that opposing parties of Monsanto such as NGO’s are quite prominently present in the news coverage of Monsanto. The valence of those texts in which such actors gave an evaluation of Monsanto, showed to be more negative in comparison with the evaluations given by other actors. The main issue discussed was GMOs and by checking overall favourability, these findings led to the conclusion that the news coverage of Monsanto in the Netherlands cannot be considered balanced. Indeed, the public relations’ of Monsanto has been quite neglected for a while and even though improvements are being made the company still has a long way to go. In line with the findings of other authors that reviewed the influence of NGO’s on the media and public debate, the field of public relations’ appears to no longer be dominated by large powerful corporations. In fact, in this case study newspapers showed to be more influenced by NGO’s having caught up and excelled at public relations themselves, rather than by the multinational being the subject of the discussion.
Introduction
Agenda-setting theory has been widely studied because of the effects news media can have on public opinion (Kim & Kiousis, 2012). By deciding to pay attention to certain topics and ignoring others, news media are capable of affecting the public agenda and ‘telling an audience what to think about’ (Cohen, 1963). Whether presented in the form of television, radio or writing – the public opinion being formed ends up affecting all of society. Consequently, most agenda setting research focuses on the relationship between the mass media content and its audience. This research aims however, to explore an earlier stage of news media production and its agenda setting, namely the building of that news media agenda. It studies the relationship between journalists, the media content they produce and the news sources they use, such as press releases.
Concerns are often shared with regards to the professional field responsible for most of these press releases – public relations (PR). As Davis (2000) describes, there is often the view of PR ‘managing the media’. Journalists are increasingly pressurized, having to meet an expansive requirement of news with a stable number of colleagues to maintain the newspapers’ profitability. They are therefore more inclined to use free second-hand material such as press releases (Lewis, Williams and Franklin, 2008). It leads to the belief that especially larger corporations such as multinationals are capable of effectively dominating the political and public debate in the media, because of their larger economic and political resources (Davis, 2000).
Having larger economic and political resources, corporations are thus seen as more powerful and supposedly having significant advantages to dominate the public debate in the media over stakeholders with opposing views, such as non-governmental organizations (NGOs) and interest groups. Berkowitz and Adams (1990) however, found that the ‘information subsidies’ such as press releases that were most frequently used by journalists,
actually came from NGOs and interest groups rather than governments and corporations. In line with these findings, Davis (2000) also notes that indeed pressure groups such as trade unions and NGOs have been shown to employ PR strategies, which has also been shown in the public debate about climate change (Greenberg, Knight and Westersund, 2011). In fact, Boumans, Vliegenthart and Boomgaarden (2016) recently showed that ‘contradicting literature, media content is most similar to the NGO’s content’ in relation to the public debate about nuclear energy’.
This research aims to expand on these findings through a case study, using a triangular approach that specifically focuses on the Dutch media coverage of one corporation. Because the public debate about genetically modified organisms (GMOs) too illustrates how in recent years indeed, NGOs appear to have been dominating this public debate in comparison to the ‘voice of the industry’. Kurzer and Cooper (2013) describe how NGOs have been able to successfully identify GMOs as ‘creepy technology’ and among others Greenpeace was able to mobilize an overwhelming popular opposition. In the field of public affairs (among others being practiced through the composition of information subsidies such as position papers), this managed to lead to a blocking of GMOs on the European internal market (Kurzer & Cooper, 2013).
Furthermore, these NGOs appear to not only have had an effect on the public affairs of corporations involved with the development and distribution of GMOs, but also their public relations. As an international supplier of seeds but also the best-known developer of GMOs, the biotechnology company Monsanto has been referred to in the news media as the ‘most hated company in the world’ (Driessen, 2015; Rozendaal, 2015). Through a triangular approach, this research aims to explore the corporate portrayal (Carroll & McCombs, 2003) of Monsanto in the Dutch written news media, and the agenda building that appears to be taking place.
By using the concept of valence or tone of a story (Kim & Kiousis, 2012), this case study zooms in on the news articles and reviews the actors and issues mentioned. Valence is thus an evaluation of how positive or negative news coverage is (Yoon, 2005), and is used in this research to explore a potential media bias. It leads to the first of two research questions: ‘Which actors and issues dominate the news coverage of Monsanto and can their valence be
considered balanced?’ This question will be addressed by means of a quantitative content
analysis of 310 news articles that have been published in Dutch newspapers over the course of the past fifteen years. It explores the premises set in both the academic field and public opinion that corporations have ‘too much power in PR’, and whether or not society’s view of Monsanto might be influenced by a media bias that can be seen as unexpected.
Secondly, this research also aims to find explanations for the actors and issues dominating the news coverage of Monsanto and potential strategies to manage such a biased valence. This case study is thereby not just longitudinal, which is scarce in the field of agenda building research (Boumans, Vliegenthart & Boomgaarden, 2016) but also has a triangular approach. By means of an interview, the second research question is therefore to be answered: Which
public relations’ strategies are used to manage the valence in Dutch newspaper articles about Monsanto?’ To answer these questions a set of hypotheses has been phrased, which will be
discussed in the following chapter, in addition to the theories and concepts used in this research.
Theoretical Framework
As described above, agenda setting and thus the media effect on public opinion has been one of the most widely academically studied fields of communication. Expanding from agenda setting and focusing on those setting the media agenda in the first place, this case study
focuses on the agenda building process. The agenda building perspective has often been used to explore the transferring of materials by external sources to the media. Information subsidies of public relations practitioners such as press releases have been found to be used by journalists. Using media or public relations strategies, corporations try to build positive reputations and regularly share information subsidies with journalists (Kim & Kiousis, 2012).
In addition to showing that journalists are under an increased amount of pressure, Lewis, Williams and Franklin (2008) found that the information subsidies that would most likely end up being used in news stories came from corporations, rather than NGOs or pressure groups. Their research expands on public relations’ as a field of communications that established itself as a response from corporations from criticism, in either the media or from public interest groups. Companies specializing in the field of public relations were engaged in not only the building of a positive reputation, but also in the promotion of political ideas that would benefit corporations and protect specific industries. Such activities lead to the criticism of public relations being used to only protect the interest of corporations (Miller & Dinan, 2008; Ihlen & Verhoeven, 2012), and public relations being described by some as ‘a sinister activity that works against the public interest’ (Stauber & Rampton, 1995; Ihlen & Verhoeven, 2012).
As Ihlen and Verhoeven (2009) argue however, this case study derives from the position that public relations should be studied like any other social activity. The field itself is not inherently good or bad, but can rather be used for good or bad purposes. Moreover, the criticism of the field of public relations ignores that public relations can be put to use for public causes too, helping NGO’s and pressure groups to advocate certain positions more successfully. Davis (2000) discusses how alternative sources were also able to gain access, especially in the field of the environmental issues; the media agenda appears to have been influenced by NGOs (Greenberg, Knight, & Westersund, 2011; Boumans, Vliegenthart &
Boomgaarden, 2016).
