Which comes first- the animals, the media or the public expectation?

Deb Kelly

^{Manager, Animal Welfare Unit, Department for Environment and Heritage SA
Chair, Wild Animals Working Group, Australian Animal Welfare Strategy.}

• Abstract
• Introduction
• The Media
  
  • The Public
  • The Government
  • So, which comes first?
  • Endearing factors
    
  
  

Abstract

Our democracy relies on three fundamental factors:

• freedom of the press;
• governments being accountable to the public to ensure that the needs and wishes of the people are met; and 
• government responsibility to strive for the best welfare and conservation outcomes possible in any given set of circumstances.
  

Sometimes, the media adopts a position based on its interpretation of a situation; the public accepts that position as truth sometimes forcing the government to abide by popular opinion rather than the best scientific advice provided to it. Most welfare and conservation issues are complex and do not have easy solutions so when the media provides a simple solution the public listens without consideration of the evidence on which is based. This paper explores the nexus between government, media, the public and implications of this relationship on achieving the best outcomes for animals on both an individual and species basis.

Introduction

“Don’t blame us, don’t trust us, be glad the press is free”.
They were the words of journalist Frank Devine as recorded in the Australian Newspaper on 9 September 2005.

There is a mutual dependence between the public, media and government. They need each other, but there is underlying culture of distrust. People continually say that “You can’t believe everything you read in the papers”, yet they do. People elect their governments but often do not trust them. The government needs the media to report to the electorate on the good things it does but is unhappy if the report is critical or not as glowing as the government would wish. And clearly, any government need the support of the people who elect it. The media needs government and the people as source of stories and to use its services but is often distrustful of both. Thus there is an uncomfortable alliance between the three, they need each other but often don’t like each other very much. As Frank Devine intimated, there is no blame involved, it is nobody’s fault - it is not that any one group is wrong or corrupt; it is simply that all are busy and see things from the perspective and of their own agenda which is often not the same as the others.

The Media

The media are people who are trying to do a job. In general, they are honest people trying to earn a living. Journalists are not experts on every story they cover. They spend between a few minutes and a few hours learning the subject on which they are reporting. Often they do not understand the background, the issue, the implications and why certain decisions have been made and they are required to report in simple non-technical language – which is often difficult even for experts in any particular field. Often misleading or inaccurate stories are not out of malice but simply because the reporter did not understand the issue. Once the story is out there, it cannot be withdrawn. Whatever the journalist says, the public will usually believe it. Once a person forms an opinion, they are very reluctant to change it, even in the face of solid evidence that they are wrong. For example, if most people were presented with irrefutable evidence that petrol was under-priced, they would not change their minds but would simply decide that the irrefutable evidence was wrong! The media and the government are the same. Once either has established their position on an issue they are very reluctant to publicly admit that they were wrong.

The media has a very difficult duel role – to inform and to entertain. To inform is relatively easy, but as any teacher or university lecturer will tell you, to be entertaining at the same time is difficult. Therefore, they will tend to interview extreme or exaggerated views. They also work to very tight timelines, so will always interview those who respond quickly. This is a huge disadvantage to governments and, to a lesser degree, academics. A government spokesperson will always be constrained by:

• the truth, they cannot exaggerate or lie;
• policy, they cannot speak against the policy of the government of the day;
• the approval process, they cannot speak on behalf of government without approval so tend to miss deadlines and in addition, they are employed for their technical or managerial skills, not for their media acumen so tend to be dry and boring. They can inform but, on the whole are not good at entertainment.
  
  

To report a story, a journalist must have an angle and a hook. An “angle” usually requires presenting some sort of an opinion on the issue, whether it is implicit or explicit. Media coverage on policy matters is very rarely neutral. They must also have a “hook” – something that captures the interest of the reader, viewer, or listener. Therefore, stories will tend to be sensationalized or distorted in some way and they will always interview someone who gives them the hook and anchor, and that person often is not from the government or an academic expert in the field. The media must fill the information and entertainment void – and do it well.

As an example of the “hook and anchor”, on 23 May 2008, the ABC reported that Lou Henderson had perfected the cloning of a dog and that the process was to be done commercially for people whose desexed pet had died. The final sentences of the report read:

“His biotechnology company BioArts has been granted the sole international licence to clone cats, dogs and endangered species. But the firm has partnered with a team in South Korea headed by the disgraced scientist, Hwang Woo-suk. He was forced to resign from Seoul University when it was revealed that female researchers donated their own eggs to his cloning project. Mr Hawthorne acknowledges the association is controversial, but he says Dr Hwang is the best dog cloner in the world.”

Immediately, the reader is in some doubt about both the technology and the company, even though the report is absolutely factual. The article is entitled “Biotech firm offers to clone your dog”. It is immediately personal and addressed to the reader – almost everyone loves their dog and wants it to live forever - so would be interested in this article. Thus the story has its “hook”, the reason to read it.

The public

People are busy. Most members of the public, even those with a genuine interest in any topic, whether it is animal welfare, or conservation, human rights or anything else, rely on the media for information on which they form their opinions. Very few read journals, validate the source of the media article, research the issue thoroughly or seek objective information. Instead their knowledge base is primarily sourced on the “news headlines” on radio and television or a quick skim of the paper or internet over the morning cup of coffee.

The Government

The end result of this is that governments have to abide by the wishes of a community who form their opinion on the basis of media reports and often not much else. For significant issues, the government seeks expert advice from committees, consultants or advisors – the people who actually do research and understand the issues. Their advice is based on the best objective information they can find. It is not surprising then, that the advice the experts provide can be very different to the opinion of the broad electorate. That puts governments in a difficult position – do they follow the advice of the experts, or the wishes of the public?

So, which comes first?

The animal is there first, but whether the media and the public feel empathetic towards the individual or species depends on its media image.

The public care about koalas, giant pandas, orangutans and seals but sharks, snakes, rats and skunks do not elicit the same level of media coverage or public concern. There seem to be certain factors that will elicit this concern and most of them come back to whether or not the animal is photogenic or whether it is seen to symbolise something (whether it be a “good” thing or a “bad” thing). So, what makes an animal endearing?

Endearing factors

People and media are more likely to empathise with an animal if either:

• it shares the characteristics of a human baby; or
• it is symbolic of something that is important to them.
  

Sharing the characteristics of a baby

The most basic human instinct is to protect a human baby. So what are the distinctive features of a baby that appeal to us?

• They are “round” i.e. have a round face, big round eyes, a round body
• They are soft
• They are harmless
• They are vulnerable
• They have facial expressions
• They are intelligent
• They have a large head relative to their body size
• They are small;
• And, well, they are babies.
  

The more of these features an animal has, the greater its public and media appeal.

Be intelligent

Have a large head, relative to their body size

Be small

And, well, just be a baby.