An activist press: the farm press's coverage of the animal rights movement


Reisner, A.

Agriculture and Human Values 9(2): 38-53

1992


The animal rights movement is a serious challenge to current agricultural practices. Agriculture's response, in part, depends on how successfully it can mobilize its natural constituency, farmers. However, theories of the mainstream press suggest that the mainstream press generally covers events, rarely reports or adopts the perspective of alternative movements, rarely includes mobilizing information, and suggests that routine social structures can, should, and will contain the movement. Hence, current theory indicates that the mainstream press does not act to mobilize the general public. However, very little research has examined how specialized presses, such as the farm press, respond to movements. The study reported here was based on an analysis of 406 articles from ten farm magazines. The findings suggest that the farm press acted more as an advocacy press than does the mainstream press. Collectively, the farm press articles included as many positions pieces and stories explaining animal rights as an issue as they did event stories. The articles reported, and countered, the positions of the animal rights movement; suggested that routine social structures might not contain the animal rights movement; called for agriculture to mobilize; and included specific recommendations concerning how agriculture should mobilize.

An
Activist
Press:
The
Farm
Press's
Coverage
of
the
Animal
Rights
Movement'
Ann
Reisner
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
I.MIIIIIMIIIIIIIIIII
IIIIIIIIIIIIIII
Ann
Reisner
is
an
assistant
professor
of
agricultural
communications
and
a
fellow
at
the
Program
for
the
Study
of
Cultural
Values
and
Ethics
at
the
University
of
Illinois
at
Urbana-Champaign.
Her
primary
interest
area
is
agriculture,
communications,
and
values
and
she
has
written
numerous
research
articles
in
this
area.
She
is
also
co-
editor
of
this
special
issue
on
communications.
ABSTRACT
The
animal
rights
movement
is
a
serious
challenge
to
current
agricultural
practices.
Agriculture's
response,
in
part,
depends
on
how
successfully
it
can
mobilize
its
natural
constituency,
farmers.
However,
theories
of
the
mainstream
press
suggest
that
the
mainstream
press
generally
covers
events,
rarely
reports
or
adopts
the
perspective
of
alternative
movements,
rarely
includes
mobilizing
information,
and
suggests
that
routine
social
structures
can,
should,
and
will
contain
the
movement.
Hence,
current
theory
indicates
that
the
mainstream
press
does
not
act
to
mobilize
the
general
public.
However,
very
little
research
has
examined
how
specialized
presses,
such
as
the
farm
press,
respond
to
movements.
The
study
reported
here
was
based
on
an
analysis
of
406
articles
from
ten
farm
magazines.
The
findings
suggest
that
the
farm
press
acted
more
as
an
advocacy
press
than
does
the
mainstream
press.
Collectively,
the
farm
press
articles
included
as
many
positions
pieces
and
stories
explaining
animal
rights
as
an
issue
as
they
did
event
stories.
The
articles
reported,
and
countered,
the
positions
of
the
animal
rights
movement;
suggested
that
routine
social
structures
might
not
contain
the
animal
rights
movement;
called
for
agriculture
to
mobilize;
and
included
specific
recommendations
concerning
how
agriculture
should
mobilize.
Animal
rights
2
is
the
first
organized
movement
to
challenge
the
livestock
industry
primarily
on
ethical
rather
than
health-related
grounds.
3
The
claims
of
animal
activists
moreover
dispute
widely
held
percep-
tions
of
farming
and
farm
life
as
inherently
moral
.
4
Since
these
beliefs,
apart
of
agrarianism,
have
been
a
relatively
powerful
rhetorical
tool
in
justifying
and
maintaining
support
for
agriculture,
the
new
attacks
could
weaken
the
public's
generally
uncritical
acceptance
of
government
spending
on
farm
programs.
Additionally,
animal
activ-
ists
have
successfully
promoted
regulation
of
livestock
and
poultry
production
systems
in
Europe
and
might
have
a
direct
impact
on
livestock
production
here.
5
But
animal
activists
do
not
have
sole
command
over
the
debate
on
animal
rights.
Agriculture,
as
well,
has
its
advocates
and
defenders,
assuming
it
is
able
to
organize
its
natural
constituency.
But
since
farmers
a
major
part
of
agriculture's
constituency
are
widely
spread
geographically,
agriculture
cannot
rely
on
mobilizing
techniques
that
depend
on
proximity.
As
a
result,
other
techniques,
such
as
group
meetings
or
mass
communica-
tion
channels,
are
disproportionately
important
as
infor-
mation
and
mobilizing
tools
for
farmers.
This
essay
will
examine
how
one
historically
important
agricultural
communications
vehicle,
the
agricultural
(farm)
press,
has
responded
to
the
animal
rights
movement.
In
so
doing,
the
essay
will
focus
on
two
aspects
of
the
farm
press's
coverage:
how
the
agricultural
press
reports
the
ethical
stances
of
the
animal
rights
movement
and
agriculture's
response,
and
the
story
agriculture
tells
38
Reisner:
An
Activist
Press
itself
about
the
animal
rights
movement,
its
growth,
and
its
potential
to
affect
agriculture.
Related
Literature
Importance
of
ideology
or
moral
claims
in
move-
ments
The
impetus
behind
social
movements
is
invariably
complex
and
multi-determined.
However,
one
important
stage
is
cognitive
(McAdam
et
al.,
1988).
That
is,
indi-
vidual
recruitment
to
and
activism
in
a
movement
re-
quires
a
"significant
transformation
in
the
collective
consciousness
of
the
actors
involved"
(McAdam
et
at.,
1988;
see
also:
Marx,
1963;
Edelman,
1964;
Snow
et
al.,
1986).
This
transformation
requires
a
realignment
of
frames
(Snow
et
al.,
1986)
or
a
development
of
a
new
discourse
(Blain,
1989).
Movement
participants
gener-
ally
adopt
a
different
method
of
interpreting
the
world,
including
different
definitions
of
what
constitutes
moral
or
ethical
action
in
the
world.
6
Importance
of
communications
in
movements
Since
small
group
interaction
is
crucial
to
adopting
new
frames
(McAdam
et
al.,
1988),
interpersonal
com-
munication
is
far
more
important
than
mass
communica-
tion
for
recruiting
activists.
Nevertheless,
mass
commu-
nication
vehicles
are
important
for
a
number
of
activities,
including
generating
funds
and
mobilizing
activists
for
a
particular
event.
Activists
often
generate
their
own
inter-
nal
publications,
which
are
considered
more
directly
responsive
to
movement
concerns.
The
mainstream
mass
media,
however,
are
an
important
resource
for
legitimiz-
ing
a
movement
as
a
social
force,
interesting
new
sup-
porters,
generating
wide-spread
support
from
the
general
public,
and
influencing
policy.
Interpersonal
interaction
is
less
crucial
for
counter-
movements,
7
since
they
are
more
concerned
with
main-
taining
existing
frames
than
introducing
new
ones.
Mass
communication,
then,
can
be
a
more
important
compo-
nent
of
countermovement
communication
work,
useful
in
justifying
a
countermovement's
traditional
beliefs,
mobilizing
its
constituency,
and
explaining
to
its
con-
stituency
the
reasons
behind
a
movement's
emergence.
As
with
activists,
the
mainstream
media
are
important
for
countermovements.
The
mainstream
mass
media
can
be
useful
for
legitimizing
the
countermovement
as
a
social
force,
interesting
supporters,
generating
public
support,
and
influencing
policy
makers.
However,
coun-
termovements
do
not
have
direct
control
over
main-
stream
news
outlets,
which
relatively
rarely
include
mobilizing
information
and
which
overwhelmingly
con-
centrate
on
events
rather
than
issues.
The
farm
press,
which
has
many
of
the
characteris-
tics
of
the
mainstream
press
but
is
directed
at
a
specific
interest
group
(farmers),
could
act
as
either
an
activist
or
a
general
mass
communication
vehicle.
The
role
that
the
farm
press
chooses
would
directly
affect
how
animal
rights'
claims
are
portrayed
in
the
farm
press.
Theories
of
the
press
and
movements
Most
scholarship
on
the
press
and
social
movements
has
examined
the
mainstream
press's
coverage
of
alter-
native
movements
and
has
agreed,
with
some
qualifica-
tions,
that
the
press
generally
resists
these
movements.
8
(Alternative
movements
[usually
referred
to
simply
as
"movements"]
are
defined
as
those
that
oppose
current
social
structure[s].)
While
one
study
of
the
environmen-
tal
movement
argues
that
the
press
gradually
incorpo-
rates
and
institutionalizes
movement
concerns,
includ-
ing
detailing
both
the
movement's
more
general
philo-
sophical
stance
and
specific
claims
about
particular
issues
or
events
(Strodthoff
et
al.,
1985),
most
studies
argue
that
mass
media
coverage
of
movements
marginalizes,
derides,
or
trivializes
their
concerns
(Cohen
and
Young,
1981;
Gitlin,
1980;
Hall
et
at.,
1981;
Tuchman,
1978;
van
Dijk,
1988b).
Even
when
mainstream
mass
media
are
relatively
sympathetic
to
movements,
the
media's
coverage
of
their
concerns
is
incomplete.
That
is,
the
press
will
not
report
the
substantive
nature
of
alternative
movement(s)'
posi-
tions
but
instead
will
adopt
specific
issues
and
reframe
those
issues
in
terms
of
the
dominant,
rather
than
the
alternative,
ideology
(Miliband
1969).
For
example,
an
environmentalist
might
frame
a
major
disaster
such
as
an
oil
spill
as
an
inevitable
part
of
current
transportation
techniques,
which
in
turn
is
an
inevitable
part
of
an
over
dependence
on
fossil
fuels,
which
is
in
and
of
itself
connected
with
a
dependence
on
a
particular
economic
system
dominated
by
monopoly
capital.
The
mainstream
press
does
cover
major
oil
spills,
but
in
the
early
days
of
the
environmentalist
movement
framed
such
spills
as
an
accident
or
an
unfortunate
result
of
individual
negli-
gence.
The
press
did
not
use
such
spills
as
a
damning
indictment
of
capitalist
economy
or
sympathetically
report
such
indictments
when
made
by
environmental
activists
(Molotch
and
Lester,
1975).
In
fact,
mass
media's
concentration
on
accident
or
human
error
removes
the
possibility
of
examining
the
incident
for
systemic
flaws
in
the
energy
system.
Nearly
a
decade
later,
with
the
Valdez
oil
spill,
when
the
press
had
institutionalized
environmental
concerns
(Strodthoff
et
al.,
1985),
the
press
reported
sympatheti-
cally
on
the
need
to
investigate
current
methods
of
transporting
oil
and
questioned
whether
the
country
was
too
reliant
on
fossil
fuel
supplies.
However,
even
at
this
point,
the
press
did
not
report
the
most
radical
charges
of
the
environmentalist
movement,
those
that
questioned
the
role
of
the
present
economic
system.
To
rephrase
the
argument
about
how
the
mainstream
press
covers
move-
ments,
an
individual
spill
essentially
is
an
event,
an
activity
that
the
press
will
cover
and
to
which
groups
can
assign
different
interpretations.
Each
interpretation
uses
a
different
set
of
factors
to
explain
that
event.
The
constellation
of
factors,
how
they
are
grouped,
and
their
relationship
to
each
other
represent
different
frames
on
39
AGRICULTURE
AND
HUMAN
VALUES
-
SPRING
1992
the
world.
Calling
an
oil
spill
a
direct
result
of
a
depen-
dence
on
oil,
rather
than
an
accident,
invokes
a
different
set
of
relevant
factors
important
to
causing
the
event,
assigns
responsibility
and
blame
in
different
places,
and
implies
different
types
of
remedial
action.
In
most
cases,
the
mainstream
press
does
not
apply
an
alternative
movement's
frame(s),
but
the
frame(s)
preferred
by
the
most
powerful
groups
in
society.
An
additional,
but
important,
part
of
this
argument
is
that
frames
come
in
sets,
rather
as
if
one
took
all
the
picture
frames
in
one's
house
and
placed
the
smaller
inside
the
larger
ones.
Each
move
from
the
smallest
to
the
largest
activist
frame
involves
a
more
drastic
challenge
to
the
established
order,
involves
more
issues,
and
is
linked
to
more
radical
redefinitions
of
such
major
organizing
concepts
as
what
constitutes
moral
behavior
in
the
world,
the
proper
rela-
tionship
between
women
and
men
(or
humans
and
ani-
mals),
or
the
nature
of
democracy
and
power.