As Charlebois and Van Acker (2015) describe in their case study of Monsanto, the biotechnology company is well known in the agriculture sector because of its research into and commercializing of GMOs. By requesting patents, the companies’ business model was seen as a new, but as some would argue also an aggressive approach in the seed business. In particularly the last decade, the company has been negatively viewed by actors outside of the company and influenced by among others NGOs such as environmental groups (Charlebois & Van Acker, 2015). Especially during the first reporting about GMOs, the technology was new and unknown but early research had pointed out harm to butterflies and bees. It thus became rather easy for NGOs to portray GMOs ads ‘creepy’ technology (Kurzer & Cooper, 2013).
Accordingly, these actors are expected to be particularly present in the news coverage of Monsanto, leading to the first hypothesis: ‘H1A: Opponents or coalitions of opposing
parties such as NGO’s, are expected to be more prominently present in the news coverage of Monsanto’. Furthermore, these opposing parties are thus expected to be rather negative about
Monsanto, which leads to the second hypothesis being: ‘H1B: The news coverage including
opponents or coalitions of opposing parties such as NGO’s, is expected to carry a negative valence’.
The measurement of the valence of these news articles derives from the literature dividing the concept of agenda building into two levels. The first level relates to the salience of objects such as issues, political figures and organizations in amongst public relations messages, media coverage and public opinion. The second level of agenda building relates to the salience of attributes, or in other words ‘’the set of perspectives or frames journalists and the public employ to think about each object’’ (Kim & Kiousis, 2012). This salience of attributes has two dimensions, namely substantive and affective attributes. Substantive attributes relate to the cognitive aspect, and affective attributes relate to the affective or
emotional aspect of an object (Sheafer, 2007).
Affective attributes lead to emotional responses that shape the overall evaluation of an object and thus an organization’s appeal. The most commonly used dimension to establish affective attributes is the valence or tone of a story (Kim & Kiousis, 2012). Valence is an evaluation of how positive or negative news coverage is (Yoon, 2005). The valence of messages shapes the overall composition of stories and has the potential of impacting information process by audiences (Kim & Kiousis, 2012). Sheafer (2007), for example, explains how people perceive an issue to be more important when it is portrayed more negatively in the news, consequently increasing the object’s importance and accessibility on the public agenda.
In addition to the first hypothesis, the debate about GMOs has been politicized and geared towards more regulation such as strict safety assessment and mandatory labelling (Tilberghien 2009; Kurzer & Cooper, 2013). As opposing parties are expected to be more prominently featured in the news coverage of Monsanto, the issues that they focus on are also expected to be prominently featured (and carrying a negative valence). On the basis of a ‘Monsanto – Myths and Facts’ document (Monsanto International, 2014) which aims to rebut some of the arguments made by opposing parties, three key issues have been identified that are expected to carry a negative valence. This leads to the second hypothesis: ‘H2: The
articles discussing GMOs, pesticides and patents are expected to carry a negative valence’.
Exploring the valence of news articles and finding patterns therein such as a continuous negative tone may indicate a media bias. Although rather controversial because of its subjective nature, there has been substantive discussion of the concept (Gentzkow & Shapiro, 2006; Andon & Free, 2014; Cohen, Ding, Lesage & Stolowy, 2015). As already described by Lippman (1922), the media have a crucial role in forming and reflecting public thoughts and function as a monitor on behalf of the general public (Cohen, Ding, Lesage &
Stolowy, 2015). But the press does not operate in a vacuum. Media channels such as newspapers can have a specific sociological viewpoint (conservative, centrist, liberal, progressive, etc.), which can lead to a bias. To maintain credibility and survive financially, some media outlets are inclined to reflect the beliefs and values of the majority of the readers and act as defenders of the readership they are responding to (Cohen, Ding, Lesage & Stolowy, 2015). As found by Benediktsson (2010), particularly in the case of scandal news coverage, the tone of the coverage would be influenced by the political ideology of newspapers rather than for example economic interests or social structural ties between firms. Consequently, the framing and valence of a story will reflect the biases of for example newspapers. Through selective omission, choice of words and varying credibility ascribed to the primary source – each newspaper might convey a radically different impression of what actually happened (Gentzkow & Shapiro, 2006). For example, subjective reporting can be expected more when the distance between the topic at hand and the position of the author of the article is large (Bosman & d’Haenens, 2008). For that reason it can be expected that in left-leaning newspapers that are inclined to be environmentally friendly and sceptical of large multinationals, the valence of the articles about Monsanto is less favourable. Similarly, due to the aforementioned influence of NGOs on the public opinion, popular newspapers might too be inclined to describe the company in a less favourable manner. Alternatively, financial and quality newspapers might present a more balanced point of view with regards to Monsanto. These findings lead to the third hypothesis: ‘H3A: From the perspective of Monsanto, the
news coverage of the by left-leaning newspapers and popular newspapers can be considered more unfavourable, in comparison with financial and quality newspapers’. In addition, to
review the entire Dutch newspaper landscape as a whole, a last hypothesis is tested: ‘H3B:
From the perspective of Monsanto, the overall news coverage of the company is unfavourable.’
These aforementioned hypotheses mean to answer the first main research question, namely: ‘Which actors and issues dominate the news coverage of Monsanto and can their
valence be considered balanced?’ Following the literature that has been explored so far, the
expectation for this hypothesis is to be rejected. Going back however to the aforementioned reasoning leading to this this research however, the field of public relations should potentially be capable of restoring such a negative image of a company. Especially for an American company like Monsanto, it could be argued that it is odd that such a negative image appears to be persistent, because especially in the USA public relations has been used to protect the interests of major corporations (Miller & Dinan, 2008; Ihlen & Verhoeven, 2012). It therefore raises the second research question: ‘Which public relations’ strategies are used to manage
the valence in Dutch newspaper articles about Monsanto?’
Whereas the first research question is answered by exploring the salience of attributes through affective attributes, namely the valence of a story (Sheafer, 2007; Kim & Kiousis, 2012), the second research question looks at the substantive attributes that relate to the cognitive aspects of a story (Sheafer, 2007). With regards to the substantive attributes and in the contexts of businesses, Carroll and McCombs (2003) suggest a key set of reputational attributes of corporations (familiarity, creating value, corporation capability, corporate citizenship, performance, leadership/management, and appeal/credibility) to influence the overall appeal of an organization, leading to a fourth and final hypothesis: ‘H4: Newspaper
articles that contain references to key reputational attributes have a more favourable tone towards Monsanto’.
