The @washingtonpost reports on President Trump’s proposal to allow ranchers to bypass USDA-inspected slaughterhouses and process their own meat. This deregulation proposal could fundamentally change where and how cattle are slaughtered, yet reporter @natalie_allison doesn’t address how that might impact the animals. @murraymatt @SpiegelPeter - Shouldn't media coverage of an overhaul of this scale examine the consequences for everyone affected, including the cows? If the #WashingtonPost considered the animals’ perspective in its animal ag coverage, it might also challenge Trump’s language that makes the animals themselves invisible. By stating ranchers should be able to “PROCESS THEIR OWN FOOD,” Trump reduces sentient animals to products even before they're slaughtered.

The @BBC reports that giant tuna have returned to the North Sea after disappearing 60 years ago due, in large part, to overfishing. @rburgessbbc - A wildlife comeback should be celebrated for the animals’ sake - not as another opportunity to catch them, which is what the BBC has done. cc: @biancabritton

In a roughly 1,000-word @latimes article, agriculture reporter @ilenapeng reports that, as beef prices soar, Americans are replacing it with cheaper chicken. Peng examines prices, supply, cattle inventories, beef "processors" and consumer demand, but she ignores those most affected by the shift: the animals themselves. In the story, cows and chickens are treated as interchangeable commodities -- “proteins” that consumers can swap based on price -- with no discussion of animal welfare or what increased chicken consumption means for the vastly greater number of chickens who will be raised in factories and slaughtered. @hbecerraLATimes @shelbygrad - When your journalists report on the beef industry and meat consumption, the animals shouldn’t disappear from the story. Balanced journalism would include their perspective too.

In an article entitled, "Why Nutritionists Say You Should Eat More Tinned Fish," a publication known for celebrating wild animals encourages its readers to eat them. @NatGeo - Your lengthy story, which reads like an advertisement for fish companies, makes no mention of animal sentience or marine ecosystems. cc: @geoffgagnon @sadiequarrier

CNBC attributes rising beef prices to drought-induced herd reductions, but reporter @bgomezreports leaves out important context: the beef industry is a significant source of greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to climate change, which increases the risk and severity of drought. @CNBC @JeffNash3 - That's not balanced journalism; it's incomplete reporting and industry-friendly framing. cc: @saracsalinas

In her @nytimes coverage of falling egg prices, @julie_creswell leaves out the most important stakeholder. cc: @carolynryan @marclacey

In a @GMA story about high #beef prices, @ABC reporters @RobynWeil and @kmcckelly portray barbecue restaurants as victims and omit relevant and vital context.

In a 3,000 @wirecutter article about beef hot dogs, @nytimes writer Kathleen Squires calls them "joy in a bun" and a "delight," but fails to mention that processed meat is a @WHO Group 1 carcinogen; that beef production is a major driver of environmental harm; and that meat is the product of an industry built on animal suffering. @BenFrumin #wirecutter - These are irresponsible and harmful omissions.