Occasion-
ally,
the
mainstream
press
reports
some
of
the
less
inclusive
frames
sympathetically,
but
generally
does
not
report
the
wider
frames.
Given
the
mass
media's
reluctance
to
report
the
larger
frames,
even
with
movements
with
which
the
press
show
some
sympathy,
activists
commonly
view
the
mass
media
as
a
two-edged
sword
(McAdam
et
al.,
1988).
The
mass
media
are
more
respective
of
the
estab-
lished
order
than
alternative
movements
and
the
estab-
lished
order
has
relatively
more
access
to
media,
report-
ers,
editors,
and
owners
(Altheide,
1974;
Fishman,
1980,
1981,
1982;
Gans,
1979;
Tuchman,
1978,
van
Dijk,
1988b).
9
The
press
routinely
uses
powerful
groups
as
the
major
source
for
stories,
allowing
these
sources
to
frame
the
public
discourse
on
important
social
concerns,
such
as
nuclear
war
(Rubin
and
Cummings,
1989),
strikes
(Glasgow
University
Media
Group,
1976),
or
economic
structures
and
actors
(Jensen,
1987).
While
the
media
can
inform
readers
that
a
movement
exists,
it
often
does
so
in
a
way
that
portrays
movement
participants
as
deviant,
trivial,
a
menace,
or
otherwise
undesirable
(Cohen
and
Young,
1981;
Gitlin,
1980;
Shoemaker,
1982)
10
and
the
media
can
continue
to
frame
alternative
groups
in
this
way
over
considerable
periods
of
time
(Glasgow
University
Media
Group,
1976,
1982;
Hall
et
al.,
1981).
The
press
also
commonly
portrays
alternative
groups
as
potentially
violent
or
a
threat,
groups
that
should
be
repressed
through
police,
judicial,
or
other
social
structures
that
can
safely
contain
and
resolve
social
conflict
(van
Dijk,
1988a;
Hall
et
at.,
1977,
1981).
The
mainstream
media,
then,
reproduce
and
maintain
the
social
order,
that
is,
the
press
contains
movements
or
alternative
groups
by
posing
them
both
as
outside
of,
and
justly
constrained
by,
the
social
order.
Additionally,
the
mass
media
rarely
include
mobi-
lizing
information,
a
characteristic
of
the
mainstream
press
that
is
closely
related
to
the
media's
concentration
on
covering
events,
particularly
violent,
sensational,
or
otherwise
dramatic
activities
such
as
demonstrations
and
rallies
(Halloran
et
al.,
1970;
Lang
and
Lang,
1968).
11
Events,
unlike
issues,
are
finite,
with
a
clearly
perceiv-
able
beginning
and
end.
By
concentrating
on
events,
the
press
encloses
the
world
in
finished
blocks
that
cannot
be
altered
with
further
activity,
an
emphasis
that
closes
off
reader
involvement
rather
than
supporting
it.
12
Addi-
tionally,
even
editorials,
which
by
journalistic
conven-
tion
are
position
statements
on
important
issues
or
social
concerns,
rarely
include
mobilizing
information
(spe-
cific
information
on
how
the
reader
could
become
per-
sonally
involved
[Thrift,
1977]).
Hence,
the
mainstream
press
is,
according
to
much
of
communications
theory,
the
antithesis
of
an
activist
press.
First,
the
mainstream
press
covers
events,
rarely
adopts
the
frames
activists
use,
and
rarely
suggests
how
readers
could
become
involved
in
similar
events.
In
fact,
the
mainstream
press
rarely
adds
any
type
of
mobilising
information.
Second,
its
characterizations
of
activists
often
suggest
that
activists
should
be
ignored
or
that
routine
social
structures
(police,
courts,
or
other
state
mechanisms)
will
contain
the
activists.
The
farm
press
and
social
movements
Very
little
work
has
been
done
on
the
mainstream
press
and
countermovements,
and
even
less
on
more
specialized
presses;
nevertheless,
theories
of
the
press
suggest
at
least
two
ways
that
the
agricultural
press
might
cover
the
animal
rights
movement
and
the
factors
that
might
reasonably
be
expected
to
influence
agricultural
journalists.
While
the
role
of
the
mainstream
press
has
been
to
report
events
of
interest
to
the
general
public,
the
farm
press
reports
to
a
far
narrower
audience
and
concen-
trates
primarily
on
production-related
information.
Ag-
ricultural
magazines
rely
heavily
on
agri-business
spokespeople
as
story
sources,
a
group
whose
interests
the
animal
rights
movement
directly
threaten.
Agricul-
tural
writers
and
editors
also
generally
have
a
personal
background
in
agriculture
(Reisner,
1991)
and
socialize
with
people
in
agriculture.
Given
that
sources,
personal
background,
and
socialization
patterns
can
influence
how
journalists
cover
stories,
it
is
reasonable
to
expect
that
writers'
and
editors'
backgrounds
and
socialization
patterns
would
encourage
the
agricultural
press
to
de-
fend
agriculture's
positions
on
animal
rights.
In
the
most
dramatic
form
of
that
defense,
the
agricultural
press
would
act
as
an
advocacy
press.
As
such,
the
farm
press
would
establish
agriculture's
moral
positions,
explain
the
nature
of
the
issues
that
the
animal
rights
movement
raises
and
agriculture's
opposition,
consolidate
support,
and
mobilize
action.
Agricultural
journalists,
however,
receive
the
same
training
as
general
journalists.
13
In
most
universities,
agricultural
journalists
take
the
majority
of
their
commu-
nications
classes
from
communications/journalism
schools
or
departments,
not
classes
specific
to
agricul-
tural
journalism
(Reisner,
1990a,
1990b).
Furthermore,
agricultural
journalists
do
not
differ
from
mainstream
40
Reisner:
An
Activist
Press
journalists
in
their
assessment
of
the
overall
functions
of
the
press
and
share
a
general
commitment
to
the
impor-
tance
of
objectivity,
namely
that
journalists
should
not
interject
their
own
point
of
view
into
the
stories
they
write
(Reisner,
1988,
1991).
In
addition,
the
agriculture
press
is
structurally
organized
in
much
the
same
way
as
the
mainstream
press,
existing
through
advertising
and
subscription
revenues.
Unlike
publications
that
are
mouth-
pieces
for
specific
organizations,
much
of
the
agricul-
tural
press
is
formally
independent
of
any
particular
organintion.
If
the
agricultural
press
reports
the
animal
rights
movement
in
the
same
way
that
theory
suggests
the
mainstream
press
would
cover
such
a
movement,
the
agricultural
press
would
not
defend
animal
activists,
but
also
not
report
how
animal
activists
frame
issues;
trivialize
or
otherwise
contain
animal
advocates
as
a
threat;
con-
centrate
primarily
on
event
or
production-related
infor-
mation
(not
issues);
and
rarely
include
mobilizing
infor-
mation
in
articles
or
editorials.
This
essay
will
explore
which
of
the
two
possible
pictures
of
the
agricultural
press
best
describes
its
role
in
covering
animal
rights.
Establishing
a
standard
by
which
to
compare
agriculture's
coverage
of
animal
rights
posi-
tions,
however,
requires
a
brief
discussion
of
the
animal
rights
movement's
moral
stance
concerning
current
treat-
ment
of
animals.
The
next
section
will
do
so
by
outlining
the
positions
of
two
well-known
animal
activist
philoso-
phers,
Peter
Singer
and
Tom
Regan.
Philosophies
of
Animal
Rights
Both
the
utilitarian
arguments
of
Singer
and
the
rights-theorists
such
as
Tom
Regan
(Aiken,
1984;
Donnelley
and
Nolan,
1990;
Mason
and
Singer,
1980;
Regan,
1983;
Singer,
1990)
advocate
a
transformational
shift
in
defining
humanity's
ethical
relationship
with
animals.
Singer
first
argues
that
any
animal
capable
of
feeling
has
interests,
one
important
component
of
which
is
to
increase
pleasure
and
decrease
or
avoid
pain.
Such
interests
should
be
considered
equally
important
as
hu-
man
interests
in
making
decisions
on
animals'
behalf.
That
is,
Singer
bases
his
argument
on
the
claim
that
it
is
animals'
capacity
to
experience
good
and
bad
states
that
is
ethically
relevant.
While
not
all
of
a
being's
interests
are
of
equal
strength,
the
interests
of
a
nonhuman
animal
should
not
be
ignored
or
weakened
simply
because
it
is
not
human.
The
principle
of
equality
of
interests,
coupled
with
Singer's
claim
that
modern
confinement
causes
intense
suffering
for
animals
subjected
to
those
condi-
tions,
leads
Singer
to
conclude
that
modern
confinement
fanning
is
ethically
unacceptable,
since—on
balance—
human
pleasures
(such
as
profitability
for
farmers)
in
raising
animals
in
confinement
does
not
sufficiently
outweigh
animals'
interests
in
avoiding
suffering.
For
those
animals
that
are
"aware
of
themselves
as
distinct
entities
with
a
past
and
a
future"
(Singer,
1979,
p.
94),
additional
considerations
are
also
relevant
(Mam-
mals,
such
as
dogs,
pigs,
and
cattle,
have
similar
enough
nervous
systems
to
that
of
humans
to
warrant
claiming
that
all
mammals
can
be
considered
aware
of
themselves
as
distinct
beings
with
a
future
and
a
past.)
For
self-
aware
animals,
an
animal's
own
preferences,
including
its
preferences
for
future
pleasures,
should
be
taken
into
consideration
when
making
moral
decisions,
on
its
be-
half.
Under
these conditions,
killing
any
mammal
(in-
cluding
a
human)
is
wrong
when
such
a
killing,
on
balance,
denies
that
animal
more
future
pleasure
than
pain.
Singer's
position,
however,
allows
for
killing
mem-
bers
of
other
species
of
animals,
such
as
chickens
or
fish,
under
two
conditions.
First,
it
should
be
demonstrated
that,
as
a
species,
the
animal's
nervous
system
is
not
well
enough
developed
to
allow
an
individual
member
to
be
aware
of
a
future.
Second,
on
balance,
new
beings
would
need
to
be
brought
into
existence
to
experience
pleasure
than
would
not
have
been
brought
into
existence
without
such
killings,
resulting
in
a
net
aggregate
increase
in
pleasures.
While
Singer's
claims
against
modern
confinement
farming
are
quite
strong,
he
equivocates
on
more
tradi-
tional,
less-intensive
farming
methods.
In
Animal
Lib-
eration,
Singer
condemns
such
painful
practices
as
cas-
tration,
dehorning,
and
branding
even
on
range-free
farms,
but,
in
Practical
Ethics,
his
reasoning
suggests
that
raising
mammals
for
slaughter
is
morally
unaccept-
able.
However,
other
farming
enterprises,
such
as
those
that
produce
range-free
chickens
and
eggs
and
dairy
products,
have
at
least
limited
acceptability,
given
that
on
these
operations
animals'
pleasures
were
given
equal
consideration
of
interests.
Singer's position
also
poten-
tially
allows
for
slaughtering
chickens,
given
that
poul-
try
were
established
as
not
self-aware.
Singer,
however,
urges
vegetarianism
both
as
a
form
of
political
boycott
against
modern
farming
practices
and
as
a
practical
way
to
avoid
considering
animals
as
objects
to
be
used
for
gastronomic
pleasure,
a
view
inconsistent
with
the
prin-
ciple
that
feeling
beings
deserve
equal
consideration
of
interests.
In
contrast
to
Singer,
whose
utilitarian
basis.
leads
him
to
consider
the
balance
of
different
parties'
interests
with
preference
given
to
those
actions
that
allow
for
the
greatest
net
pleasure,
Regan,
a
deontologist,
argues
that
individuals
have
rights
that
are
inherent
to
the
individual.
All
beings
above
a
certain
threshold
have
a
claim
to
these
rights,
and
differences
in
mental
capacity
beyond
that
threshold
should
not
affect
our
treatment
of
individuals
or
species.
Those
beings,
Regan
argues,
with the
fairly
complex
psychological
capacity
to
start
an
action
in
the
present
with
the
intention
of
satisfying
their
desires
in
the
future
are
above
this
minimal
threshold
and,
hence,
are
properly
part
of
the
moral
sphere.