Finally, aiming to identify the public relations’ strategy used by Monsanto in the Netherlands, van Ruler’s strategies (2004) are used as a tool. Van Ruler’s four strategies constitute a ‘tool-kit’ for public relations, specifically a set of strategies to resolve specific communication problems (van Ruler, 2004). The information strategy refers to the pure
provision of information, meant to help people forming opinions or decisions. Written materials such as press releases are often just made to inform: to be effective they need not only a clear and informative message but also an information seeking public (Grunig & Hunt, 1984; Renckstorf, 1994; van Ruler, 2004). Alternatively, a strategy can also mean to be more persuasive, often seen in the form of advertising and propaganda. The organization is communicating in a very corporate manner, aiming to provide a favourable basis for further relationships with stakeholders. Because of the targeted tuning of knowledge, attitude and behaviours specified to others this strategy needs a persuasive message and a latent public (Perlof, 1993; van Ruler, 2004). The aforementioned ‘Monsanto – Myths and Facts’ document (Monsanto International, 2014) can be seen as an example of a hybrid information and persuasion strategy, but the question remains whether or not Monsanto’s employees also actively pursue journalists with press releases.
The other set of strategies focus on two-way traffic, providing in the first instance the dialogue strategy. The dialogue strategy is facilitating in nature and can be seen in the form of interactive policy-making and socially responsible enterprising. The strategy ecompasses interactive policy development and decision-making to take place, requiring informational messages from both sides and an aware public (van Ruler, 2004). Finally, van Ruler identifies the consensus-building strategy, whereby the organization means to build bridges with its environment (Dozier, 1992; van Ruler, 2004). This specific strategy is meant to be employed when there are conflicting interests at stake amongst actors that are interdependent. It thus covers a process of mutual agreement. It follows the dialogue strategy, facilitating the second phase of interactive policy development and decision-making. This strategy therefore not only needs an aware public but also advocates an active public (Grunig, 1992). In their research, Charleboios & Van Acker (2015) describe Monsanto’s new engagement initiative, and thus it can be expected that some elements of these two-way traffic strategies are to be present in
Monsanto’s public relations in the Netherlands. The public opinion is however not just influenced by Monsanto’s strategies, but also the strength of its opponents, which might mean that the two-way traffic is found to be hindered effectively (van Ruler, 2004).
To identify these strategies, an interview has been held with a Dutch employee of Monsanto. This interview was preceded by a content analysis to test the aforementioned hypotheses. In the next chapter, an explanation will be provided of the methods used to carry out both the content analysis and the interview.
Methods
As mentioned in the introduction, a triangular approach was used in this research whereby a quantitative and qualitative perspective were used to study the same phenomenon, the public relations of Monsanto. A content analysis was conducted to answer the first research question and thus analyse the actors and issues mentioned in the news articles of Monsanto, and a possible bias in the Dutch written news coverage. This method was chosen as it allowed the author to compress a large amount of newspaper article into fewer content categories, based on explicit rules of coding (Stemler, 2001).
Through the academic search engine LexisNexis and with the use of the search criteria ‘Monsanto’ being mentioned in ‘Headline and Lead’, 386 articles were found in Dutch national newspapers that were published between 1 December 2001 and 1 December 2016. These criteria were used to prevent irrelevant articles from becoming part of the dataset, such as a simple portrayal of data about stocks. That did not mean that all 386 news articles that were found ended up being coded. Some irrelevant articles would for example discuss a list of mergers taking place, only briefly mentioning Monsanto but clearly not discussing the company. Furthermore, some articles were found that only discussed people with the last
name Monsanto and were therefore found to be irrelevant. The articles that were eventually used and became part of the final dataset, were found specifically in het Financieele Dagblad (N = 90), NRC Handelsblad (N = 72), de Volkskrant’ (N = 40), Trouw (N = 32), De Telegraaf (N = 23), Algemeen Dagblad (N = 23), Reformatorisch Dagblad (N = 12), Nederlands
Dagblad (N = 9), and Het Parool (N = 8).
To test hypothesis 3A, the newspapers that fall into the category ‘left leaning newspapers and popular newspapers’ were identified as de Volkskrant, Algemeen Dagblad and De Telegraaf. Although de Volkskrant is generally considered to be more of a quality newspaper, because it is left leaning, it is therefore expected to have more biased reporting and as suchis categorized for this case study with the popular newspapers Algemeen Dagblad and De Telegraaf (Aarts & Semetko, 2003; Bosman & d’Haenens, 2008; Schafraad, van Zoonen & Verhoeven, 2016). Furthermore and in relation to hypothesis 3B, the newspapers categorized as financial newspapers and quality newspapers were het Financieele Dagblad,
NRC Handelsblad, Trouw and Het Parool (Aarts & Semetko, 2003; Te Kulve, 2006;
Jonkman & Verhoeven, 2013). It must be noted that although Het Parool is not distributed nationally and only in Amsterdam, because this is the capital city of the Netherlands it still has a vast readership (Te Kulve, 2006). For the testing of hypothesis 3B, all the aforementioned newspapers were used.
Furthermore, three different sets of variables were identified to test the hypotheses. To identify the ‘actors’ present a question was formulated in relation to the Most Important Actor (MIP) in the story, besides Monsanto. The variables that the coder was asked to choose from included ‘no MIP can be identified’, or alternatively ‘shareholders’, ‘national governing body / authority / court’, ‘international governing body / authority / court’, ‘farmer and/or agricultural organization’, ‘competitor’, ‘opponent and/or coalition of opposing parties’, ‘financial organization’, ‘media and/or journalist’, ‘university and/or scientist’, and ‘other’.
This categorization was made on the basis of the literature found about Monsanto such as the case study from Charlebois and Van Acker (2015) and a pre-test of the codebook. If a MIP was identified, a subsequent question was asked in relation to possible evaluation being made by that MIP (answering possibilities being ‘no evaluation’, ‘negative’, ‘rather negative’, ‘balanced/mixed’, ‘rather positive’ or ‘positive’). To code the valence of the text in which the MIP made an evaluation of Monsanto, specific instructions were included in a codebook (Appendix I) and translated into a scale ranging from 1 (‘negative’) to 5 (‘positive’), with ‘0’ indicating a ‘neutral’ evaluation.
The second set of variables was created to find the relevant issues mentioned in the newspaper articles, consisting of ‘GMOs’, ‘the relationship with farmers’, ‘patents’, ‘research and development / innovation’, ‘financial activities’, ‘a merger’, ‘Agent Orange’, ‘RoundUp’, ‘the monopolizing position’, ‘plant breeding’, and ‘other’. Finally, the third set of variables reviewed the reputational issues of Monsanto, consisting of the variables ‘reputation and/or public relations’, ‘corporate values’, ‘quality of management and/or leadership’, ‘corporate social responsibility’, and ‘other’. In the case of both of these sets, in the case of presence of an issue or reputational issue, a subsequent question was asked with regards to the valence of the text (answering possibilities being ‘no tone apparent’, ‘negative’, ‘rather negative’, ‘balanced/mixed’, ‘rather positive’ or ‘positive’). This valence was coded in the same way as that of the MIPs.
