We know the facts: Worldwide, hunger is rising—more than one billion people are already suffering.

The need for food worldwide is already growing at an astounding rate, and by 2050, experts estimate that need will double.

The Associated Press reported about the threat of world hunger as recently as October 14, 2009, saying, "The problem is severe, and isn't going away."

It quoted Otive Igbuzor, the head of international campaigns for ActionAid International. He remarked, "It's actually a world emergency that calls for action from both developing and developed countries...[W]e know a child dies every six seconds of malnutrition."

That quote, and the AP story, ran in nearly every major newspaper.

One day later, the AP published a second story about business and government leaders calling for more investment in agriculture to solve the hunger problem. The CEO of Archer Daniels Midland said the food need could be met without increasing land if the top 15 food—producing nations-the U.S. included—consistently produced 80% of their best yields.

Again, this story ran in nearly every major paper.

Yet, while citizens read this and wonder what can be done, they'll turn around and read editorials in those very same papers that preach the polar opposite by demonizing our attempts to feed the world.

Take Ezra Klein, who, in July, wrote about the US agriculture policy.

Klein said, "The implication would be that we could substantially reduce obesity by doing something we should do anyway: dismantling our systems of agricultural supports."

He writes for the Washington Post, and the Post published both AP stories.

Or take the Boston Globe, whose editorial board in May supported President Obama's promise to make substantial cuts to the payments intended for agribusinesses. Those businesses saw similar cuts in last year's farm bill.

The Globe, too, ran both AP stories.

The problem is this: Newspapers and websites have no problem filling content with stories about hunger; with stories about the exploding world population; with stories about the simple fact the world is going to need a heck of a lot of food the next handful of years.

Yet when it comes to farm policies, the very policies we rely on to feed the world, the mainstream media is quick to change their hand and attack agriculture.

It's the classic contradiction—farm policy isn't working; the farm safety net needs to be cut; we're getting too fat, and the farmers are to blame.

So, which is it?

While the media flip-flops on its position, they fail to see the correlation. It's the farmers we need to feed the world, and a strong farm policy in place to do so.

It publishes content admitting to the worldwide problem, yet refuses to acknowledge the farmers' role in solving this problem. It could not be more clear: Establishing good farm policy ensures we cannot only feed our nation, but also those struggling around the world. The two go hand in hand.

Again, we know the problem, and we know the facts. We just wish the editorial boards would acknowledge them.