Since
mammals
again
including
pigs,
dogs,
and
the
like
are
suffi-
ciently
self-conscious
to
pass
this
threshold,
all
mam-
mals
have
a
claim
to
respectful
treatment,
which
includes
a
prima
facie
right
not
to
be
harmed.
41
AGRICULTURE
AND
HUMAN
VALUES
-
SPRING
1992
Since
all
humans
have
a
duty
not
to
harm
all
beings
above
the
threshold
level,
vegetarianism
"is
obligatory"
(Regan,
1983,
p.
331),
a
claim
that
makes
a
rights
view
unalterably
opposed
to
any
agricultural
operation,
whether
intensive
or
free-range
farming,
that
raises
mammals
for
meat.
While
some
farm
animals
chickens
and
turkeys
are
not
obviously
covered
by
the
rights
view,
Regan
argues
that
excluding
such
animals
is
questionable
due
to
the
difficulty
of
establishing
what
species
fall
below
the
threshold
of
self-consciousness
and,
hence,
below
the
threshold
for
being
included
in
the
moral
sphere.
In
addition,
Regan
argues
that
excluding
chickens
fosters
the
prevalent
cultural
acceptability
of
treating
all
farm
animals
as
renewable
resources,
a
position
which
is
generally
not
compatible
with
a
rights
view.
Regan
considers
the
rights
position
a
much
stronger
claim
to
protecting
animals'
claims
to
be
treated
with
equal
moral
respect
than
Singer's
utilitarian
claims,
which
allow
balancing
human
and
animal
interests
(See
Regan,
1983).
In
practical
terms
for
agriculture,
how-
ever,
both
Regan
and
Singer
oppose
intensive
farming,
argue
that
killing
mammals
for
meat
is
morally
unaccept-
able,
and
urge
vegetarianism.
Both
equivocate
on
the
acceptability
of
slaughtering
chickens
for
meat,
but
ar-
gue
that
treating
chickens
as
renewable
resources
en-
courages
viewing
animals
as
merely
useful
objects.
Singer
allows
more
of
a
role
for
free-range
agriculture
in
pro-
ducing
animal
products
such
as
dairy
and
eggs,
while
it
is
questionable
to
what
degree
Regan
would
consider
any
use
of
animals
morally
acceptable
(Aiken,
1984).
Methodology
Data
collection
All
issues
of
ten
agricultural
magazines
(from
1969
to
1990)
were
scanned
for
articles
that
mentioned
animal
rights:
Successful
Farming,FarmJournal,HoardsDairy-
man,
Dairy
Herd
Management,
Poultry
Digest,
Poultry
Tribune
(name
changed
to
Egg
Industry
during
the
study
period),
Hog
Farm
Management,
Pork
(year)
14
,
Beef,
and
Illinois
Beef
15
.
The
magazines
were
selected
by
asking
eight
experts
(professors
at
a
land
grant
university
with
appointments
in
beef,
dairy,
poultry,
and
swine)
to
name
the
three
most
influential
magazines
in
their
com-
modity
group
specialty.
Two
of
the
three
magazines
named
were
selected
for
analysis,
depending
on
the
magazine's
availability.
All
articles
that
mentioned
ani-
mal
rights
or
animal
welfare
within
the
context
of
animal
rights
as
a
movement
were
collected.
The
two
general
farm
magazines
were
selected
on
the
basis
of
both
circulation
and
agreed
importance
by
the
experts;
406
articles
were
collected.
Data
analysis
The
articles
were
then
analyzed
for
claims
about
ethics.
That
is,
each
statement
in
every
article
that
in-
cluded
a
description
of
an
animal
rights
position
was
listed,
unless
that
statement
exactly
duplicated
a
previ-
ous
statement.
(Similar
lists
were
made
for
animal
right-
ists'
claims
about
agriculture,
descriptions
about
the
animal
rights
movement,
descriptions
of
animal
activists
as
individuals,
agriculture's
ethical
defense
of
its
current
practices,
and
the
responses
that
agriculture
made
to
the
animal
rights
movement.)
The
lists,
then,
represent
the
range
of
claims
made
about
animal
rights
rather
than
the
frequency
of
any
one
claim.
The
lists
were
then
used
as
a
basis
for
describing
agriculture's
stance
on
animal
rights.
A
quantitative
analysis
of
agriculture's
coverage
of
the
animal
rights
movement
looked
at
the
tone
of
the
articles,
whether
the
articles
included
explicit
directives
for
agriculture's
response
to
animal
rights
activists,
and
whether
the
articles
included
direct
calls
for
agriculture
to
mobilize.
The
directives
were
classified
as:
(1)
agri-
culture
and
animal
activists
should
work
together,
(2)
can
work
together,
(3)
might
work
together,
(4)
might
have
to
make
concessions
to
animal
rights;
(5)
agricul-
ture
should
work
with
moderate
groups
to
forestall
these
groups
from
aligning
with
the
more
radical
elements;
and
(6)
agriculture
should
work
against
the
animal
rights
movement.
The
calls
for
mobilization
were
classified
as:
(1)
no
call
to
action,
(2)
general
calls
such
as
agriculture
should
be
more
active
or
agriculture
should
not
overreact
to
animal
rights,
or
(3)
specific
calls
such
as
farmers
should
visit
grade
school
classes
and
agricultural
com-
modity
groups
should
set
up
a
livestock
and
poultry
information
service
to
respond
to
animal
rights
activists.
Two
other
variables
were
also
included,
source
(farmer,
industry
representative,
editor,
government
official,
uni-
versity
professor,
animal
activist,
or
other)
and
the
type
of
article
(issue
article,
position
piece,
event
story,
letter,
production
article,
advise
story,
editorial
and
column,
meeting
story,
or
organizational
activity
report).
An
intercoder
reliability
check
of
five
percent
of
all
articles
performed
by
a
sociology
graduate
student
showed
92%
agreement
across
all
categories.
Intercoder
reliabil-
ity
dropped
to
75%
for
one
problematic
category,
mobi-
lizing
claims.
The
main
coder
was
slightly
less
likely
to
judge
a
particular
statement
as
a
mobilizing
call.
Findings
The
farm
press's
coverage
of
the
animal
movement's
moderate
claims
The
farm
press
covered
the
frames
of
the
animal
rights
movement
more
as
a
series
of
individual
claims
than
as
coherent
philosophy.
The
most
frequently
re-
ported
claim
was
that
animal
rightists
feel
that
animals
should
not
be
treated
cruelly.
The
press
routinely
cov-
ered
two
forms
of
this
claim,
overt
cruelty
(deliberate
mistreatment
of
animals),
and
covert
or
hidden
cruelty
(a
systematic
by-product
of
current
intensive
farming
prac-
tices).
While
the
agricultural
press's
coverage
empha-
sized
that
overt
cruelty
is
rare,
both
agriculturalists
and
animal
rights
activists
are
portrayed
as
agreeing
that
farmers
should
not
willfully
neglect
or
be
cruel
to
ani-
42
Reisner:
An
Activist
Press
mals
and
should
treat
them
according
to
accepted
stan-
dards
of
animal
husbandry.
These
standards
include
proper
feeding
and
medication,
not
subjecting
animals
to
extremes
of
weather
(including,
as
the
agriculturalists
occasionally
point
out,
not
leaving
dogs
in
hot
cars
during
summer),
and
not
beating
or
otherwise
physically
abusing
animals.
The
farm
press
included
two
types
of
arguments
from
agriculturalists
about
how
agriculture
as
a
whole
should
respond
to
individual
cases
of
overt
cruelty.
One
group,
drawing
on
the
claim
that
productivity
and
prof-
itability
are
synonymous
with
good
husbandry,
took
the
position
that
overt
cruelty
is
self-limiting.
Farmers
who
abuse
their
animals
will
not
be
efficient
and
economical
producers
and
market
forces
will
eventually
drive
them
out
of
farming.
Hence,
agriculture
does
not
need
to
be
worried
about
isolated
cases
of
abuse.
The
other
argument
made
by
those
in
agriculture
that
was
reported
in
the
farm
press
was
more
directly
political
and
proposed
that
agriculturists
take
an
active
role
in
containing
abuse.
Proponents
of
this
view
argued
that
individual
cases
of
animal
abuse
give
the
animal
rights
movement
favorable
publicity.
Since
animal
abuse
is
usually
highly
photogenic
and
emotional,
publicity
about
cases
of
animal
abuse
bolsters
animal
rights
argu-
ments
and
creates
an
atmosphere
of
public
sympathy
for
animal
rights
that
will
foster
and
support
legislative
change.
Because
negative
publicity
can
hurt
all
of
agri-
culture,
all
need
to
be
more
vigilant
in
detecting
abuse
and
eliminating
such
producers,
either
through
commu-
nity
pressure
or
helping
enforce
existing
laws
that
pro-
tect
animals.
Agriculturalists
split
with
animal
rightists
on
the
claim
of
covert
cruelty.
According
to
the
farm
press's
presentation
of
this
argument,
animal
rightists
claim
that
animals
have
rights,
interests,
desires,
and
needs
equal,
within
the
context
of
their
lives,
to
those
of
humans,
and
humans
have
the
duty
and
obligation
to
recognize
this
and
act
accordingly.
These
animal
rights
include
the
basic
right
to
stand
up,
lie
down,
turn
around,
or
preen.
Modern
confinement
operations
promote
cruelty
and
suffering,
since
current
production
systems
deprive
ani-
mals
of
social
and
psychological
benefits
necessary
to
their
species.
(Pigs,
veal
calves,
and
chickens
were
the
animals
most
commonly
mentioned.)
Due
to
these
dep-
rivations,
modern
production
systems
lead
to
chronic
discomfort,
stress,
and
disease.
Furthermore,
the
animal
rights
movement
charged
that
agriculture
has
generally
failed
to
observe
and
measure
the
extent
of
these
animal
needs.
Because
the
ethics
of
modern
production,
which
stress
profitability,
production,
and
farmer
convenience,
are
incompatible
with
the
ethics
of
modern
society,
production
systems
should
be
changed
to
give
animals
a
condition
as
natural
as
possible.
According
to
the
farm
press,
the
underlying
ratio-
nale
that
animal
rightists
use
to
explain
the
transition
from
"agrarian"
(traditional)
farming
production
to
fac-
tory
farming
is
that
modern
agriculture
has
replaced
the
traditional
code
of
rural
agrarianism
with
a
code
based
on
economic
motivations.
16
Current
production
systems
are
impersonal
ones
dominated
by
technology,
in
which
animals
are
trapped
with
no
recourse.
Animal
rights
movement
participants
charge
that
profit,
rather
than
concern
for
animals,
is
agriculture's
basic
motivation,
particularly
in
corporate
farming.
To
the
extent
that
these
economic
considerations
dictate
chronic
suffering,
such
types
of
production
systems
should
be
abolished.
Addi-
tionally,
since
economic
considerations
dictate
this
suf-
fering,
productivity
and
profitability
cannot
be
the
major
criteria
for
animal
welfare.
Animal
Rights
claims
about
confinement
farming
Collectively,
in
the
articles
examined,
the
farm
press
gave
the
greatest
amount
of
attention
to
criticisms
of
confinement
farming,
listing
over
30
different
charges
from
animal
rights
activists.
The
activists'
objections
ranged
from
general
criticisms
of
"factory-styled"
farm-
ing
to
specific
farm
practices,
including
debeaking
chick-
ens,
docking
pig
tails,
castrating
beef
(with
and
without
anesthetics),
raising
veal
calves
in
closely
confined
quar-
ters,
and
extensive
use
of
antibiotics
and
other
drugs.
The
animal
advocates'
objections
to
these
practices
are
that:
1)
these
practices
are
inherently
cruel
and
cause
pain,
2)
these
practices
are
cruel
because
they
interfere
with
animals'
social
needs,
including
their
need
for
tender,
loving
care,
and
3)
these
practices
increase
the
need
for
antibiotics
and,
hence,
reduce
the
quality
of
the
prod-
uct.
17
The
above
concerns,
as
presented
in
the
agricul-
tural
press,
are
essentially
those
of
more
moderate
ani-
mal
welfare
groups,
such
as
the
Humane
Society.
The
farm
press's
coverage
of
agriculture's
response
to
moderate
animal
advocates'
positions
In
the
farm
press
articles,
agriculture's
response
to
arguments
from
animal
rights
activists
was
primarily
to
state
counterpositions.