To analyse the final dataset with the above variables, the software programme SPSS was used and a codebook was developed. As discussed, the codebook provided instructions, definitions and questions with regards to the variables. The first five variables were deemed technical and meant to register formal features (coder, medium, date, number of words, journalistic genre), whereas the latter four variables were considered content variables (actors and valence, issues and valence, reputational issues and valence, and overall favourability).
The reliability of the content analysis was tested through the double-coding ten per cent of the final dataset by a second coder. For every question in the codebook Krippendorff’s alpha was calculated. Scored alphas ranged between .48 and .69. For each sub-set, both the identification of the variable (nominal) and the valence identified (ordinal) were scored. Unfortunately only one variable showed a satisfactory intercoder reliability score, namely the Most Important Actor variable (α = .69). The scored alphas of the other variables were reasonably close to being sufficient in the case of the reputational issues (α = 64), the valence of the reputational issues (α = .60) and issues (α = .56). However, the alphas for the valence of the issues (α = .52), the valence of the Most Important Actor (α = .48) and favourability (α = .47) showed to be quite unsatisfactory. The double-data coded therefore implies that the instructions in the codebook were insufficient, challenging the reliability of the content analysis.
Finally, to answer the second research question and find explanations for the findings of the first research question, this content analysis was complemented with an interview. The interview was held with Mr C. Deen, Site Lead Enkhuizen of Monsanto Holland and among others in charge of ‘community outreach’ and other public relations’ activities. The interview was recorded and held in Dutch. An interview guide was prepared including pre-formulated questions (Appendix II), meaning for the interview to be open and semi-structured, which works especially well when a limited number of respondents is involved (Yin, 1994).
Especially when ‘how’ or ‘why’ questions are posed and a modern phenomenon within real-life context is investigated (Yin, 1994), an interview can be very helpful. Because the interview was meant to explore the practices of Monsanto by gaining insights from an expert and there was no need for an eventual systematic comparison between the data of different respondents, the interview guide was used in a very flexible manner. This provided the opportunity during the interview to diverge from the path originally set. This was very
helpful, as the respondent was very enthusiastic and happy to elaborate on Monsanto and the topic. In the end, as can be seen from the transcript of the interview (Appendix II), many questions showed to be answered simultaneously whilst the interview was on going.
Results
Hypotheses one to four were tested to answer the first research question with respect to the actors and issues dominating the news coverage of Monsanto and the valence of that news coverage. Specifically, the first set of hypotheses formulated were in relation to the expectation that opposing parties such as NGO’s were expected to be more prominently present in the news coverage (H1A), and for that news coverage in which NGO’s were prominently present to carry a negative valence (H1B). As can be seen from Table 1, of the 310 articles coded – 118 showed to include an MIP that also made an explicit evaluation of Monsanto. The MIP was defined as the main actor or subject in the story, indicated by for example space of information about this actor and quotes or statements from this actor.
Testing hypothesis ‘H1A: Opponents or coalitions of opposing parties such as NGO’s,
are expected to be prominently present in the news coverage of Monsanto’ one can see from
Table 1 that although relatively prominently present in comparison with other MIPs identified, NGOs were not the most prominently present making an evaluation of Monsanto (N = 33) as these MIPs were competitors (N = 89) and international bodies (N = 39). The fact that competitors were so prominently present can be explained by the fact that in recent years there was a lot of news coverage about potential mergers (Table 2), and thus competitors would often be asked to make a statement about the possible merger with Monsanto. Hypothesis 1A is therefore partially accepted.
Table 1
Valence of each Most Important Actor identified
Total No valence Valence
Most Important Actor N % N N M SD
Competitor 89 28.7 70 19 2.53 1.47
International body 39 12.6 22 17 2.76 3.00
Opponents 33 10.6 3 32 1.03 .18
National body 32 10.3 13 19 2.11 1.10
University and/or scientist 13 4.2 2 11 2.73 1.85
Other 10 3.2 4 4 1.25 .50
Farmers 8 2.6 1 7 2.00 1.00
Media and/or journalists 7 2.3 0 7 1.29 .49
Financial organization 3 1.0 1 2 3.00 0
Shareholders 1 0.3 1 0 0 0
No MIP can be identified 75 24.2 75 0 0 0
Total 310 100 192 118
For the second hypothesis ‘H1B: The news coverage including opponents or coalitions
of opposing parties such as NGO’s, is expected to carry a negative valence’ an independent
samples t-test showed there to be a significant difference between the explicit evaluation made and valence attributed to Monsanto by opponents or opposing parties such as NGOs (M = 1.03, SD = .18), in comparison to the other MIPs (M = 2.31, SD = 1.33), t(116) = -5.42; p = .000, 95% CI [- 1,75, -0,81]. The texts in which MIPs other than opponents or coalitions of
opposing parties such as NGOs evaluated Monsant, can be considered significantly less negative and hypothesis 1B was accepted.
Table 2
Valence of each issue identified
Total No valence Valence
Issues N % N N M SD GMOs 184 59.4 26 158 2.59 1.24 Merger 107 34.5 39 68 2.69 1.23 Pesticides 124 29.4 49 75 1.89 1.05 Relationship farmers 72 23.2 4 68 2.00 1.16 Financial activities 69 22.3 2 67 2.39 1.41 Plant breeding 59 19.0 36 23 4.13 1.22 Patents 49 15.8 4 45 1.62 .98 R&D / Innovation 48 15.5 2 46 3.98 1.22 Monopoly 28 9.0 0 28 1.29 .94 Agent Orange 20 6.5 0 20 1.45 .99 Other 17 5.3 3 14 2.29 .73
Secondly, the issues discussed in the news articles were reviewed. Hypothesis‘H2:
The articles discussing GMOs, pesticides and patents are expected to carry a negative valence’, was accepted as well. Although higher than expected, the valence of the texts about
GMOs was still rather negative (M = 2.59, SD = 1.24) and those texts discussing either pesticides (M = 1.89, SD = 1.05) or patents (M = 1.62, SD = .98) showed indeed to be negative too.
With the third set of hypotheses, a possible media bias was tested within the newspapers. This was done through the testing of the relationship between two groups of newspapers, namely left leaning and popular newspapers (de Volkskrant, Algemeen Dagblad and de Telegraaf) and financial and quality newspapers (het Financieele Dagblad, NRC
Handelsblad, Trouw and Het Parool). By means of a one-way independent sample t-test,
there was shown to be no statistical difference between left-leaning and popular newspapers (M = 2.24, SD = 1.52) and financial and quality newspapers (M = 2.32, SD = 1.37), t(287) = .416; p = .678, 95% CI [-.283, .435] . In other words, because of the non-significant differences between the two groups of newspapers, hypothesis ‘H3A: From the perspective of
Monsanto, the news coverage of the by left-leaning newspapers and popular newspapers can be considered more unfavourable, in comparison with financial and quality newspapers’
needs to be rejected.
