Ethical Issues Concerning the Public Viewing of Media Broadcasts of Animal Cruelty

Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 28 (4):635-645 (2015)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

Undercover filming is a method commonly used by animal activist groups to expose animal cruelty and it is important to consider the effects of publically releasing video footage of cruel practices on the viewers’ mental health. Previously, we reported that members of the Australian public were emotionally distressed soon after viewing media broadcasts of cruelty to Australian cattle exported for slaughter in Indonesia in 2011. To explore if there were any long term impacts from exposure to media on this issue, a self-selecting group of 15 people who were exposed to a documentary exposé of the cruelty were re-interviewed 12 months later. Nearly all recalled their strong initial reaction to the footage. Approximately one half of the respondents who initially had had a strong emotional reaction to the footage reported negative reactions that were still strong even after this period of time. They reported potential triggers for these feelings. Of the rest, some managed to internalise their feelings. Approximately one half of respondents were unaware of continued live export exposés, suggesting less prominent media coverage. Despite the aversion and repulsion reported after viewing the initial coverage, most respondents said they would choose to watch another broadcast of animal cruelty and nearly all supported undercover investigations as a means of revealing cruelty to animals. We conclude that many people viewing footage of cruelty to animals will have long term memory of this, but that they would prefer to be informed about the issues and not be protected from them

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 91,503

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Public Response to Media Coverage of Animal Cruelty.Catherine M. Tiplady, Deborah-Anne B. Walsh & Clive J. C. Phillips - 2013 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 26 (4):869-885.
Just a dog: understanding animal cruelty and ourselves.Arnold Arluke - 2006 - Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
Cruelty: A dispositional or a situational behavior in man?Mika Haritos-Fatouros - 2006 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 29 (3):230-230.
What's Wrong with Factory Farming?Jonny Anomaly - 2015 - Public Health Ethics 8 (3):246-254.
Popular media and animals.Claire Molloy - 2011 - New York: Palgrave-Macmillan.

Analytics

Added to PP
2015-05-20

Downloads
19 (#792,513)

6 months
3 (#968,143)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author's Profile

Cindy Phillips
University of Maryland, College Park

Citations of this work

How Farm Animal Welfare Issues are Framed in the Australian Media.Emily A. Buddle & Heather J. Bray - 2019 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 32 (3):357-376.

Add more citations

References found in this work

Public Response to Media Coverage of Animal Cruelty.Catherine M. Tiplady, Deborah-Anne B. Walsh & Clive J. C. Phillips - 2013 - Journal of Agricultural and Environmental Ethics 26 (4):869-885.
Popular media and animals.Claire Molloy - 2011 - New York: Palgrave-Macmillan.
Foreword.Bernard E. Rollin - 2018 - Food Ethics 1 (3):201-203.
Foreword.Bernard E. Rollin - 2003 - In Susan Jean Armstrong & Richard George Botzler (eds.), The animal ethics reader. New York: Routledge.

Add more references