Agriculture's
most
common
po-
sition,
as
reported
in
the
farm
press,
was
that
livestock
will
not
produce
optimally
and
efficiently
unless
all
conditions
for
the
animals'
existence
are
met.
Hence,
it
follows
that
humane
treatment
is
necessary
for
produc-
tivity
and
farmers
must
treat
their
animals
well
in
order
to
survive
economically.
Given
the
relationship
between
production
and
treatment,
humane
handling
can
be
mea-
sured
in
terms
of
productivity
and
economic
gain.
While
some
employees
have
improper
handling
techniques
and
need
education
and
while
a
few
violators
are
grossly
cruel
to
animals
and
must
either
stop
such
abuses
or
be
stopped
through
existing
laws,
fanners
by
and
large
and
by
necessity
treat
their
animals
humanely
and
well.
This
argument,
on
the
part
of
the
agriculturalists,
implicitly
asserts
that
no
change
is
necessary
in
current
production
systems,
since
natural
forces
work
to
ensure
that
animals
are
treated
humanely.
Furthermore,
since
agriculturalists
directly
link
productivity
with
animal
43
AGRICULTURE
AND
HUMAN
VALUES
-
SPRING
1992
welfare,
they
do
not
accept
that
productivity
and
humane
treatment
are
separate
issues
and
are
firmly
opposed
to
the
animal
rights
claim
that
farmers'
pursuit
of
increased
productivity
decreases
humane
treatment.
Agriculture's
most
common
reported
response
to
the
specific
claims
about
confinement
farming
was
to
set
up
a
dichotomy
between
confinement
farming
and
farm-
ing
practices
of
fifty
years
ago,
a
dichotomy
that
is
not
without
some
justification.
18
Agriculturalists
then
con-
trasted
past
farming
practices
with
the
advances
of
con-
finement
farming,
specifically
stating
that
confinement
fanning
reduces
disease,
19
provides
better
protection
against
predators
and
extremes
of
weather,
frees
animals
from
scratching
for
grasshoppers
or
insects,
and
in
gen-
eral
provides
better
sanitation
and
nutrition.
The
farm
press
articles
also
included
more
general
arguments.
Confinement
farming
enhances
animals'
welfare,
animals
prefer
modern
confinement
farming,
and
modern
animals
are
conditioned
to
less
space.
Such
systems
increase
production
and
survival
rates,
enhance
the
life
of
the
producer,
reduce
labor
time,
and
provide
a
higher
quality,
more
uniform,
and
cheaper
product
for
the
consumer.
For
evidence,
agriculturalists
pointed
to
the
gains
of
confinement
in
terms
of
efficiency,
produc-
tivity,
andprofitability.
Such
evidence
sidestepped
many
of
the
ethical
issues
addressed
by
animal
rightists,
par-
ticularly
their
claims
that
productivity
and
welfare
are
not
necessarily
synonymous.
The
farm
press's
articles
and
position
statements
also
included
a
series
of
arguments
that
can
be
grouped
under
a
general
category
of
efficiency,
although
these
arguments
were
a
far
less
common
response
to
animal
activists
than
those
based
on
productivity
or
the
advan-
tages
of
confinement
fanning.
Basic
to
all
of
these
is
the
claim
that
current
production
systems
are
necessary
for
efficient
food
production.
The
most
detailed
argument
defended
the
development
of
modern
factory
farms
as
a
natural
process
of
market
forces
and
a
normal
distribu-
tion
of
skills.
Farmers
who
are
better
than
others
at
certain
types
of
production
will
succeed
in
those
areas
at
which
they
excel;
and,
hence,
their
farms
will
be
most
likely
to
survive
economically.
Economies
of
scale
also
add
to
the
trend
and
mean
that
the
larger,
more
commer-
cial
farms
will
survive
in
the
market.
By
implication,
there
is
no
reason
to
believe
that
animal
treatment
will
be
worse
in
larger
production
units.
Since
the
marketplace
favors
the
best
farmers,
animal
production
skills
and
treatment
will
improve
with
increasing
concentration
and
specialization
in
farming.
An
implication
of
this
argument
is
that
the
comfort
of
animals
should
be
consid-
ered
when
agricultural
practices
are
not
efficient
(with
the
goal
of
increasing
efficiency),
a
justification
that
minimizes
the
welfare
of
animals
as
a
factor
of
impor-
tance
and
treats
animals
as
a
resource,
a
treatment
that
both
Singer
and
Regan
argue
against.
A
parallel
argument
presented
was
that
large-scale
farming
is
necessary
to
feed
the
world
and
that
the
present
complex
system
for
getting
food
on
the
table
is
now
a
necessity,
particularly
given
the
number
of
people
who
have
left
agriculture
for
the
cities.
If
the
system
changed,
prices
would
soar
for
the
average
consumer,
and
low-income
groups
and
dependents
(such
as
people
in
prisons
and
the
elderly
in
nursing
homes)
would
be
particularly
hard
hit.
These
arguments,
again,
preserve
the
present
order,
but
in
this
case
the
moral
basis
of
the
claims
is
that
human
rights
have
primacy
over
those
of
animals.
The
farm
press's
coverage
of
animal
rights
None
of
the
articles
set
out
the
philosophical
reason-
ing
of
the
animal
rights
movement
in
great
detail.
In-
stead,
most
claims
were
compressed
into
declarative
assertions:
animals
have
the
same
rights
as
humans;
animals
have
the
right
not
to
be
eaten;
farm
livestock
and
poultry
have
the
emotional
maturity
of
humans
and
have
many
human
attributes.
Agriculture's
response
to
the
ethical
standards
of
animal
rights
were
also
largely
limited
to
declarative
single
statements;
rights
are
lim-
ited
to
human
beings;
rights
are
a
human
construction
to
guide
human
interaction;
rights
do
not
apply
to
other
species;
human
welfare
has
a
higher
priority
than
animal
welfare;
farm
animals
are
not
pets,
have
no
rights,
do
not
have
human
characteristics,
and
human
likes
and
dislikes
are
not
relevant
for
animals.
In
essence,
the
portrayals
of
both
the
claims
of
animal
rights
and
agriculture
did
not
elaborate
philosophical
positions,
but
drew
lines
in
the
sand.
Animal
rights
positions
were
stated,
without
the
reasoning
behind
those
positions,
and
agriculturalists'
positions
were
placed
in
opposition,
with
at
best
mini-
mal,
justification
for
those
beliefs.
20
Summary
of
philosophical
claims
The
farm
press
gave
a
relatively
accurate
and
com-
plete
account
of
the
animal
rights
movement's
position
on
direct
and
covert
cruelty.
In
fact,
the
farm
press's
reporting
included
the
elements
necessary
to
under-
standing
that
animal
rights
activists
were
using
a
differ-
ent
frame
with
which
to
view
animal
treatment
than
agriculture.
Animal
activists
used
suffering
of
animals
as
their
primary
criterion
by
which
to
judge
acceptable
farming
practices,
viewed
their
position
on
covert
cru-
elty
as
essentially
a
principled
ethical
stance,
based
their
positions
on
different
production
practices
on
this
stance,
and
told
a
different
story
than
agriculture
about
how
and
why
current
farming
systems
developed
and
why
these
systems
are
increasing
animal
suffering.
Agriculture's
story
was
less
cohesive
in
that
while
the
farm
press
articles
included
denials
that
animals
are
suffering
more
in
confinement
than
they
suffered
under
alternative
sys-
tems,
other
arguments
suggested
that
animal
rights
should
be
subsumed
to
human
needs.
Nevertheless,
the
assump-
tions
that
current
production
systems
are
not
cruel
and
that
agriculture
in
its
present
form
is
necessary
for
feeding
humans
together
formed
a
frame
that
justified
44
Reisner:
An
Activist
Press
agriculture's
defense
of
current
practices
as
rational,
reasonable,
and
ethically
acceptable.
But
while
the
farm
press
coverage
of
the
animal
rights
movement
did
a
relatively
good
job
of
presenting
animal
rights
advocates'
frames
on
covert
cruelty,
the
farm
press's
coverage
of
the
more
extreme
frames
of
animal
rights,
in
particular
the
philosophical
reasoning
leading
to
such
views,
was
at
best
poor,
and
probably
more
accurately
described
as
seriously
incomplete.
In
general,
the
farm
press
did
not
engage
in
a
dialogue
that
seriously
considered
the
animal
rights
movement
posi-
tions.
Instead
the
farm
press
presented
the
animal
advo-
cates'
claims
and
countered
these
with
agriculture's
claims.
Often,
the
farm
press
articles
dismissed
animal
rights
claims
as
ridiculous
or
as
illustrating
the
intrac-
table
difference
between
animal
rights
and
agricultural
production.
(For
example,
animal
rightists
want
to
put
farmers
out
of
business.)
Animal
liberationists
were
generally
portrayed
in
the
most
negative
terms
and
as
closed
to
compromise
and
negotiation.
However
if,
for
the
purpose
of
argument,
animal
rights
claims
were
accepted
as
reasonable,
neither
agriculture's
counterarguments
nor
their
philosophical
positions
as
presented
by
the
farm
press
would
be
espe-
cially
convincing.
Contrasting
current
agriculture
with
farming
practices
used
fifty
years
ago
is
a
weak
defense
to
the
argument
that
current
production
systems
are
systematically
cruel
and
promote
suffering.
That
current
production
systems
are
a
natural
evolution
of
a
history
of
specialization
does
not
address
the
animal
rights
position
that
economics
are
irrelevant
to
justifications
of
abusing
animals
and
that
productivity
is
not
necessarily
equiva-
lent
to
welfare.
And
agriculture's
constant
repetition
of
the
utility
of
productivity
and
profitability
as
measures
for
welfare
could
establish,
for
those
who
do
not
accept
this
equivalence,
that
farmers
are
more
concerned
with
profit
than
with
the
well-being
of
animals.
In
fact,
viewed
impartially,
the
articles
by
the
farm
press
on
animal
rights
suggested
that
the
animal
rights
movement
has
a
clearer
moral
philosophy
for
animals
than
does
agricul-
ture.
However,
the
farm
press's
articles
and
editorials
clearly
supported
agriculture
and
strongly
implied
that
agriculture
needs
to
defend
itself.
The
story
that
the
farm
press
tells
about
the
animal
rights
movement
The
agricultural
press
coverage
left
very
little
doubt
—both
from
the
tone
of
the
stories
and
from
the
narrative
that
the
farm
press
told
about
the
growth
and
appeal
of
the
animal
rights
movement
that
agriculture
should
op-
pose
animal
rights
and
that
there
are
good
and
solid
reasons
for
doing
so.
In
terms
of
tone,
most
articles
were,
by
a
slim
majority,
negative,
with
few
positive,
and
the
rest
neutral
or
evenly
mixed
(Table
1).
Of
those
types
of
articles
that
would
reasonably
be
expected
to
establish
agriculture's
reaction
to
animal
rights
issue
articles,
position
pieces,
letters,
and
editorials
most
were
either
negative
or
hostile
about
animal
rights
as
a
move-
ment
(67%
negative).
Editorials
and
columns
(74%),
letters
from
readers
(66%),
and
position
statements
in
particular
were
primarily
negative
(70%).
(The
only
other
articles
that
were
equally
negative
were
descrip-
tions
of
animal
advocates'
activities
and
advice
articles
on
how
to
deal
with
animal
activists
[67%
negative]
21
)
Very
few
of
the
articles
that
were
positive
to
the
animal
rights
movement
were
from
agriculturalists.
Of
the
positive
articles,
fourteen
were
letters,
two
were
position
pieces,
four
editorials,
two
issue
articles,
and
four
production
pieces.
The
position
statements,
issue
articles,
and
several
letters
were
articles
or
speeches
from
animal
advocates.
The
majority
of
the
letters
posi-
tive
to
animal
rights
were
from
farmers
and
two
of
the
editorials
were
from
guest
editors,
one
veterinarian
with
experience
with
the
European
animal
rights
movement
and
one-well
known
agricultural
critic.
Of
the
opinion
pieces,
the
largest
percentage
of
neutral
or
balanced
articles
were
issue
articles,
in
par-
ticular
the
articles
that
used
animal
activists
as
sources.