Reviewing the entire set of newspapers however, hypothesis‘H3B: From the
perspective of Monsanto, the overall news coverage of the company cannot be considered favourable’ was accepted. Of the 310 news articles in total, 12.3% (N = 38) could be
considered neutral. But slightly more than half (51.8%) of the news articles that had a tone present, could be considered somewhat unfavourable (N = 79) or even unfavourable (N = 62). Almost a quarter (23.9%) of the news articles were considered ambivalent (N = 65) and the final quarter had a somewhat favourable (N = 47) or even favourable (N = 19) tone.
The final and fourth hypothesis ‘H4: Newspaper articles that contain references to key
reputational attributes have a more favourable tone towards Monsanto’ needs to be rejected.
was found that these are rarely mentioned. In a majority of the cases in relation to reputation (N = 29), Monsanto’s reputation would only be addressed very explicitly and in a negative way (M = 1.10, SD = .31). In some articles there were ‘hints’ in relation to the companies’ Corporate Social Responsibility policies (N = 20, M = 3.5, SD = 1.39) and quality of managers and leadership (N = 5, M = 3.2, SD = 1.30) but even then the valence was closer to neutral rather than positive.
The Public Relations Strategy of Monsanto – Results of the Interview
Finally, aiming to answer the second research question and identify the public relations’ strategy used by Monsanto in the Netherlands with the data gathered on the basis of the interview, it is essential to note that for a long time Monsanto appears to not have invested in its public relations. As Charlebois & Van Acker (2015) noted, the company appears to have mostly let actors outside influence its image, such as environmental groups. The respondent elaborated on this and explained that for a long time the company would not reach out to global communities as it did not directly deliver to consumers and was successful anyway: ‘’And that is something they [the companies’ leadership] regrets, that they did not reach out
and seek publicity themselves. They just let that [negative publicity] pass and ignored it.’’.
Furthermore, the respondent identified several problems in relation to Monsanto’s portrayal in news media. He mentioned for example the fact that the company is still often referred to in context with Agent Orange (Mebius, 2016), the herbicide that was used by the US military during the 1960s in Vietnam as part of its herbicidal warfare program. As can be seen from Table 2, the herbicide is indeed still mentioned in news articles in relation to Monsanto (N = 20, M = 1.45, SD = .99), despite the fact that this was developed more than fifty years ago, per assignment from the American government and not just by Monsanto but for example also by Dow Chemicals. Furthermore, as mentioned by the respondent, much
news coverage of the past years has been about RoundUp, a pesticide developed by Monsanto. The majority of the texts about this pesticide carried a negative tone (M = 1.89, SD = 1.05), among others because the World Health Organzation (WHO) stated at some point stated that RoundUp could potentially cause cancer. Even though that message was retracted (Weel, 2016), it was not often communicated and the idea that RoundUp was harmful stuck with media and the public.
The respondent also noted that both media and the public are part of Monsanto’s problem, speaking of the ignorance and prejudgments of people in relation to GMOs, RoundUp and seed breeding, and how ‘negative news’ would be the best way to sell newspapers. Moreover, he noted how Monsanto had become an interesting target as American multinational, rather than some of the family owned businesses of its competitors in the Netherlands. Most importantly however, the respondent acknowledged Monsanto’s outreach and especially social media and its underestimated impact: ‘’The ease with which you can
reach a million people at a time, especially if you connect that with negative news. I just need to make something up, put it on my Facebook and within no time it can gain so much traction.’’.
It lead to an extension of the respondent’s responsibilities and since 2,5 years he has been in charge of ‘community outreach’ and ‘public relations’ in the Netherlands. The day-to-day public relations of Monsanto in that Netherlands therefore mostly appear to embrace a persuasive strategy at a local level. With tours, the factory aims to inform local and regional citizens about its day-to-day business, and the relationship with the local media is considered good. There is also considerable focus on engagement with Monsanto’s employees. Through face-to-face trainings, Monsanto ‘’should be capable of having 22.000 ambassadors’’ at an international level. However, as the respondent acknowledged – because it is impossible for all employees to have knowledge of all of Monsanto’s activities (for example, GMOs are not
grown in the Netherlands by Monsanto but do often come up in discussions about the company), some people are even unwilling to say they work there ‘’despite their pride of the
company’’.
Based on the information from the respondent, a two-way communications strategy can be detected as well. For example through interactions with technical universities in the Netherlands, the engagement of Monsanto in the sponsorship of projects such as Water Efficient Mais in Africa, and Seed Valley (a foundation of which Monsanto and its competitors are a part for cooperation purposes). A more consensus building strategy however, building bridges with the environment (Dozier, 1992; van Ruler, 2004) was seen as something that would be desirable but not possible as the respondent found for example activists impossible to engage with.
For future purposes, the respondent said that more could be done at a national level, one possibly being an information strategy involving the distribution of more press releases. Most importantly however, some reluctance from the leadership in the USA was detected in relation to a more outspoken public relations’ strategy. Furthermore, in the case of any potential new public relations’ strategies these are possibly put on hold at the moment to first await the possible merger with competitor Bayer. Bayer purchased Monsanto in September 2016 (Eijsvogel, 2016), but whether the European, American, Southern-American and Asian antitrust authorities will approve this merger is uncertain. However, if that merger is approved, the respondent indicated that it could raise interesting and positive potential for the companies’ public relations as Bayer might discontinue the Monsanto brand. Summing up both the findings of this interview and the findings following the content analysis, the next chapter draws conclusions and answers the research questions that were the reasons for this research.
Conclusion
Starting point for this research was that contrary to the findings in some of the academic literature, PR is not always dominated by corporations who use this communication strategy to protect their interests (Stauber & Rampton, 1995; Miller & Dinan, 2008; Ihlen & Verhoeven, 2012). Despite the asymmetry of power, over the course of the past couple of years there has been an increasing number of opportunities for other groups to allow for all actors to upgrade their strategic communications and shift the tone of the public debate. Especially in the field of environmental and energy issues, some NGOs have even been shown to dominate the public debate (Greenberg, Knight & Westersund, 2011; Charlebois & Van Acker, 2015; Boumans, Vliegenthart & Boomgaarden, 2016). This study confirms those findings in relation to a specific company, namely Monsanto.
To answer the first research question: ‘Which actors and issues dominate the news
coverage of Monsanto and can their valence be considered balanced?’ a total of six
hypotheses was formulated. In the first instance, the expectancy for opposing coalitions such as NGOs to be more prominently present in the news coverage was explored. Overall findings show that in comparison with other actors, NGOs are prominently present and the valence of their evaluations show to be significantly more negative than the evaluations of other actors. Although Waisbord (2011) notes that the vast majority of NGOs and pressure groups do not have the same kind of resources as Greenpeace and are as such less successful in gaining media access, this study reviewed the media coverage of all those groups and thus these findings cannot be supported. Furthermore, similar to the findings of Charlebois and Van Acker (2015), national governments and international governments are found to be prominently present in the news coverage of Monsanto.
