Brownfield Agriculture Network reporter Peter Shinn posted a story on their site yesterday with the intriguing headline:

Negative press coverage influences farm bill debate

The story Shinn writes is in reaction to this story in the Omaha World Herald that spoke about the latest Disaster Aid package approved by Congress. The Omaha World Herald asks some tough questions about the constant stream of disaster aid directed at farmers. House Ag Chairman Peterson had this comment to make in the story about the coming proposal for permanent disaster relief:

It would be somewhat of a new subsidy, Peterson said.

Shinn makes an effort to discredit the Omaha World Herald piece and brings in Nebraska Farm Bureau President Keith Olsen to bolster his argument.

Oh, no, no, Olsen said. It wasn't talking about where does that money go, and in most cases the farmers don't keep it. It goes to pay bills - it goes to pay off debt - because they haven't raised any crops.

Go here for a comment from our President in regards to that last quote.

For the record, the EWG supported the most recent disaster relief package. Mr. Shinn, working for a news organization, would have found that out had he called our office. To me, the rub in Shinn's piece comes from University of Nebraska at Lincoln ag policy specialist Dr. Brad Lubben:

I believe every major daily across the country has, at some point, run an article, an editorial, about these payments and where they're going, and that has changed the tenor of the debate in Washington and across the country.

Why would every major daily in the country have run a piece critical of current farm subsidy policy? Could it be because the system is broken? No, can't be.

According to Lubben, the database of farm program payments first compiled by the Environmental Working Group more than five years ago has driven most of the negative publicity for commodity programs.