In
general,
articles
with
animal
activists
or
farmers
as
sources
were
more
likely
to
be
either
positive
or
bal-
anced,
while
editorials
and
articles
with
industry
spokespeople
or
university
professors
(excluding
those
articles
that
were
research
reports)
as
sources
were
most
likely
to
be
negative
(Table
2).
22
Articles
with
both
animal
activists
and
agriculturalists
showed
a
general
trend
to
be
more
neutral
or
balanced
than
negative,
with
the
exception
of
those
articles
with
animal
activists
and
scientists.
Overall,
excluding
letters
from
farmers,
the
reaction
from
agriculture—
including
the
editorial
posi-
tion
of
most
farm
magazines
is
consistently
negative
to
animal
rights.
The
negative
characterizations
of
animal
rights
as
a
movement
also
extended
to
animal
rights
activists
as
individuals
and
were
an
important
part
of
how
the
farm
press
framed
the
animal
rights
movement
as
both
mar-
ginal
and
dangerous.
The
most
commonly
used
char-
acterizations
of
animal
rights
activists
suggest
individu-
als
who
cannot
be
worked
with,
such
as
vegetarians
and
violent
radicals
or
terrorists.
23
While
animal
rights
activ-
ists
were
also
described
as
well-educated,
urban
middle-
class
people
from
a
range
of
professions,
characteriza-
tions
of
this
type
were
a
distinct
minority
and
primarily
appeared
in
articles
that
distinguished
between
moderate
and
extremist
animal
rights
groups.
Additionally,
the
farm
press
articles
and
editorials
generally
described
those
who
supported
animal
rights
as
ignorant
about
or
inaccurate
in
their
characterizations
of
agriculture.
Some
descriptions
also
included
charges
that
such
individuals
are
emotional,
egotistical,
and
anti-science.
Even
ar-
ticles
that
described
some
animal
welfarists
as
sincere,
articulate,
dedicated,
and
caring
about
the
well-being
of
farm
animals
argued
that
animal
rights
advocates
were
generations
removed
from
farming
and
have
very
little
understanding
of
why
agriculturalists
use
certain
prac-
45
Table
2.
Tone
of
articles
by
type
of
source
(n=347).
Type
of
source
Tone
of
article
(%)
Positive
Neutral
Negative
Editorial
6.9
20.7
Animal
activists
21.2
48.2
Industry
1.1
34.4
Scientists
a
1.7
53.4
Farmers
33.3
28.6
38.1
Government
officials
63.4
36.6
Mixed
(animal
activists
and
other
source[s])
4.0
50.0
46.0
Mixed
(Industry
and
scientists
or
government)
40.0
60.0
a
With
research
reports
excluded,
articles
with
scientists
as
sources
were
57%
negative
in
tone.
72.4
30.3
64.5
44.8
(n)
58
33
93
58
21
41
28
15
AGRICULTURE
AND
HUMAN
VALUES
-
SPRING
1992
Table
1.
Tone
of
articles
by
type
of
articles.
Type
of
article
Tone
of
article
(%)
Positive
Neutral
Negative
(n)
Opinion
articles
Letter
29.8
4.3
66.0
47
Editorials
9.3
16.3
74.4
43
Issue
articles
6.9
44.8
48.3
29
Position
articles
6.7
23.3
70.0
60
Subtotal
13.4
20.1
66.5
179
Event
stories.
reports
Production
articles
25.0
68.8
6.3
16
Event
stories
on
Animal
Activists
33.9
66.1
56
Legislative
activities
(bills)
55.8
44.2
43
Advice
stories
31.3
68.8
16
Meeting
stories
(announcements)
100.0
7
Research
stories
76.7
23.3
30
Reports
on
organizational
activities
51.3
48.7
39
Miscellaneous
5.0
55.0
40.0
20
Total
7.1
38.4
54.4
406
tices.
The
farm
press
articles
also
implied
that
agriculture
and
animal
rights
advocates
do
not
have
common
ground
for
developing
understanding,
since
the
two
groups
use
different
forms
of
evidence.
Animal
rights
activists
ac-
cept
emotional
evidence,
putting
oneself
in
the
place
of
the
animals.
Agriculturalists
favor
research,
which
is
more
difficult
to
understand
and
present,
and
is
less
dramatic.
24
Hence,
in
total,
individuals
in
the
animal
rights
movement
are
described
as
either
uneducated
about
agriculture
or
marginal
(vegetarians
and
terror-
ists).
Such
characterizations
also
imply
that
the
positions
of
individuals
who
believe
in
animal
rights
need
not
be
seriously
considered.
But
the
farm
press
articles
clearly
did
not
extend
the
same
disregard
to
the
animal
rights
movement
itself.
The
farm
press
described
the
animal
rights
move-
ment
as
large,
well-funded,
and
capable
of
posing
a
serious
threat
to
agriculture.
Several
articles
pointed
out
that
the
animal
rights
movement
includes
7,000
different
groups
(including
the
influential
Humane
Society);
these
groups
collectively
have
up
to
10,000,000
members
and
a
budget
of
$50,000,000.
The
leadership
was
character-
ized
as
politically
astute,
powerful,
vocal,
and
persua-
sive.
The
farm
press
also
constantly
repeated
that
animal
rights
issues
were
not
going
to
go
away,
that
animal
rights
was
one
of
the
most
important
issues
of
the
decade,
and
that
animal
advocates
posed
a
serious
threat
to
agriculture.
Some
individuals
and
groups,
such
as
People
for
the
Equal
Treatment
of
Animals
and
its
associated
'armed
terrorist
wing,'
the
Animal
Liberation
Front,
were
a
direct
threat
to
individual
farmers
2S
(Several
articles
reported
acts
of
vandalism
by
animal
rightists,
and
others
gave
detailed
advice
on
how
to
deal
with
being
picketed
and
the
danger
of
hiring
inexperienced
summer
helpers
[who
might
be
undercover
animal
rights
activ-
46
Claims
Animal
activists
and
agriculture
should
work
together.
Animal
activists
and
agriculture
have
to
work
together.
Agriculture
should
keep
an
open
mind.
They
might
be
able
to
work
together.
Agriculture
might
have
to
make
some
concessions
to
animal
activists.
Agriculture
should
work
with
moderate
groups
to
forstall
those
groups
aligning
with
extremist
groups.
Agriculture
should
work
against
animal
rights
movement.
Total
Percent
*Frequency
3.1
6
9.9
19
11.5
22
20.9
40
7.3
14
47.1
90
100.0
191
*
Fifty-two
percent
of
all
articles
(n=406)
included
no
recommendations
for
action.
Table
4.
Presence
of
mobilizing
information.
Mobilization
claims
Percent
Frequency
No
mobilization
claims
57.8
212
General
mobilization
claims
20.2
82
Specific
mobilization
claims
22.0
89
Total
100.0
406
Reisner.
An
Activist
Press
ists.])
The
two
dominant
concerns
reported
in
the
farm
press
were
whether
animal
rights
activists
could
influ-
ence
legislation
or
public
support
of
agriculture.
The
farm
press
articles
described
animal
rights
advocates
as
politically
active,
able
to
generate
large
amounts
of
mail
in
support
of
animal
welfare
legislation,
and
effective
in
other
countries.
Several
articles
discussed
animal
wel-
fare
in
Europe,
where
animal
rights
advocates
have
been
able
to
get
a
series
of
laws
passed
increasing
regulation
of
production
equipment
and
handling.
26
Many
of
these
articles
called
legal
action
in
Europe
a
forerunner
of
activism
here.
Animal
rights
advocates
were
also
de-
scribed
as
actively
indoctrinating
consumers,
voters,
and
school
children
with
their
views
about
agriculture.
This
'education,'
agriculturalists
suggested,
could
convince
consumers
to
support
increasingly
radical
legislation
and
to
decrease
the
amount
of
meat
they
eat.
According
to
the
farm
press,
the
danger
of
the
animal
rights
movement
succeeding
in
its
goals
of
affect-
ing
agriculture
is
further
exacerbated
by
the
American
public's
distance
from
agriculture.
The
general
popula-
tion,
generations
removed
from
farming
life
and
lacking
experience
and
knowledge
in
agriculture,
is
easy
'prey'
for
the
animal
rights
movement,
particularly
since
the
general
public
is
more
easily
swayed
by
the
emotional
arguments
that
animal
rights
advocates
use
than
by
the
research
evidence
that
the
agricultural
community
pre-
fers.
In
the
farm
press's
portrayal,
animal
rights
activists
also
have
a
natural
advantage
with
the
mainstream
me-
dia,
since
the
press
favors
sensational,
emotional
evi-
dence
and
the
kind
of
media
events,
such
as
rallies
and
demonstrations,
that
animal
advocates
can
stage.
The
above
account
leaves
the
impression
that
agri-
cultural
is
relatively
alone,
unsupported,
and
misunder-
stood,
a
conclusion
that
calls
for
agriculture
to
be
active
in
protecting
itself.
27
And
farm
press
articles
and
edito-
rials
explicitly
made
such
calls
(Table
3).
Nearly
half
of
the
articles
included
explicit
suggestions
for
agriculture
to
respond
to
the
animal
rights
movement,
28
some
one
hundred
different
recommendations
in
all.
A
near
major-
ity
of
articles
(47%
of
all
calls
for
action)
advocated
working
against
animal
rights
advocates.
The
next
larg-
est
number
(21%
of
all
calls
to
action)
were,
at
best,
grudging
concessions
to
animal
rights:
some
areas
might
need
more
research,
some
individuals
are
careless
or
cruel
or
some
individual
managers
might
need
some
education
or
training
to
develop
better
management
practices.
The
percentage
of
articles
that
suggested
that
animal
rights
advocates
might,
even
in
some
instances,
be
correct
or
of
benefit
to
agriculture
were
extremely
limited
(3%);
although
there
were
constant
pleas
for
agriculture
to
work
with
the
movement
or
concessions
that
agriculture
will
have
to
work
with
the
movement.
The
farm
press
articles
also
routinely
included
calls
for
agriculture
to
mobilize
(Table
4).
Agriculture
must
be
active
in
monitoring
legislation,
improving
the
image
of
agriculture,
educating
the
general
public
(including
chil-
dren)
about
agriculture,
and
developing
organizations
to
respond
to
animal
rights.
The
farm
press
also
included
parallel
mobilizing
information
for
individuals.
These
calls
included
suggestions
that
farmers
should
send
let-
ters
to
congress,
put
other
kinds
of
pressure
on
legisla-
tors,
and
educate
animal
rights
advocates
and
the
general
public
by
taking
an
active
role
in
schools,
and
by
inviting
animal
welfarists
to
farms.
The
articles
also
recom-
mended
that
farmers
be
careful
to
treat
animals
hu-
manely,
use
good
animal
husbandry
practices,
and
avoid
confrontations
with
animal
rights
activists
if
they
should
picket
the
farm.
Roughly
one
fourth
of
the
recommenda-
tions
in
the
farm
press
articles
were
fairly
moderate
calls
that
included
some
accommodation
to
animal
rights:
agriculture
should
not
be
reactive,
should
be
more
care-
ful
in
policing
for
individual
cases
of
abuse,
be
prepared
to
abolish
practices
known
to
compromise
animal
well-
being,
and
look
at
intensive
farming
objectively.
In
only
one
case
did
the
suggested
response
question
profitabil-
Table
3.
Tvoes
of
claims
made
about
activists.
47
AGRICULTURE
AND
HUMAN
VALUES
-
SPRING
1992
ity:
agriculture
might
have
to
adopt
some
changes
that
do
not
increase
profits.
Conclusions
The
farm
press
more
closely
resembles
an
activist
press
than
the
mainstream
press
in
that
the
agricultural
press
justifies
agriculture's
traditional
beliefs
and
supports
active
mobilizing.
This
is
all
the
more
remarkable
be-
cause
the
agricultural
press's
coverage
of
animal
rights
as
an
issue
is
a
recognizable
shift
from
its
tradition
role:
publishing
production-related
articles.
The
coverage
of
the
animal
rights
movement
appears
more
directly
re-
lated
to
political
mobilization
than
to
providing
an
ethi-
cal
position
for
agriculture.
While
this
in
itself
is
not
especially
surprising,
agriculture's
defense
is
remark-
able
on
two
levels.
The
first
is
the
weakness
of
the
moral
arguments
defending
agriculture.