In line with findings about the resistance towards GMOs in Europe (Kurzer & Cooper, 2013; Tilberghien, 2009) and the ‘backlash against’ GMO technology (Wood, Jones &
Geldart, 2003; Te Kulve, 2006), GMOs are mentioned in most articles and clearly dominating the issues mentioned, quickly followed by pesticides, Monsanto’s relationship with farmers and the financial activities of Monsanto. All of the texts mentioning those issues carry a rather negative tone or even a fully negative valence. Despite expectations and other findings (Bendiktsson, 2010), the political ideology of a newspaper or distinction between quality or popular does not show to make a difference for the overall favourability of the news article towards Monsanto.
Overall the news media coverage of Monsanto is not considered balanced as it is dominated by an issue that Monsanto is not even involved with on the European continent (GMOs have been blocked), and a set of very critical actors. Reputational issues of Monsanto such as the company’s corporate values, relationships with employees, or Corporate Social Responsibility policy are hardly present in any of the news coverage. In fact, if Monsanto’s reputation is discussed in Dutch newspaper articles, it is explicitly mentioned and carries a very negative valence.
It shows that the public relations’ of the company, as confirmed by the respondent, has been neglected for quite a while (Charlebois & Van Acker, 2015). The answer to the second research question: ‘Which public relations’ strategies are used to manage the valence in
Dutch newspaper articles about Monsanto?’ is therefore not straightforward. In the
Netherlands, the company appears to mostly focus on one-way local persuasion strategies (Van Ruler, 2004) when some information is disseminated such as the ‘Monsanto, Myths & Facts’ (Monsanto International, 2014), but Monsanto could benefit from an increase in information dissemination by sending out more press releases (Van Ruler, 2004). Some dialogues (Van Ruler, 2004) are held, mostly with local residents and competitors (Seed Valley), and technical universities (Wageningen University) in the Netherlands.
Ties could be strengthened with the public relations’ departments in Brussels and the United Kingdom so that more positive information in relation to for example the employees and the day-to-day business of the plant breeding in the Netherlands could be shared. The idea of a consensus-building strategy to build more bridges with the environment (Van Ruler, 2004) is however rejected, as the respondent considered the distance with for example NGOs to be so large that it cannot be overcome. A change in policy is however not to be expected soon. With the upcoming merger that will first need to be approved by authorities all over the world, the company might have to come up with a different, new strategy – possibly in the first instance in the form of a new brand (‘Bayer’). In relation to these findings, there are some critical comments to be made that are discussed in the final chapter.
Discussion
Through a triangular approach, this case study focuses on one specific corporation in the Netherlands. Such an approach is rare and although case studies are not very generalizable, much of the literature used was re-confirmed with this study. Consequently its representativeness and external validity should not be underestimated (Charlebois & Van Acker, 2015). Moreover the study is longitudinal, which can be considered scarce in the field of agenda building research (Boumans, Vliegenthart & Boomgaaren, 2016).
Furthermore the conclusions in this research with regards to the unbalanced reporting about this company, contribute to both the academic field and public sphere. The conclusions show that academics, journalists and the public should pay attention to the influence of public relations by not just corporations, but also opponents of those corporations. The strategic pursuit of organized interests is done by many parties involved and might damage the meaningful discussions that could be held in the political arena and public sphere (Greenberg, Knight & Westersund, 2011). Especially in an era where information is spread quickly by
means of the Internet and social media, fact checkers in for example the form of journalists can make a major contribution to the debate that should be taking place.
That notion also shows one of the largest limitations of this study, namely the fact that only newspaper articles were reviewed as especially social media have been affecting Monsanto heavily. Furthermore, only Dutch media coverage was reviewed. Monsanto is an international company, and its public image is influenced by far more media than just the Dutch channels. The seed industry is also rather big in the Netherlands and Monsanto has many competitors here in the form of family companies. This might indicate an increased bias in especially the Netherlands, out of national interests and preferences for the countries’ own national small and medium enterprises. Future research comparing this data with British or American newspapers could therefore be interesting. Moreover, additional insights might be gained from reviewing regional or local newspapers, similar to the research of Boumans, Vliegenthart and Boomgaarden (2016).
Future research could also benefit from explicit questioning about whether or not the journalists’ views are implicitly or explicitly communicated within the article. This could measure the actual valence of the article more effectively, rather than just reviewing the overall favourability and only mentioning media or journalists as an actor when explicitly mentioned in the article. Furthermore, although not desperately low, the measured alpha’s showed that the inter coder reliability of most of the variables coded showed to be insufficient. And finally, a follow-up of interviews with the public relations teams based in Brussels, the United Kingdom or the USA could provide further insight into Monsanto’s PR policies.
Bibliography
Aarts, K. & Semetko, H.A. (2003). The Divided Electorate: Media Use and Political Involvement. The Journal of Politics, 65(3), 759-784. doi: 10.1111/1468-2508.00211 Andon, P., & Free, C. (2014). Media coverage of accounting: The NRL salary cap crisis.
Accounting, Auditing & Accountability. Journal, 27(1), 15-47.
doi:10.1108/AAAJ-02-2012-00936
Benediktsson, M. O. (2010). The deviant organization and the bad apple CEO: Ideology and accountability in media coverage of corporate scandals. Social Forces, 88(5), 2189-2216. doi: 10.1353/sof.2010.0032
Berkowitz, D. & Adams, D.B. (1990). Information subsidy and agenda building in local television news. Journalism Quarterly, 67(4), 723-731. doi:10.1177/107769909006700426
Bosman, J. d’Haenens, L. (2008). News reporting on Pim Fortuyn: framing in two Dutch newspapers. Media, Culture & Society, 30(5), 735–748. doi:10.1177/0163443708094018
Boumans, J.W., Vliegenthart, R. & Boomgaarden, H.G. Nuclear voices in the news: A comparison of source, news agency and newspaper content about nuclear energy over time. European Journal of Communication, 31(3), 260-282. doi:10.1177/0267323116629879
Carroll, C.E. & McCombs, M. (2003). Agenda-setting Effects of Business News on the Public’s Images and Opinions about Major Corporations. Corporate Reputation
Review, 6(1), 36-46. doi:10.1057/palgrave.crr.1540188
public engagement awakening. Public Relations Review, 42, 223-225. doi: 10.1016/j.pubrev.2015.09.005
Cohen, B.C. (1963). The press and foreign policy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton.
Cohen, J., Ding, Y., Lesage, C. & Stolowy, H. (2015). Media Bias and the Persistence of the Expectation Gap: An Analysis of Press Articles on Corporate Fraud. Journal of
Business Ethics. 1-23. doi: 10.1007/s10551-015-2851-6
Davis, A. (2000) Public relations, news production and changing patterns of source access in the British national media. Media, Culture and Society, 22(1), 39-59. doi:10.1177/016344300022001003
Dozier, D. M. (1992). The organizational roles of communications and public relations practitioners. In J. E. Grunig (Ed.), Excellence in public relations and communication
management (pp. 327–355). Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Driessen, C. (2015, January 7). Is het lucratief om het meest gehate bedrijf ter wereld te zijn?
