Appropriating Liberation

Barry Kew

ABSTRACT

Media and nonhuman animal liberation is an under-researched area in the United Kingdom. If the most appropriate metaphor describing the media/social movement relationship is “dance,” then largely the media and animal liberation are dancing in the dark of neglect. Drawing upon different approaches to media and offering some notes toward animal liberation media studies, this article explores how, by engaging with the “established terms of the problematic at play,” animal liberationists and their claims are appropriated by speciesist ideology through exclusion and confusing and redefining maneuvers. A contextual analysis of its typical texts raises questions of the public interest role, due impartiality of media and, implicitly, of movement strategy.

… structures of ideological hegemony transform and incorporate dissident values, so as effectively to prevent the working through of their full implications. (Gray, 1976, p. 6)

There are two main aspects to the background of this article. Both are historical, but one establishes a theoretical context; the other, an events context. The former is provided or, more significantly, not provided by theories of media and social movements from which animal liberation has been traditionally excluded, all of them relating largely to human-human concerns . That is, when we attempt to relate animal liberation and media to established media theory, we find severe limitations. This is not the place to tackle that problem; suffice it to say that, nevertheless, this article is informed by structuralist, culturalist, and social constructionist approaches to media, leaning (perhaps unfashionably, though with reason) toward a transmission view of communication. The article draws mainly on a study of animal liberation and non-tabloid media in the United Kingdom conducted during the mid to late 1990s (Kew, 1999).

The events are provided, to some extent, by the slim amount of animal liberation literature devoted to broad media representation, which tends to agree that media coverage changed for the worse during the mid-1980s. Ryder (1989) tells us that through most of the 1970s the media gave considerable and, often, sympathetic coverage to the movement; but, by 1978, the novelty seemed to have worn off. There was a resurgence of interest as the movement took more direct action (from about 1980 with the advent of the short-lived Animal Liberation Leagues’mass break-ins and occupations). This interest, too, dried up around 1984-1985, about the time of the Mars Bars contamination episode. Following this period, the media increasingly ignored the militants or castigated them as terrorists (Ryder, 1989, pp. 287-288; Anonymous ,1986/1987; Anonymous, 1989; Baker, 1993, pp. 195-211; Harris, 1987; McIvor, 1988) who identify a broader media switch to exclusion, antagonism, and recoil from the movement’s abolitionism) . As Molotch (1979) asserts:

Because they are, by definition, alien from the routines of power and news, social movements must take recourse to extraordinary techniques to gain coverage…. The use of such techniques runs a high risk that illegitimacy and/or incompetence among the activists will be documented….When the media perceive the movements as nevertheless gaining strength through coverage, this coverage can be curtailed…. (p. 91)

Having noted that animal liberationist media theory is in its infancy and having possibly implied -- wrongly-- that coverage of animal liberation may have ceased, I need to stress that this article does not set out to demonstrate that in relation to animal liberation the media constitute a monolith: They are more a factor (or diverse factors) in the process or dynamic of social and cultural change. However, we should not form the idea that media treatment of animal liberation is unpredictable. There is a discernible pattern, or it is typical of a part of the pattern . This article identifies and examines within it a prevailing Exclusion and Confusing & Redefining strain of activity that may counter, be countered by, responded to, or consolidated by other activities or maneuvers by both media and movement.

The focus is not on the interaction of animal liberation and “news” media in terms of actions/statements and their direct coverage, the charting of episodic changes, but on the broad, everyday coverage and identity constructions of a movement and its philosophy. Therefore, major events-led media coverage during the period such as the live export protests and possibly the McLibel case are deliberately excluded for the present.

Terms of Movement/Media Engagement

In talking of the articulation of ideology in and through language and discourse, Hall (1982) tells us that
…the “struggle over meaning” is not exclusively played out in the discursive condensations to which different ideological elements are subject. There was also the struggle over access to the very means of signification: the difference between those accredited witnesses and spokesmen who had a privileged access, as of right, to the world of public discourse and whose statements carried the representativeness and authority which permitted them to establish the primary framework or terms of an argument; as contrasted with those who had to struggle to gain access to the world of public discourse at all; whose “definitions” were always more partial, fragmentary and delegitimated; and who, when they did gain access, had to perform within the established terms of the problematic at play. (p. 81)

As with most, if not all, social movements’ activity, animal liberation is engaged in a struggle over meaninghere of nonhuman animals, humans, cruelty, problems, progress, health, justice, decency, rights, reason, compassion, consistency, coherence, emotion, extremism, and civilization–but I am not concerned with elaborating that point here. What I am interested in are the two crucial areas -- access and the determinations of the problematic -- recognized also in Gamson and Modigliani’s (1989) claim that in order to gain prominence in the public sphere, an issue has to be cast in terms that resonate with existing and widely held cultural concepts . That is, further to Hall (1982) that gaining access is via the established terms of the problematic
The major animal liberation groups recognize this problem and, in the main, have learned -- in contrast to, say, a section of the American antiwar movement in the 1960s -- (Gitlin, 1980) how not to act in revolutionary mode in a non-revolution situation, even if animal liberation is the longest revolution. Though staffed largely by vegans, most of the groups often operate, at least ostensibly, in the field of welfarism, exposing and condemning the legal and illegal cruelties of animal markets, vivisection laboratories, and factory farms (as well as the scientific, economic, and other invalidities of animal use). Indeed, some animal liberation or rights groups refer to their work in terms of animal welfare or protection. This may result from (a) the movement’s progress from protest to public policy activity (where “compromise” fails to do justice to the shift from epistemology to ontology); (b) a greater adherence to Singer’s pragmatic utilitarianism than to Regan’s rights theory -- thus exploiting abolitionist mileage in the existing interests-based “necessary suffering” legislation in a strategy in which the recommendations of Bryant (1990), Garner (1993), and Francione (1996) co-exist; and (c) to the delinquencies of welfarist legislation and its policing. It is in these engagements and with familiar rhetoric (and indeed vocabulary: “livestock,” “farm animals”) that the movement may more easily resonate and gain productive publicity and support, even if rewarded with welfarist rather than liberationist results.