Agriculture
as
a
prof-
itable
business
is
given
far
more
emphasis
than
any
attempt
at
providing
an
alternative
to
animal
rightists'
ethical
positions,
even
though
agrarianism
could
poten-
tially
be
employed
to
provide
such
a
defense.
This
point
leads
to
the
second
interesting
aspect
of
agriculture's
defense
of
itself
to
itself:
the
death
of
agrarianism
as
a
mythic
structure.
The
only
truly
systematic
use
of
the
defense
that
agriculture
is
a
way
of
life
was
in
defending
agriculture
to
outside
groups.
(The
more
common
de-
fense
of
agriculture
to
agriculture
was
that
animal
right-
ists
want
to
put
you
out
of
business).
The
farm
press,
however,
did
report
that
agriculture
activists
used
agrar-
ian-influenced
arguments
to
build
support
from
the
gen-
eral
public.
(The
one
place
where
arguments
related
to
agrarianism
were
emphasized
were
in
articles
about
a
1988
Massachusetts
bill
supported
by
animal
rights
ac-
tivists.
Agriculturalists
campaigned
actively
against
the
bill,
arguing
that
passage
would
destroy
the
family
farm.)
The
story
29
that
agriculture
tells
about
animal
advo-
cates
also
allows
agriculture
to
dodge
examining
the
ethical
foundations
of
current
agricultural
practices.
Briefly,
agriculture's
story
starts
with
the
urbanization
of
the
United
States'
population.
According
to
this
account,
the
American
public
largely
has
been
divorced
from
agrarian
life
for
several
generations.
Modern
farming
techniques
have
fostered
this
separation,
by
allowing
producers
to
farm
more
productively
and
more
effi-
ciently.
At
the
same
time,
the
public
has
become
increas-
ingly
ignorant
about
agricultural
production.
In
fact,
the
image
urbanites
hold
of
agriculture
is
closer
to
the
farming
practices
used
several
generations
ago
(at
the
time
their
grandparents
left
farming)
than
it
is
to
agricul-
ture
today.
The
attempt
by
animal
activists
to
return
farming
to
what
it
was
fifty
years
ago
is
based
on
emotionalism,
not
scientific
reasoning
and
evidence,
and
moreover
is
fueled
by
the
lure
of
nostalgia.
Some
portions
of
the
animal
rights
movement
also
have
other
agendas,
such
as
a
personal
belief
in
vegetarianism.
To
continue
the
narrative,
the
general
public
shares
with
animal
advocates
the
general
ignorance
of
modem
farm
life
and
the
images
of
an
idyllic
past.
Lacking
experience
and
knowledge
of
agriculture,
this
public
may
be
sympathetic
to
animal
rights.
Furthermore,
the
public
is
more
easily
swayed
by
emotionalism
than
by
research
evidence.
30
Hence,
the
animal
rights
movement
has
a
natural
advantage
with
the
public
and
could
poten-
tially
sway
opinion
to
support
legislation
sponsored
by
animal
rights
activists
or
to
change
consumption
habits.
Such
changes,
in
part,
hinge
on
whether
advocates
can
effectively
contact
the
general
public
through
the
mass
media.
According
the
farm
press,
animal
activists
will
gain
access
to
the
mass
media
because
the
mass
media,
also
generally
uninformed
about
agriculture,
covers
events
such
as
rallies
and
demonstrations
in
preference
to
more
normal
ongoing
activities,
such
as
routine
farm
produc-
tion.
Furthermore
the
media
favor
emotional
arguments
such
as
the
'put-yourself-in-the-animal's-place'
reason-
ing
used
by
animal
advocates.
Hence,
there
is
a
reason-
able
chance
that
the
animal
rights
movement
could
succeed
in
forcing
agriculture
to
change.
This
story
explains
the
growth
and
potential
effectiveness
of
the
animal
rights
movement
without
acknowledging
that
the
movement's
claims
might
be
true.
At
the
same
time,
this
story
provides
a
direction
for
agricultural
activism
education
and
a
need
for
this
activism,
a
generally
uninformed
public
and
an
active
well-funded
animal
rights
movement.
The
farm
press
coverage
of
the
animal
rights
move-
ment
also
differs
from
that
of
the
mainstream
press
in
that
articles
and
editorials
report
the
frames,
or
at
least
the
less
radical
frames,
of
the
animal
rights
movement.
As
suggested
by
the
research
on
the
mainstream
press,
the
farm
press
gave
fuller
coverage
to
the
more
moderate
claims
and
largely
ignored
the
more
extended
philo-
sophical
reasoning
behind
these
claims.
The
farm
press
rarely
reported
the
animal
right
movements'
positions
without
immediate
counters
and
rarely
examining
their
positions
for
merit.
31
The
manner
in
which
the
farm
press
frames
both
animal
rights
activists
and
the
general
public
is
quite
different
from
the
way
that
the
mainstream
press
has
been
characterized
as
portraying
alternative
movements.
The
farm
press
certainly
includes
articles
that
trivialize
and
ridicule
animal
rights
advocates
and
their
move-
ment,
frequently
labels
animal
activists
as
a
menace,
and
consistently
reports
animal
activists
vandalizing
farm
buildings.
However,
the
farm
press
also
reports
that
activist
groups
are
large,
organized,
and
well-funded
and
certain
articles
also
describe
animal
activists
as
dedi-
cated,
well-meaning,
middle-class
people
with
a
sincere
interest
in
animals'
well-being.
That
is,
the
farm
press
does
not
report
these
groups
as
safely
contained
within
the
social
structure.
In
fact,
the
story
that
agriculture
presents
about
animal
rights
groups
and
the
general
public
is
one
in
which
the
animal
rights
advocates
could
greatly
influence
legislation,
public
support
for
agricul-
ture,
and
consumer
eating
habits.
Hence,
the
farm
press
48
Reisner:
An
Activist
Press
coverage
sets
up
a
situation
in
which
animal
advocates
should
not
be
ignored,
that
is,
a
situation
that
calls
for
agriculture
to
mobilize.
And
the
farm
press's
coverage
includes
a
series
of
calls
to
agri-industry,
groups,
and
individuals
to
oppose
animal
rights
advocates.
Unlike
the
mainstream
press,
the
agricultural
press
does
not
enclose
the
world
in
finished
blocks,
but
encourages
reader
involvement.
It
is
more
difficult
to
trace
the
factors
responsible
for
the
agricultural
press's
response,
that
is,
whether
the
overall
advocacy
of
the
agricultural
press
is
due
to
the
routines
of
news
gathering
(which
sources
are
covered),
social-psychological
factors
(a
background
in
agricul-
ture
and
education
or
training
in
communications),
audi-
ence
reaction,
or
structural/economic
factors
(pressure
from
advertisers
and
agri-business).
Certainly
the
sources
differed
in
the
degree
of
negative
response,
with
industry
spokespeople
the
most
consistently
negative.
However,
since
the
agricultural
press's
editorials
also
displayed
a
high
degree
of
hostility
to
the
animal
rights
movement,
the
influence
of
sources
alone
does
not
explain
the
negative
response.
Additionally
the
type
of
story
(story
format)
also
played
a
role,
with
issue,
editorial,
and
position
pieces
being
the
most
consistently
negative,
and
government
event
stories,
research,
production
reports
(including
trade
shows
and
symposiums),
and
announce-
ments
of
industry
meetings
the
most
neutral.
Most
agricultural
journalists
have
an
agricultural
background,
and
a
good
many
associate
more
with
people
in
agriculture
than
they
do
with
people
in
journalism,
indicating
a
high
degree
of
affinity
with
agriculture
(Reisner,
1991).
Since
people
with
a
background
in
agriculture
tend
to
be
generally
supportive
of
agriculture
on
a
variety
of
production-related
issues
and
tend
to
retain
this
support
over
time,
32
social
and
psychological
factors
in
the
agricultural
press's
background
may
also
play
some
role
in
the
farm
magazines'
stance.
University
education,
however,
is
not
obviously
a
factor.
While
agricultural
communicators
have
roughly
the
same
com-
munications
training
as
general
magazine
and
newspa-
per
reporters,
the
agricultural
press's
coverage
of
animal
rights
does
not
follow
the
same
pattern
as
the
general
press's
coverage
of
social
movements.
33
However,
while
the
precise
factors
that
influence
the
press's
coverage
of
animal
rights
need
more
study,
there
is
no
doubt
that
the
agricultural
press
has
acted
more
as
an
industry
spokesperson
than
as
a
neutral
and
balanced
press.
In
some
ways,
the
farm
press's
reaction
has
been
admirable.
Agriculture
certainly
needs
to
explain
its
position
and
to
mobilize
itself.
To
assist
agriculture
in
this
way
is
an
important
and
viable
role
for
the
farm
press.
Nevertheless,
several
questions
remain
concerning
how
the
agricultural
press
has
developed
animal
rights
as
an
issue
of
concern
to
agriculture.
First,
it
is
ethically
questionable
at
best
for
agriculture
to
use
different
defenses
to
different
groups,
as
in
the
Massachusetts
Farm
Bureau's
campaign
against
the
animal
welfare
bill.
The
agricultural
press
has
not
pointed
out
the
question-
ableness
of
justifying
continued
support
for
agriculture
as
a
way
of
life
when
discussing
animal
rights
issues
to
outside
groups
while
using
different
arguments
inter-
nally.
In
fact,
the
press
reported
this
tactic
in
supportive
terms.
Second,
while
the
agricultural
press's
coverage
of
the
animal
rights
movement
includes
moderate
claims—
agriculture
and
animal
advocates
should
work
together
the
description
of
animal
rights
advocates
was
not
of
individuals
that
could
be
worked
with.
Third,
the
farm
press
generally
ignores
that
farmers
are
not
a
cohesive
group
and
that
different
groups
of
farmers,
such
as
small
farmers,
might
find,
as
in
Europe,
that
working
with
animal
welfare
groups
might
be
in
such
farmers'
inter-
ests.
While
there
were
a
few
editorials
and
articles
that
included
such
information,
agriculture
was
generally
portrayed
as
a
monolithic
group,
rather
than
as
a
collec-
tion
of
groups
with
different
interests
and
concerns.
The
agricultural
press
could
be
an
active
part
of
a
deeper
questioning
of
agriculture's
present
ethics
and
might
help
agriculture
to
develop
a
more
coherent
philo-
sophical
position;
that
is,
a
practical
ethic
suggesting
what
animal
needs
should
be
met
and
how
best
to
ensure
that
these
needs
are
adequately
supplied
on
farms.
How-
ever,
the
farm
press
has
not
taken
advantage
of
its
ability
to
help
agriculture
question
itself
and
its
current
farming
practices.
Agriculture
should
take
a
more
intense
and
objective
look
at
the
changes
in
agriculture
in
the
last
half
century.
This
is
not
to
say
that
any
one
agricultural
practice
or
system
is
wrong,
but
that
there
is
always
a
possibility
of
improving.
One
way
to
view
the
sustain-
able
agriculture
movement,
for
example,
is
that
the
movement
represents
agriculture's
attempt
to
reexamine
where
it
is
and
where
it
should
be
going.
Animal
agricul-
ture
might
also
benefit
from
looking
more
closely
at
itself,
both
philosophically
and
practically.
To
illustrate
the
latter,
there
are
no
articles
that
do
detailed
cost
analyses
of
adopting
animal
welfare
practices
on
a
prac-
tice-by-practice
basis.
Farm
magazines
could
be
an
ac-
tive
part
of
making
a
serious
attempt
to
understand
the
costs
and
benefits
of
animal
rights
movements'
sugges-
tions.
Not
incidentally,
this
information
would
also
be
useful
in
public
discourse
with
legislators,
the
public,
and
with
animal
rights
activists.
Furthermore,
farm
maga-
zines
should
take
a
closer
look
at
farmers
to
find
out
how
farmers
react
to
animal
rights
advocates,
what
changes
in
current
practices
farmers
would
be
willing
to
accept,
and
under
what
conditions
they
would
be
willing
to
accept
such
changes.
These
are,
however,
not
criticisms
aimed
exclusively
at
agricultural
magazines.
While
agricul-
tural
magazines
write
their
own
editorials
and
gather
information,
those
sectors
of
agriculture
that
routinely
supply
information
to
farmers,
such
as
university
profes-
sors
and
commodity
groups,
should
also
be
examining
these
issues
closely
and
in
a
far
less
negative
manner
than
they
have
in
the
past.