NRC Handelsblad. Retrieved from http://www.academic.lexisnexis.nl
Eijsvogel, J. (2016, September 16). Bayer en zijn opwindende waagstuk. NRC Handelsblad. Retrieved from http://www.academic.lexisnexis.nl
Gentzkow, M., & Shapiro, J. M. (2006). Media bias and reputation. Journal of Political
Economy, 114(2), 280-316. doi: 10.1086/499414
Greenberg, J., Knight, G. & Westersund, E. (2011). Spinning climate change: Corporate and NGO public relations strategies in Canada and the United States. the International
Communication Gazette, 73(1-2), 65-82. doi: 10.1177/1748048510386742
Grunig, J. E., & Hunt, T. (1984). Managing public relations. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Grunig, J. E. (1992). Excellence in public relations and communication management. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ihlen, Ø. & Verhoeven, P. (2012). A public relations identity for the 2010s. Public Relations
Inquiry, 1(2), 159-176. doi:10.1177/2046147X11435083
Ihlen, Ø. & Verhoeven, P. (2009). Conclusions on the domain, context, concepts, issues and empirical avenues of public relations. In: Ihlen, Ø., Van Ruler, B. & Fredriksson, M.
Public Relations and Social Theory: Key Figures and Concepts. New York:
Routledge, pp.332-349.
Jonkman, J. & Verhoeven, P. (2009). From risk to safety: Implicit frames of third-party airport risk in Dutch quality newspapers between 1992 and 2009. Safety Science, 58, 1-10. doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2013.03.012
Kim, J.Y. & Kiousis, S. (2012). The Role of Affect in Agenda Building for Public Relations: Implications for Public Relations Outcomes. Journalism & Mass Communication
Quarterly, 89(4), 657–676. doi:10.1177/1077699012455387
Kurzer, P. & Cooper, A. (2013) Biased or not? Organized interests and the case of EU food information labelling. Journal of European Public Policy, 20(5), 722-740. doi:10.1080/13501763.2012.751703
Lewis, J., Williams, A. & Franklin, B. (2008) Four rumours and an explanation. Journalism Practice, 2(1), 27-45. doi:10.1080/17512780701768493
Lippman, W. (1922). Public opinion. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company.
Mebius, D. (2016, October 15). Showproces tegen ‘bullebak’ Monsanto. de Volkskrant. Retrieved from http://www.academic.lexisnexis.nl
Edge of Corporate Power. London: Pluto Press.
Monsanto International. (2014). Myths and facts. Corporate Brochures. Retrieved from http://www.monsanto.com/global/uk/whoweare/pages/corporate-brochures.aspx Perlof, R. M. (1993). The dynamics of persuasion. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
Renckstorf, K. (1994). Mediagebruik als sociaal handelen. Een handelingstheoretische
benadering voor communicatiewetenschappelijk onderzoek. Nijmegen: Instituut voor
Toegepaste Sociale Wetenschappen.
Rozendaal, S. (2015, May 20). Dit is het meest gehate bedrijf ter wereld. Elsevier. Retrieved from http://www.academic.lexisnexis.nl
Schafraad, P., van Zoonen, W., & Verhoeven, P. (2016). The news value of Dutch corporate press releases as a predictor of corporate agenda building power. Public Relations
Review, 42(3), 451-458. doi:10.1016/j.pubrev.2015.11.014
Sheafer, T. (2007). How to Evaluate It: The Role of Story-Evaluative Tone in Agenda Setting and Priming. Journal of Communication, 57, 21–39. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00327.x
Stauber, J. & Rampton, S. (1995) Toxic Sludge is Good For You! Lies, Damn Lies, and the
Public Relations Industry. Monroe, ME: Common Courage.
Stemler, S. (2001). An overview of content analysis. Practical Assessment, Research &
Evaluation, 7(17). Retrieved from http://PAREonline.net/getvn.asp?v=7&n=17
Te Kulve, H. (2006). Evolving Repertoires: Nanotechnology in Daily Newspapers in the Netherlands. Science as Culture, 15(4), 367-382. doi:10.1080/09505430601022692
Tilberghien, Y. (2009). Competitive Governance and the Quest for Legitimacy in the EU: the Battle over the Regulation of GMOS since the mid-1990s. Journal of European
Integration, 31(3), 389-407. doi:10.1080/07036330902782246
Van Ruler, B. (2004). The communication grid: an introduction of a model of four communication strategies. Public Relations Review, 30, 123-143. doi: 10.1016/j.pubrev.2004.01.002
Vaessen, T. (2015, April 21). Wie heeft het patent op broccoli? Kwekersrecht Vrijstelling Octrooirecht. het Financieele Dagblad. Retrieved from http://www.academic.lexisnexis.nl
Waisbord, S. (2011). Can NGOs change the news? International Journal of Communication, 5, 142–165.
Weel, I. (2016, 1 September). Beurswaakhond VS beloont klokkenluider ruimhartig. Trouw. Retrieved from http://www.academic.lexisnexis.nl
Wood, S., & Jones, R. & Geldart, A. (2003). The Social and Economic Challenges of Nanotechnology. London: Economic & Social Research Council.
Yin, R. (1994). Case study research: design and methods. Beverly Hills.
Yoon, Y. (2005). Legitimacy, Public Relations, and Media Access: Proposing and Testing a Media Access Model. Communication Research, 32(6), 762-793. doi:10.1177/0093650205281081
Universiteit van Amsterdam, Graduate School of Communication Name: Jeanette van Eijk MSc Communication Science: Corporate Communication Student number: 11121793
Appendix I: Codebook
The aim of this study is to describe the news coverage of Monsanto, specifically the valence of the actors and issues in this news coverage, and the public relation’s strategies used. The first of two research questions is therefore ‘Which actors and issues dominate the news coverage of Monsanto and is their valence balanced?’ and is answered with a content analysis. This codebook has been developed to support the content analysis and aims to increase the reliability of the analysis. It provides instructions by explaining what needs to be filled in for each variable in the code sheet. The units of analysis are newspaper articles. The sample consists of 310 publications in nine newspapers, published between 1 December 2001 and 1 December 2016. The codebook consists of five technical variables (coder, medium, date, number of words, journalistic genre) and four content variables (actors and valence, issues and valence, reputational issues and valence, and overall favourability).
Variable 1: Coder
To establish intercoder reliability ten per cent of the dataset will be double-coded by a person other than the researcher.
• 1 = Jeanette • 2 = Nahuel
Variable 2: Medium
For this research, nine different kinds of newspapers are used, and thus the specific newspaper from which the article derives needs to be entered:
• 1 = het Financieele Dagblad • 2 = NRC Handelsblad • 3 = de Volkskrant • 4 = De Telegraaf • 5 = Trouw • 6 = Algemeen Dagblad • 7 = Reformatorisch Dagblad • 8 = Het Parool • 9 = Nederlands Dagblad
08
Variable 3: Date
The date of the article is entered as follows: dd-mm-yy.
