|
Back to Blog
Green-Collared Crime or Political Protest? The Framing of Animal Activism in Public Discourse.5/18/2021 Animal activism is entering the mainstream of public discourse, with unprecedented attention from the media, industry and government. Yet with this success has come a backlash, with activists often facing hostile media coverage and legal opposition from animal-use industries and governments. Yet, more subtly, the discussion also tends to associate animal advocacy with veganism, with the latter often framed as an individual’s dietary or life-style choice. Thus, the political claims of activists are, I argue, being obscured by public narratives that conflate the animal rights/justice movement with veganism. The first section of this paper provides an analysis of news media coverage (newspaper, radio and television) of a day of co-ordinated protests that took place on April 8, 2019, in major cities and rural sites around Australia. The day of protests, which included a group of activists staging a sit-in in the middle of a Melbourne CBD intersection during morning peak-hour, and others chaining themselves to machinery in abattoirs, received nation-wide media coverage. In response to the protests, the Australian Prime Minister labelled the activists involved as “green-collared criminals”, while the President of the National Farmers Federation equated animal activism with “terrorism”. The protests also resulted in calls for the introduction of laws to target activism that is directed against the agricultural industry. In reviewing the media coverage of the event, I find that a majority of sources discuss or make reference to veganism. This came despite the fact that the lead organiser of the protests claimed the goal of the protests was not to promote veganism, but rather to increase transparency in the agricultural industry. Furthermore, I show that much of the coverage also frames protesters as criminals, or even extremists. The second part of the paper offers a normative analysis of the coverage. Veganism is generally not seen as a political, but rather as a personal, identity. As such, in labelling the protesters as “vegan” and highlighting the promotion of veganism as the goal of the protest, I argue that this serves to de-emphasise the protest’s political nature. Thus, discussions around the rights of farmed animals and consumers to have a more transparent agricultural industry become obscured by debates around whether it is ethical to eat meat, and whether vegans should be attempting to impose their views on others. I also argue that the process of de-politicisation is bolstered by the criminalisation and “terrorisation” of the activists in the news media coverage, which serves to de-legitimise their position. The terrorisation of animal activists has been noted elsewhere, particularly in the United States, but this phenomenon has not previously been much explored in the context of Australian activism. I argue that the findings of this study – that the claims of animal activists are de- politicised when they are “veganised” and criminalised – suggest that greater care should be taken by journalists in how they present animal advocacy, and by animal advocates themselves, in how they present their campaigns. Serrin Rutledge-Prior(School of Politics & International Relations, Australian National University) Comments are closed.
|