Public Response to Media Coverage of Animal Cruelty created by Catherine M. Tiplady, Deborah-Anne B. Walsh & Clive J. C. Phillips
Material type: TextSeries: ; Volume , number ,Queensland Springerlink 2012Content type:- text
- unmediated
- volume
Item type | Current library | Call number | Vol info | Copy number | Status | Notes | Date due | Barcode | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Journal Article | Main Library - Special Collections | BJ52.5 JOU (Browse shelf(Opens below)) | Vol 26.No. 4 pages 869-885 | SP18666 | Not for loan | For Inhouse use only |
Browsing Main Library shelves, Shelving location: - Special Collections Close shelf browser (Hides shelf browser)
Activists’ investigations of animal cruelty expose the public to suffering that they may otherwise be unaware of, via an increasingly broad-ranging media. This may result in ethical dilemmas and a wide range of emotions and reactions. Our hypothesis was that media broadcasts of cruelty to cattle in Indonesian abattoirs would result in an emotional response by the public that would drive their actions towards live animal export. A survey of the public in Australia was undertaken to investigate their reactions and responses to. The most common immediate reaction was feeling pity for the cattle. Women were more likely than men to feel sad or angry. Most people discussed the media coverage with others afterwards but fewer than 10 % contacted politicians or wrote to newspapers. We conclude that the public were emotionally affected by the media coverage of cruelty to cattle but that this did not translate into significant behavioral change. We recommend that future broadcasts of animal cruelty should advise the public of contact details for counseling and that mental health support contacts, and information should be included on the websites of animal advocacy groups to acknowledge the disturbing effect animal cruelty exposes can have on the public.
There are no comments on this title.