The press has shown only sporadic interest in the farm bill, a vast, important piece of legislation that must be considered every five years and is now moving through Congress. As CJR put it in an editorial two years ago, when discussions on the 2012 version got under way, the bill

is a sprawling, complex piece of legislation that mushroomed from an emergency bailout for farmers during the Great Depression to arguably the most important force shaping our food system, farm, and land-use policies. It also has become a factor in energy policy, thanks to the steady expansion (and heavy subsidization) of ethanol.

But the legislation is super-controversial in part because 80 percent of its funding goes for food stamps for the poor, as US News & World Report noted recently, helping to feed 45 million Americans each year. What happens to farm subsidies and to food stamps—officially the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)—will be a sign of how the budget-cutting narrative so dominant in Congress and media plays out. More and better coverage is in order.

A sampling of food stamp stories over the last few weeks turns up discussion of the policy debate, but the people angle has been noticeably absent. If you do some reporting on this, as I have recently, it is pretty clear that a lot of Americans seem to be hungry these days. And they are not that hard to locate and report about.

Minnesota Public Radio and the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle stand out in my sampling as news outlets that looked a bit beyond the political news and zoomed in on what the bill’s provisions mean. Julie Siple of Minnesota Public Radio interviewed Lucinda Jesson, the state’s Department of Human Services commissioner, and reported “big consequences” for the 520,000 state residents currently using food stamps, some of whom would become ineligible under the House version (the Senate version is less severe). The bill that passed the House Agriculture Committee last week would force states to follow stricter income guidelines and give applicants an asset test to determine eligibility. “It would mean that a senior citizen who perhaps had saved $4,000 for burial costs would no longer be eligible,” Jesson said. “It would mean that a young mom who’s working and has kids at home, but has to have a modest car to get to her job, wouldn’t quality for food support for her family.”

Siple also talked to Robert Rector, a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation, who pushed back against Jesson. The asset test doesn’t count burial plots, he said, and he argued further that food stamp applicants should have to take an asset test: A handful might suffer, but we would find “tens of thousands of people that are now taking assistance under this program who don’t really need this,” Rector said. Yet Siple also included comments from Deborah Huskins, an area director for the Hennepin County Human Services and Public Health Department. She told Siple that cases of people who don’t need food stamps who get them anyway are not common. “The people who come to us are quite, quite poor,” she said.

Trudy Lieberman is a fellow at the Center for Advancing Health and a longtime contributing editor to the Columbia Journalism Review. She is the lead writer for The Second Opinion, CJR’s healthcare desk, which is part of our United States Project on the coverage of politics and policy. Follow her on Twitter @Trudy_Lieberman.