In the order of my papers for my cross-cultural psychology class this paper came second, the paper on my trip to the animal rights activist meeting was the third and final in the class. As you can tell this is an issue that I find interesting because I made it two of my three papers. This is a media analysis paper and I took a different perspective, how a certain media group infiltrates the media and that's how stereotypes are formed. I am by no means saying that this only happens in animal agriculture, this happens in every corner. My classes in PR and journalism have taught me everyone wants to get their 15 minutes of fame- this is just one example that I chose to take that and expand upon. Enjoy!
Media has the ability to form and perpetuate stereotypes within a society. But the media is not one entity that stands alone. It is made of many different sources and outlets. While news media’s goal is to achieve objectiveness this is often close to impossible since it is human nature to form opinions and journalists are not robots. Another weakness in news media is its susceptibility to being used or manipulated. Often times a certain group will try to make something as newsworthy as possible so that it can be presented to a large audience for free. The interception of news media, newspaper, television broadcast and Internet, also have the ability to form and perpetuate stereotypes, especially if only one side of the story is being told. As a major in agriculture journalism, I have gained knowledge about journalism and news media; growing up on a diversified crop and livestock farm I have the perspective of a farmer and attend numerous speeches and lectures every year that discuss the issue of the public’s lack of faith in the agriculture industry. I have seen what the agriculture industry has been going through and what animal rights activists see as the solution, but I think the real solution lies on the path that has yet to be walked down.
On November 4, 2008, 63% of Californians voted yes on proposition 2, the Standard for Confing Farm Animals. This proposition eliminated cage confinement for egg laying hens, gestation crates for sows, and veal crates (Smart Voter: League of Women Voters). In the 1920’s the Great Deal included a program that paid farmers not to farm or produce more crops or animals because there was a huge surplus, at the time. The government began using subsidies, which guarantees a base price on their commodity and the difference between the market price and base price is what the government pays out. In order to make the most money, one needs to have as many crops/animals produced as possible. Hence the rise of the ‘factory farms,’ a phrase coined by animal rights activists. Now most agriculture producers are on the large scale because smaller farmers have gone out of business and now work elsewhere.
A majority of egg production comes from California; the ugly part is actually for the consumer. Unless the factories move to other states, the cost of eggs will go up, along with the price of pork (gestation crates are used so sows don’t roll over and squash their piglets. For farmers, cattle prices will decrease because similar to the horse ban, there will be no market for veal so they will become worthless and no one wants to buy a worthless product. Issues such as proposition 2 that are having a huge impact on the agriculture industry are stemming from the infiltration of media and the stereotypes being conveyed by specific interest groups. One organization that has been successful at manipulating the media and using it to gain mass support for the issues is the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS).
This HSUS is not associated with local humane societies, but instead is a non-governmental organization that boasts as being “the nation’s largest and most effective animal protection organization- backed by 10 million Americans, or one if every 30” (HSUS). Their annual budget received through donations was “$103 million, more than double the 1996 annual budget of $42 million” (HSUS).
Stereotypes concerning animal welfare include animals being confined to spaces so small that they are physically unwell and animals are treated roughly, being abused physically and mentally. Often times the situations that make it to the media, even if they are the exception to the rule and not how every confinement plant treats their animals. For example, the Hallmark case where downer cows were being slaughtered for meat consumption made headlines but no one showed a balance to the negative, such as a confinement plant that follows correct, humane procedures. A story much have a high degree of newsworthiness to be published and often agriculture is not seen as newsworthy because only a few percent of the entire population feel they are involved in the agriculture industry, even though most jobs have something to do with the food and fiber industry. When something as alarming as the Hallmark case occurs and only one side is shown, the consumers are ignorant since they have not been provided balanced information and don’t have reason to assume there are differences between confinement operations. This is an example of how the media has accepted the stereotypes of confinement operations and report nothing different. Also, people view animal welfare differently based on the degree to which they are in contact with animals.
A 2008 study by Velde, Aarts and Woerkum about animal welfare perceptions of farmers and consumers found that farmers view animal welfare as having enough food, water and space to be productive in growth, while consumers think that animal welfare means that an animal feels good mentally as well as physically and is happy. Both groups are charged with “functional ignorance” because neither side is attempting to learn more about animal welfare, often because they are not aware of solutions to problems that may arise. As a conclusion, the authors view that a domestic contract does exist and that the question should change from, ““Is there a domestic contract?” to “On the basis of whose values and norms should the contract be formulated?”… A public debate could enhance the development of norms and what I acceptable and what is not.”
One of the main social issues with animal welfare is that each side treats the issue as a win-lose rather than a compromise. If the different sides start to communicate and share with one another their perspective then I believe a solution could be made that is acceptable to society, farmers and consumers alike.
According to a 2004 study by Winders and Nibert, “As a result [of overproduction of crops], farms organizations and the state promoted “meat” production and consumption as a way to alleviate surplus. To handle this expansion, intensive and industrial methods reshaped “meat” production, resulting in more oppressive living conditions for animals raised as “meat.”(76)” This study linked market demand and government policies as the cause for animal oppression. While valid points are made throughout the article, it is in a very slanted tone that is concerned with animal welfare. Again, it is the slanted tone that can form people’s opinions for them without providing them balanced information in an even tone that allows the consumer to form their own opinion. While this article is well researched, it is often easy to find research and information that matches our own opinions, while ignoring opposing positions. This shows that not only does a conversation about animal welfare needs to take place, but both sides need to be willing to truly listen to one another to create a compromise. It may be difficult for each side to respect and fully understand what the other is saying, but it is imperative if the issue is ever going to be resolved.
References
The Humane Society of the United stae and Doris Day Animal League Announce Merger and Join Forces to Enhance Work for Animals / The Humane Society of the United States. (n.d.). Retrieved October 20, 2008, from http://www.hsus.org/press_and_publications/press_releases /hsus_doris_day_animal_league_merger.html.
Proposition 2: Standards for Confining Farm Animals- California State Government. (n.d.). Retrieved October 20, 2008, from http://www.smartvoter.org/2008/11/04/ca/state/prop/2/.
Velde, H., Aarts, N., Woerkum, C. (2002). Dealing with Ambivalence: Farmers’ and Consuemrs’ Perceptions of animal welfare in livestock breeding. Journal of Agriculture and Environmental Ethics, 15, 203-219. Retrieved October 20, 2008, from the PsychInfo database.
Winders, B., & Nibert, D. (2004). Consuming the Surplus: Expaning “Meat” Consumption and Animal Oppression. The International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 24(9), 76. Retrieved November 13, 2008, from the ProQuest database.