49
AGRICULTURE
AND
HUMAN
VALUES
-
SPRING
1992
Notes
1.
The
author
wishes
to
thank
Richard
Haynes,
Jeff
McMahan,
Gerry
Walter,
Suzanne
Wilson
and
sev-
eral
reviewers
for
helpful
comments
on
this
paper.
The
project
was
partially
supported
by
the
Program
for
the
Study
of
Cultural
Values,
The
College
of
Agriculture
Experimental
Station,
and
a
grant
from
the
Vice-Chancellor's
Office.
2.
The
animal
rights
movement
has
variously
been
called
the
animal
rights
movement
and
the
animal
welfare
movement.
While
some
articles
attempt
to
differentiate
between
animal
welfare
and
animal
rights
as
move-
ments,
often
these
terms
are
used
interchangeably.
For
example,
the
farm
press
sometimes
refers
to
the
Hu-
mane
Society
as
an
animal
welfare
group
and
some-
times
as
an
animal
rights
group.
To
avoid
confusion,
this
article
will
use
the
term
'animal
welfare'
to
refer
to
the
more
moderate
groups,
'animal
liberationists'
to
refer
the
more
extreme
groups,
and
'animal
rights'
to
refer
to
the
movement
as
a
whole.
3.
Examples
of
earlier
challenges
to
the
livestock
indus-
try
include
consumer
health
movements
about
the
levels
of
cholesterol
and
fat
in
meat
and
eggs.
4.
The
majority
of
Americans
still
believe
that
farming
andrural
life
is
a
morally
superior
life-style
(Robbins,
1986).
5.
In
several
European
countries,
small-farm
advocates
have
formed
alliances
with
the
politically
powerful
animal
welfare
groups.
6.
For
example,
the
Greenham
Common
Women's
Peace
Camp
(an
extended
nuclear
protest
action)
shifted
the
rhetoric
of
power
from
institutions
(government
and
established
authorities)
to
the
personal
(women'
s
power
to
put
their
bodies
"on
the
line"),
shifted
the
definition
of
valid
evidence
from
science
to
"the
validity
of
personal
experience,
feelings
and
ideas"
(Blain,
1989,
p.
208),
and
shifted
the
emphasis
of
ethical/moral
authority
from
accepting
legalized
structures
to
pro-
tecting
future
generations
(Blain,
1989,
p.
5).
7.
This
paper
uses
a
narrow
definition
of
countermove-
ments,
that
is,
movements
that
directly
react
to
an
established
movement.
8.
The
vast
majority
of
these
studies
have
concentrated
on
newspaper
and
television
coverage,
not
magazine
report-
ing
(Altheide,
1974;
Cohen
and
Young,
1981;
Epstein,
1973;
Fishman,
1980;
Gans,
1979;
Tuchman,
1978).
9.
Journalists'
background
and
social
environment,
how-
ever,
are
often
described
as
biasing
reporters
and
editors,
in
that
journalists
cover
stories
from
the
social
perspective
of
the
groups
with
which
they
normally
associate.
Hence,
if
journalists
socialize
with
powerful
white
men,
the
news
will
tend
to
reflect
the
interests
of
that
group
(Altheide,
1974;
Gans,
1979).
In
fact,
the
common
newsroom
prac-
tice
of
not
allowing
journalists
to
cover
stories
or
beats
in
which
journalists
have
a
personal
interest
or
involvement
is
an
acknowledgment
of
the
potential
power
of
outside
experience
to
affect
news
judg-
ment
(Meyer,
1987).
10.
Source-centered
theories
tend
to
argue
that
sources,
more
than
reporters,
frame
the
nature
of
news
cov-
erage
(Altheide,
1985;
Herman,
1982;
Herman
and
Chomsky,
1988;
Hall,
1972;
Sigal,
1973;
van
Dijk,
1988a,
1988b).
For
example,
organization
theorists
argue
that
limited
resources
require
that
news
orga-
nizations
make
most
efficient
use
of
their
journal-
ists.
This
demands
in
turn
that
journalists
cover
events
and
bureaucracies
most
likely
to
have
a
routine,
steady
supply
of
news.
Since
the
bureaucra-
cies
that
are
most
likely
to
have
this
steady
supply
are
also
the
most
powerful
organizations
in
society,
news
organizations
are
most
likely
to
present
the
point-of-view
of
the
most
dominant
groups
in
soci-
ety
(Tuchman,
1978;
Epstein,
1973).
Additionally,
the
sources
that
journalist
use
are
a
powerful
influ-
ence
in
shaping
stories
(Molotch
and
Lester,
1975)
because
journalists
often
uncritically
adopt
the
lan-
guage
and
position
of
their
news
sources
in
writing
stories
(Chang,
1988;
Connell,
1980).
When
jour-
nalists
and
sources
are
regularly
in
contact,
journal-
ists
will
also
adopt
the
sources'
preferred
framing
of
events,
including
what
are
considered
important
events
(Fishman
1980,
1981,
1982).
Hence,
if
sources
frame
opposition
groups
as
trivial,
deviant,
and
undesirable,
the
press
will
faithfully
replicate
this
frame
in
their
stories.
11.
Not
only
does
the
press
concentrate
on
events,
but
it
will
often
highlight
conflict,
even
if
doing
so
is
a
distortion
of
the
overall
activity
(Halloran
et
al.,
1970;
Lang
and
Lang,
1968).
12.
Again,
the
environmental
movement
may
be
an
exception
(Strodthoff
et
al.,
1985).
13.
Journalistic-centered
arguments
primarily
concentrate
on
journalists'
professional
news
judgment,
but
also
include
such
factors
as
background
and
social
environ-
ment.
Those
descriptions
emphasizing
professional-
ism
stress
that
journalists'
education
trains
reporters
to
produce
objective
and
unbiased
account
of
news
(Gans,
1979;
Merrill,
1987;
Mencher,
1989).
14.
This
particular
publication
changes
its
title
yearly
to
reflect
the
current
date.
Hence,
the
titles
for
the
years
1989
and
1990
are
Pork
1989
and
Pork
1990
respectively.
15.
This
magazine
is
organization-specific,
a
publication
of
the
Illinois
Beef
Association.
16.
One
article,
written
by
an
animal
rights
activist,
argued
that
agricultural
researchers
and
government,
who
for-
merly
played
an
insignificant
role
in
influencing
agri-
culture,
have
in
the
past
fifty
years
transformed
farming
into
its
current
corporate
mold,
a
shape
that
is
diametri-
cally
opposed
to
the
agrarian
ideal.
17.
This
latter
is
not
strictly
an
ethical
claim,
but
is
interesting
in
terms
of
the
animal
rights
movement's
potential
to
form
linkages
with
various
consumer
interest
and
health
groups.
18.
Animal
rights
activists
often
made
the
explicit
con-
50
Reisner:
An
Activist
Press
trast
between
modern
factory
farming
and
the
ideal-
ized
farming
found
in
primary
school
textbooks,
which
is
a
heavily
romanticized
version
of
agricul-
ture
(See,
for
example,
the
title
of
Coats,
1989).
However,
such
groups
as
the
Humane
Society
made
different
claims,
arguing
that
animal
comfort
should
be
a
significant
part
of
new
equipment
design
and
implementation.
They
do
not
necessarily
argue
for
a
return
to
farming
of
previous
decades,
nor
do
they
deny
the
farmer's
need
to
make
a
reasonable
profit.
19.
Animal
advocates
were
reported
as
specifically
dis-
agreeing
with
this
claim.
20.
There
are
some
attempts
to
justify
that
animals
do
not
have
rights,
although
these
are
quite
rare.
For
example,
one
editorial
bases
the
superiority
of
humans
over
animals
on
Genesis,
specifically
the
passage
that
states
that
God
gave
man
dominion
over
animals.
21.
The
neutral
articles
were
predominantly
research
re-
ports,
but
also
included
announcements
of
meetings,
descriptions
of
public
opinion
polls,
symposia,
trade
conferences
and
shows,
and
descriptions
of
various
farmers
using
high-comfort
animal
production
sys-
tems.
Of
the
60
articles
of
these
types,
78%
were
neutral.
Only
letters
and
production
pieces
included
a
significant
percent
of
articles
positive
to
animal
rights
(25%)
in
which
the
major
source
or
writer
was
from
agriculture.
Articles
about
production
advances
often
credited
the
animal
rights
movement
for
increased
concern
about
animal
comfort.
Most
production
ar-
ticles
that
included
some
positive
assessment
of
animal
rights
described
systems
that
increased
the
animal's
comfort,
while
also
increasing
productivity
(and/or
decreased
labor)
and
profitability.
22.
Most
stories
involving
government
sources
were
neutral
event/report
stories
that
tracked
the
progress
of
various
bills.
Professors
were
heavily
quoted
in
issue
articles,
position
statements,
and
articles
about
research
findings
and
guidelines.
The
articles
deal-
ing
with
research
fmdings
account
for
a
large
num-
ber
of
the
neutral
articles.
With
those
removed,
professors
as
well
were
primarily
negative
about
animal
advocates,
although
not
to
the
same
degree
as
industry
spokespeople.
23.
The
farm
press's
characterizations
of
animal
activists
includes
"far
out"
groups:
radical
environmental-
ists,
lesbians,
people
with
health-related
problems,
vandals,
name-callers,
lecture-circuit
writers,
phi-
losophers,
and
lawyers,
among
others.
24.
A
core
argument
of
Singer's,
accepted
by
the
more
moderate
Fox,
is
that
one
relatively
valid
form
of
evidence
is
to
put
oneself
in
the
place
of
the
animal.
That
is,
if
a
situation
is
such
that
a
human
would
object
to
a
particular
practice
because
of
its
inher-
ently
painful
nature,
then
that
practice
is,
at
least,
questionable,
but
more
probably
objectionable.
Fox,
while
repeatedly
stating
that
farmers
have
the
right
to
survive
economically
and
that
research
is
impor-
tant
to
determine
animal
welfare,
argues
that
profit-
ability
is
only
one
measure
of
an
animal's
welfare
and
that
one
way
to
look
at
animal
comfort
is
to
put
oneself
in
the
animal's
place.
Agriculture,
on
the
other
hand,
primarily
accepts
research.
The
need
for
research
is
a
common
theme
in
many
articles
and
the
farm
press
articles
as
a
whole
unquestioningly
ac-
cept
claims
based
on
research.
Productivity
and
efficiency
(and
hence
profitability)
are
also
pre-
sented
as
basic
measures
of
animal
welfare.
25.
These
group
are
portrayed
as
responsible
for
vandal-
ism
on
farms
and
in
research
laboratories.
26.
The
specific
sets
of
concerns
about
animal
welfare
legislation
were
that
legislation
would
increase
costs,
be
too
inflexible,
and
could
have
a
devastating
effect
on
American
food
production.
27.
The
farm
press
articles
also
leave
a
strong
impression
that
agriculture
is
not
only
alone
but
unappreciated.
28.
Nearly
half
of
the
claims
are
fairly
general,
including
that
agriculture
should
work
together,
should
listen
to
welfarists,
should
tell
a
positive
story,
and
should
muster
support
for
its
side.
The
other
half
of
the
mobilizing
claims
list
relatively
specific
actions
that
individuals
should
take:
send
letters
to
congress,
join
humane
societies,
and
organize
a
farm
panel
responsible
for
responding
to
animal
rights.
29.
Communication
scholars,
and
scholars
from
other
related
fields,
use
the
term
"story"
slightly
differ-
ently
than
that
of
popular
usage.
"Story"
simply
implies
a
coherent
narrative,
carrying
no
necessary
connotation
of
being
either
true
or
false:
The
expla-
nation
of
polio
disease
transmission
is
just
as
much
a
story
as
Little
Red
Riding
Hood.
30.
For
example,
a
picture
sequence
of
cattle
dehorning,
with
a
visually
dramatic
scene
of
blood
spurting
from
an
animal,
would
be
interpreted
as
cruel,
using
the
evidence
base
of
emotionalism
or
the
principle
of
putting
oneself
in
the
place
of
the
animal,
even
through
dehorning
does
in
fact
protect
the
animal
and
the
producer
from
injury.
31.
A
fairly
clear
example
of
this
relates
to
discussions
of
how
animal
welfare
could
be
measured.
