Among the reasons I like attending the National Chicken Council’s annual conference is that it is held in Washington, D.C., and it avails the industry’s top leaders.

As a journalist covering the industry, an industry so connected to and affected by politics in the nation’s capital, it makes me feel like I’m in the thick of the action. I get to do what I do and feel that it matters, as it’s happening. Hey, journalists like immediacy. Sometimes that's for the better and sometimes for the worse.

Among the most important topics percolating in Washington and within the chicken industry has been U.S.-China trade talks that involve the trade of chicken between the two countries. So when the topic began to dominate discussions at the NCC meeting, my ears also perked up.

With an early afternoon deadline looming, I set out to connect the string from the morning’s sessions, skipping the scheduled conference lunch in order to focus and punch away on my laptop. Indeed, a theme had emerged; all the speakers were pretty much saying that a U.S.-China deal facilitating a bounty of U.S. chicken exports to China, contrary to the hopeful buzz, wasn’t going to happen anytime soon. The headline, incorporating one of the speakers’ sentiments, was strong: “U.S. chicken prospects in China: ‘We should not hold our breath’”

It also had at least part of the desired effect. One industry leader I was catching up with later that day told me how he’d read the story and, in fact, the telephone call he’d just received from a colleague was in reference to the story. (Relevance! Immediacy!) He then basically told me that the speakers didn’t know what the hell they were talking about.

And while the story was accurate in my recounting of what happened and what the speakers said, something that industry official didn’t question, his assessment of their knowledge did make my heart sink. It made me question if I was too quick to report on what was said, and whether I had done the best job I could have done.

It also made me think back to earlier in the day, a few minutes before the story published. That’s when I overheard Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.), co-leader of the U.S. Senate Chicken Caucus, chatting with his handlers before speaking at the event about U.S.-China trade and how, given China’s protein shortage from African swine fever, they were “going to have to” lift their ban and start buying U.S. chicken. My gut at the time said, “Well, maybe those speakers weren’t right. Do I pull the story?”

It was too late for that. Immediacy won.

And not much more than two weeks later, China officially lifted its ban, opening its market to U.S. chicken, representing at least a $1 billion-per-year opportunity for the industry.

I don’t know that my story was wrong, or wasn’t factual in its representation of the discussions that took place that morning. And no one has assessed it as such. Given the frailty of U.S.-China relations, those speakers very well could have been right.

I, however, know that my gut was right.

We very well could have done without that story. We could have waited longer to see how it all unfolded. After all, often times in our newsroom we like to say we’re as proud of the stories we choose NOT to run as we are of those that we do.

In our business, just like in yours, we have to make decisions in various circumstances and with sometimes competing motivations. We simply don’t always get it just right.

I’m sure we’d be better to follow the age-old advice of mothers everywhere: Go with your gut.

No gut, no glory

Join for free* to continue reading.