Variable 4: Number of words
The number of words for each article is entered solely using digits. If the number of words is not mentioned, the missing value “99” is entered.
Variable 5: Journalistic genre
This variable indicates the journalistic genre to which an article belongs. There are eight possibilities: • 1 = a news item • 2 = an editorial • 3 = a background story • 4 = an interview • 5 = a profile • 6 = opinion(s) • 7 = column • 8 = other
Note: An editorial (2) is defined as an ‘opinion piece’ by one of the newspapers’ editors, or its main editor. Opinions (6) are usually written by (well-known) readers. A column (7) is written by someone (well-known), who regularly delivers a text (usually including an opinion) to the newspaper in question. It often includes the heading ‘column’. Finally, the differentiation between news item (1) and background story (3) can sometimes be difficult to make. The coder should bear in mind that the former really provides for a new story and is usually shorter in comparison to a background story, which tends to be quite lengthy.
Variable 6.1: the Most Important Actor
The question to be addressed here is: Q6.1: ‘Besides Monsanto, what is the most important actor (MIP) in this story?’ The MIP is the main actor or subject, and the most important in the
frequency of being mentioned and quotes or statements from the actor. The MIP can, in addition to Monsanto, be considered most central in the document. Actors who are only mentioned and do not dominate the story, do not count as MIP. The following actors can be coded:
• 0 = No MIP can be identified • 1 = Shareholders
• 2 = National governing body / authority / court (such as the Dutch government, a Dutch parliamentarian, or the US Securities and Exchange Commission)
• 3 = International governing body / authority / court (such as one of the World Health Organization, the World Trade Organization, the European Union’s institutions, a Member of the European Parliament or the European Food Safety Authority)
• 4 = Farmer and/or agricultural association
• 5 = Competitor (such as Bayer, even if the company is in the process of taking over) • 6 = Opponent and/or a coalition of opposing parties (such as an NGO or the ‘international
tribunal’)
• 7 = Financial organization (such as the ING bank or financial consultant Morgan Stanley) • 8 = Media and/or journalist (such as newspapers, television items, documentaries, and in
the case of a journalist only when that person is interviewed, reported about or used as a source)
• 9 = University and/or scientist • 10 = Other
If the answer to this question is No, move on to question 7.1. If the answer is Yes (which can vary from number 1 to 10), question 6.2 first needs to be addressed first.
Variable 6.2: Valence Most Important Actor
If a MIP has been identified, the follow-up question to be addressed is: Q6.2: ‘Does the MIP mentioned in the article make an explicit evaluation of Monsanto?’ This question aims to measure the tone (valence) of the article, by specifically reviewing how the MIP evaluates Monsanto. The question refers to a tendency/bias contained in the presentation by the MIP, which can be expressed by for example explicitly using a very positive or negative judgement (‘’good’’, ‘’disappointing’’) of Monsanto.
What is important to note is that the evaluation does not have to be of the company itself, but can be of any attribute associated with Monsanto. For example, ‘’disastrous biotechnology’’ carries not just a negative evaluation of the technology, but of the company Monsanto itself as well because of direct association. Alternatively, a positive evaluation of the merger with Bayer also affects Monsanto positively as that is the company Bayer will be merging with. In the end, all evaluations are to be judged from the perspective of the MIP and should not be interpreted too much, become too subtle, too creative or too subjective.
If no tendency can be assumed because no evaluation can be found, ‘no evaluation’ (0) should be chosen. If tendencies appear to be mixed positive and negative and thus in balance, then balanced/mixed (3) should be coded. If there are both positive and negative evaluations but the overall evaluation is more positive than negative, then rather positive (4) becomes the appropriate code. If the case is vice versa, then rather negative (2) is the code to be used. Finally, if there are either only positive or negative evaluations (even if it is just one evaluation!) then positive (5) or negative (1) should be coded. In sum, the following forms of valence can be coded:
• 0 = No evaluation • 1 = Negative • 2 = Rather negative • 3 = Balanced/mixed • 4 = Rather positive • 5 = Positive
Variable 7: Issues and Valence issues
In addition to the actor (MIP), the valence of the issues addressed is expected to affect a possible media bias with regards to the news coverage of Monsanto. Other than the former question about the MIP however, the coder should keep in mind that multiple issues can be discussed and thus multiple answers are possible. In a direct follow-up to the issue being discussed, the matter of valence is addressed:
Q7.1a: ‘Does the story discuss Genetically Modified Organisms developed and used by Monsanto?’
• 0 = No • 1 = Yes
If the answer to this question is No, move on to question 7.2a. If the answer is Yes, question 7.1b first needs to be addressed.
Q7.1b: ‘What is the tone of the text about Genetically Modified Organisms developed and used by Monsanto?’ • 0 = No tone apparent • 1 = Negative • 2 = Rather negative • 3 = Balanced/mixed • 4 = Rather positive • 5 = Positive
Q7.2a: ‘Does the story mention the relationship of Monsanto with farmers?’
• 0 = No • 1 = Yes
If the answer to this question is No, move on to question 7.3a. If the answer is Yes, question 7.2b first needs to be addressed.
Q7.2b: ‘What is the tone of the text about the relationship of Monsanto with farmers?’ • 0 = No tone apparent • 1 = Negative • 2 = Rather negative • 3 = Balanced/mixed • 4 = Rather positive • 5 = Positive
Q7.3a: ‘Does the story discuss Monsanto’s patents?’
If the answer to this question is No, move on to question 7.4a. If the answer is Yes, question 7.3b first needs to be addressed.
Q7.3b: ‘What is the tone of the text discussing Monsanto’s patents?’ • 0 = No tone apparent • 1 = Negative • 2 = Rather negative • 3 = Balanced/mixed • 4 = Rather positive • 5 = Positive
Q7.4a: ‘Does the story discuss research and development / innovation by Monsanto?’
• 0 = No • 1 = Yes
If the answer to this question is No, move on to question 7.5a. If the answer is Yes, question 7.4b first needs to be addressed.
Q7.4b: ‘What is the tone of the text about research and development / innovation by Monsanto?’ • 0 = No tone apparent
• 1 = Negative
• 2 = Rather negative3 = Balanced/mixed4 = Rather positive • 5 = Positive
Q7.5a: ‘Does the story discuss the financial activities of Monsanto (such as profits, shares, but also fines, financial fraud or compensation payments)?’
• 0 = No • 1 = Yes
If the answer to this question is No, move on to question 7.6a. If the answer is Yes, question 7.5b first needs to be addressed.
Q7.5b: ‘What is the tone of the text about the financial activities of Monsanto (such as profits, shares, but also fines, financial fraud or compensation payments)?
• 0 = No tone apparent • 1 = Negative • 2 = Rather negative • 3 = Balanced/mixed • 4 = Rather positive • 5 = Positive