Since
one
of
the
animal
rights'
positions
is
that
profitability
and
productivity
cannot
be
guides
to
welfare,
and
agricul-
turalists
will
not
accept
such
thought-experiments
as
substituting
human
reactions
for
those
of
animals,
the
two
sides
are
fumly
opposed.
Research,
however,
is
a
separate
issue,
with
possibilities
of
compromise
and
negotiation
on
the
use
and
acceptability
of
research-
guided
alterations
in
current
production
practices.
Research
is
acceptable
to
both
moderate
activists
and
agriculturalists,
although
how
exactly
to
measure
ani-
mal
welfare
without
using
profitability
and
productiv-
ity
as
a
guide
is
questionable.
32.
See,
for
example,
Busch
and
Lacy
(1983)
for
scien-
tists
and
Walter
and
Reisner
(1990)
for
students.
33.
The
effects
of
the
audience
are
difficult
to
extract.
51
AGRICULTURE
AND
HUMAN
VALUES
-
SPRING
1992
While
articles
from
farmers
are
generally
more
favorable
than
other
types
of
articles,
the
two
main
types
of
articles
that
use
fanners
as
sources
are
production
pieces
and
letters.
Production
pieces
tend
to
be
positive
when
they
feature
systems
that
increase
animal
comfort
while
retaining
high
profits
and
productivity.
Since
editors
tend
to
select
letters
that
reflect
a
range
of
opinions,
the
high
number
of
letters
positive
to
animal
rights
might
reflect
editors'
selection
processes
rather
than
audience
response.
References
Aiken,
William
H.
1984.
"Ethical
Issues
in
Agriculture."
In
Earthbound
(ed.),
Tom
Regan.
Philadelphia:
Temple
University
Press,
247-288.
Altheide,
D.
L.
1985.
"Impact
of
Format
and
Ideology
on
TV
News
Coverage
of
Iran."
Journalism
Quarterly
62:346-351.
.1974.
Creating
Reality:
How
7V
News
Dis-
torts
Events.
Beverly
Hills,
CA:
Sage
Publications.
Blain,.
Michael.
1989.
"Power
and
Practice
in
Peace
Movement
Discourse."
Research
in
Social
Move-
ments,
Conflict
and
Change
Vol.
11,
197-218.
Busch,
Lawrence,
and
William
B.
I
acy.
1983.
Science,
Agriculture,
and
the
Politics
of
Research.
Boulder,
CO:
Westview
Press.
Chang,
Tsan-Kuo.
1988.
"The
News
and
U.S.-China
Policy:
Symbols
in
Newspapers
and
Documents."
Journalism
Quarterly
65:320-327.
Coats,
C.
David.
1989.
Old
MacDonald'
s
Factory
Farm:
The
Myth
of
the
Traditional
Farm
and
the
Shocking
Truth
About
Animal
Suffering
in
Today's
Agribusiness.
New
York:
Continuum.
Cohen,
Stanley,
and
Jock
Young,
eds.
1981.
The
Manu-
facturing
of
News:
Social
Problems,
Deviance,
and
the
Mass
Media.
2nd
ed.,
London:
Constable.
Connell,
Ian.
1980.
"Television
News
and
the
Social
Contract."
In
Culture,
Media,
Language,
(eds.),
Stuart
Hall,
Dorothy
Hobson,
Andrew
Lowe,
and
Paul
Willis.
London:
Hutchinson
&
Co.,
139-156.
Donnelley,
Strachan
and
Kathleen
Nolan.
1990.
"Special
Supplement
Section
I.
Ethical
Theory
and
the
Moral
Status
of
Animals."
Hastings
Center
Report.
20:4-8.
Edelman,
Murray.
1964.
Politics
as
Symbolic
Action.
New
York:
Academic
Press.
Epstein,
Edward
J.
1973.
News
from
Nowhere:
Televi-
sion
and
the
News.
New
York:
Vintage
Books.
Fishman,
Mark.
1982.
"News
and
Nonevents:
Making
the
Visible
Invisible."
In
Individuals
in
Mass
Media
Organizations:
Creativity
and
Constraint
Vol.
10
(eds.),
James
S.
Ettema
and
D.
Charles
Whitney,
219-240.
Beverly
Hills,
CA:
Sage
Publications.
.
1981.
"Police
News:
Constructing
an
Image
of
Crime."
Urban
Life,
9:371-394.
.
1980.
Manufacturing
the
News.
Austin:
University
of
Texas
Press.
Gans,
Herbert
J.
1979.
Deciding
What's
News:
A
Study
ofCBSEvening
News,NBCNightlyNews,Newsweek,
and
Time.
New
York:
Vintage
Books.
Gitlin,
Tod.
1980.
The
Whole
World
is
Watching.
Berke-
ley:
University
of
California
Press.
Glasgow
University
Media
Group.
1982.
Really
Bad
News.
London:
Writers
and
Readers
Publishing
Cooperative
Society
Ltd.
.
1976.
Bad
News.
London:
Routledge
and
Kegan
Paul.
Hall,
Stuart.
1972.
"The
Determinations
of
News
Photo-
graphs."
Working
Papers
in
Cultural
Studies
3:53-87.
Hall,
Stuart,
Ian
Connell,
and
Lidia
Curti.
1977.
"The
`Unity'
of
Current
Affairs
Television."
Working
Papers
in
Cultural
Studies
9:51-94.
Hall,
Stuart,
Chas
Chritcher,
TonyJefferson,
John
Clarke,
and
Brian
Roberts.
1981.
"The
Social
Production
of
Mugging:
Mugging
in
the
News."
In
The
Manufac-
ture
of
News:
Social
Problems,
Deviance
and
the
Mass
Media
2nd
rev.
ed.
(eds.),
Stanley
Cohen
and
Jock
Young,
London:
Constable,
335-367.
Halloran,
James
D.,
Philip
Elliott,
and
Graham
Murdock.
1970.
Demonstrations
and
Communication:
A
Case
Study.
Harmondsworth:
Penguin.
Herman,
Edward
S.
1982.
The
Real
Terror
Network.
Boston:
South
End
Press.
Herman,
Edward
S.
and
Noam
Chomsky.
1988.
Manu-
facturing
Consent:
The
Political
Economy
of
the
Mass
Media.
New
York:
Pantheon
Books.
Jensen,
Klaus
B.
1987.
"News
as
Ideology:
Economic
Statistics
and
Political
Ritual
in
Television
Network
News."
Journal
of
Communication
37:8-27.
Lang,
Kurt
and
Gladys
E.
Lang.
1968.
Politics
and
Television.
Chicago:
Quadrangle
Books.
McAdam,
Doug,
John
D.
McCarthy,
and
Mayer
N.
Zald.
1988.
"Social
Movements."
In
Handbook
of
Sociol-
ogy
(ed.),
Neil
J.
Smelser.
Beverly
Hills:
Sage
Pub-
lications,
695-737.
Marx,
Karl.
1963.
The
Eighteenth
Brumaire
of
Louis
Bonaparte.
New
York:
International
Publishers.
Mason,
Jim
and
Peter
Singer.
1980.
Animal
Factories.
New
York:
Crown
Publishers,
Inc.
Mencher,
Melvin.
1989.
Basic
News
Writing.
3rd
ed.,
Dubuque,
IA:
Wm.
C.
Brown
Publishers.
Merrill,
John
C.1987.
"Good
Reporting
can
be
a
Solution
to
Ethics
Problem."
Journalism
Educator
42:27-29.
Meyer,
Philip.
1987.
Ethical
Journalism.
New
York:
Longman.
Miliband,
Ralph.
1969.
The
State
in
Capitalist
Society.
London:
Basic
Books.
Molotch,Harvey
andMarilynLester.1975."AcoidentalNews:
The
Great
Oil
Spill
as
Local
Occunesz
and
National
Event."American
Journal
of
Sociology
81:235-260.
Regan,
Tom.
1983.
The
Case
for
Animal
Rights.
Berke-
ley,
CA:
University
of
California
Press.
Reisner,
Ann.
1991.
"Comparing
Ethical
Concerns
of
Agricultural
and
General
Journalists."
Journal
of
Applied
Communications
75:42-48.
.1990a.
"Course
Work
Offered
in
Agricul-
52
Reisner:
An
Activist
Press
tural
Communications
Programs."
Journal
of
Ap-
plied
Communications
74:18-25.
.1990b.
"An
Overview
of
Agricultural
Com-
munications
Programs
and
Curricula."
Journal
of
Applied
Communications
74:8-17.
.1988.
Agricultural
Journalists
Ethics
Sur-
vey.
Unpublished
data.
University
of
Illinois
at
Urbana-Champaign.
Robbins,
Williams.
February
25,1986.
"Surge
in
Sympathy
for
FarrnerFound:
Half
of
Public
Supports
Rise
in
U.S.
Aid,
Poll
Indicates
(Poll
Finds
Most
Americans
Cling
to
Ideal
of
Farm
Life)."
New
York
Times
Al,
A22.
Rubin,
David
M.,
and
Constance
Cummings.
1989.
"Nuclear
War
and
Its
Consequences
on
Television
News."
Journal
of
Communication
39:39-58.
Shoemaker,
Pam.
1982.
"The
Perceived
Legitimacy
of
Deviant
Political
Groups:
Two
Experiments
on
Media
Effects."
Communication
Research
9:249-286.
S
igal,
Leon
V.
1973.
Reporters
and
Officials:
The
Orga-
nization
and
Politics
of
Newsmaking.
Lexington,
MA:
D.C.
Heath.
Singer,
Peter.
1990.
Animal
Liberation.
New
York:
Ran-
dom
House.
.
1979.
Practical
Ethics.
London:
Cam-
bridge
University
Press.
Snow,
David
A.,
E.
B
urke
Rochford,
Jr.,
Steven
K.
Worden,
and
Robert
D.
Benford.
1986.
"Frame
Alignment
Pro-
cesses,
Nlicromobilization,
and
Movement
Participa-
tion."
American
Sociological
Review
51:464-481.
Strodthoff,
Glenn
G.,
Robert
P.
Hawkins,
and
A.
Clay
Schoenfeld.
1985.
"Media
Roles
in
a
Social
Move-
ment:
A
Model
of
Ideology
Diffusion."
Journal
of
Communication
35:134-153.
Thrift,
Ralph
R.,
Jr.
1977.
"How
Chain
Ownership
Af-
fects
Editorial
Vigor
of
Newspapers."
Journalism
Quarterly
54:327-331.
Tuchman,
Gaye.
1978.
Making
News:
A
Study
in
the
Construction
of
Reality.
New
York:
The
Free
Press.
Walter,
Gerry
and
Ann
Reisner.
1990.
"Survey
Finds
Critical
Development
Gaps
in
Opinion
Formation
and
Values
Clarification
on
Soil
Conservation
by
Agricultural
Freshmen."NACTA
Journal
34:50-53.
van
Dijk,
Teun
A.
1988a.
"Semantics
of
a
Press
Panic:
The
Tamil
'Invasion.'"
European
Journal
of
Com-
munication
3:167-187.
van
Dijk,
Teun.
1988b.
News
as
Discourse.
Hillsdale,
NJ:
Lawrence
Erlbaum
Associates,
Publications.
Permaculture
Workshop
An
Intensive
workshop
in
Permaculture
Design
will
be
held
in
Jacksonville,
Florida
October
30
to
November
8,
1992.
DESIGNING
A
SUSTAINABLE
HOMESTEAD
The
workshop
fee
in
$400.
For
information
write
Permaculture
7781
Lenox
Ave
Jacksonville,
FL
32221
904-781-9249
(between
9
a.m.
and
9
p.m.
)
Dan
Hemenway,
editor
of
The
International
Permaculture
Solutions
Journal
will
conduct
a
three-week
Permaculture
Design
Course
March
2
through
20,
1993
in
Jacksonville,
Florida
The
registration
fee
is
$600.
For
information
contact
the
above
address.
Third
World
Courses
Aprovecho
Institute
will
conduct
courses
in
Sustainable
Development
for
the
Third
World
August
23
through
September
5
Tlaxcala
and
Oaxaca,
Mexico
($950
registration
fee)
and
November
15-29
Salvador,
Brazil.
($1100
registration
fee)
Fees
include
tuition,
meals
and
accommodations,
and
field
trips,
but
not
travel
to
and
from
course
location.
Write
Aprovecho
Institute,
80578
Hazelton
Road,
Cottage
Grove,
OR
97420.
Phone
503-942-9434
(early
mornings)
53