Although both the movement and the elements of the media that cover such campaigns and exposés often would seem to be engaged in the same work here -- a more general animal protectionism -- two points arise: (a) a confused movement identity with consequences (see later); and (b) media motivation differing from that of the movement. As Molotch (1979) notes:
The media cover the activists, but when they are in tension with the movement (as is usually the case), they do so with opposite goals in view. From their vantage point in the game, the media “win” if the status quo is enhanced as a result of the media coverage. Hence, a typical movement story results from differing estimates of the consequences of coverage. (p. 77)
Hence, we find that news stories of animal liberation activities, when they appear, fall largely into three categories -- when the movement

1. does something outrageous, such as some form of violence, where media portrayal of “deviants” serves to legitimize the lawfulness of state violence against animals; liberationists as the “problem”. Such coverage also informs elites of impending danger to the status quo (Molotch, 1979, p. 82); usually coincides with regular news “beats” such as the police and the courts; and enables the media to divide the movement into legitimate and illegitimate camps;
2. does something novel such as hunger strikein both these categories, as Glasgow University Media Group [1976] on trade union coverage showed, there is an emphasis on actions and disorder, not facts and issues;
3. exposes illegal cruelty -- satisfying consensus and bolstering the status of society’s anti-cruelty self-image.
However, one of the achievements of the movement is that it sometimes does gain access when the story is not of its own making. Nevertheless, these appearances usually can be categorized into four groups where
1. animal liberationists are depicted as opiners rather than as validation authorities/primary definers. This is similar to the findings from other studies such as Hansen (1991, pp. 450-451) on environmental pressure groups;
2. animal liberationists are spoken for: such as “some people oppose…” or (in interview with authority) “some people would say …,” thus offering an unchallenged opportunity “or justify animal-using practice;
3. the “balance” finally is tipped in orthodoxy’s favor: such as interview with vivisector, interview with liberationist, then interview with a patient waiting for the vivisector’s “breakthrough”; and
4. the goalposts are moved: such as reducing ethics to aesthetics, to differences of taste, when the focus is narrowed to the end product of animal use and not the production process itself and its rationale.

Examining the Confusing & Redefining “Inclusion”

But, again, this more subtle area of access/inclusion works toward the enhancement of the speciesist status quo and against animal liberation’s potential to shatter the problematic and its constitutive “cultural givens” such as mastery over nature, progress through animal-using science and technology (Hansen, 1991, p. 452), and the inevitability of animal use -- which anchor media discourse, one which also excludes on a regular basis.

Exclusion

There is no need to examine at length the quotidian exclusion of animal liberation events and existence . It is especially notable in areas where we may expect to find animal liberation interests included, if only on the basis of their being “in the public interest,” this time in a non-elite sense. However, the two interests usually are kept apart. A general classification of such exclusion can be arrived at when (a) there are “breakthroughs” in animal-based medical research (animal liberation silly); (b) independent reports support animal liberation claims (animal liberation not credible); and (c) governments take up the aims of a campaign (animal liberation unnecessary).

Animal liberation also is excluded from in-depth, conceptual/cognitive features, by media:

1. failure to connect one oppression (condemned) with another (condoned or ignored): such as in the “celebrity abroad” genre where human rights and environmental abuses are castigated while rodeos or bullfights are enjoyed;
2. non-problematization of animal use: such as at times of drug catastrophes and in consideration of hunger and land-water-use predicaments (Birke & Michael, 1998);
3. false dichotomy-polarization exercises, where choices are framed in terms of factory farming or organic farming (both animal-based), and welfarists or terrorists (normatives or “nutters”), thus excluding the bulk of animal liberationists and their claims .
This preamble has served to bring us to an examination of general media discourse (both now within the immediacy of news reportage and in more considered elite journalism), which incorporates all that we have seen so far -- access/inclusion/exclusion -- in a Confusing & Redefining maneuver.

Confusing & Redefining

At the same time as the spatial incomprehension is exercised, media presenters, guests, and writers appear to be confused about animal liberation. However, there would seem to be more at work than a genuine intellectual incomprehension. The confusion standard appears to be related to, or part of, a larger “project,” which redefines animal liberation (and animal use) for orthodox purposes. Just as Exclusion allows a glimpse of the movement’s shadowy proponents, Confusing & Redefining works further toward appropriation in the struggle to maintain legitimacy and control meaning. Through this combination, instrumentalist orthodoxy reasserts its authority, enabling its representatives and representers to assume the role of experts and moral guides.

Confusing

A commonplace in the media is the interchanging use of terms such as “animal rights campaigners,” “animal welfarists,” and the ubiquitous “animal lovers.” Different animal lobbies are merged as if they are all one “animal movement”: Wildlife groups are demanding a change in legislation to help prevent what they claim is indiscriminate killing of seals by fishermen. Animal rights supporters met in Edinburgh last week following reports [italics added] … .

The confusion is aided by rife inaccuracy and the cryptic regarding both events and concepts. For example, no animal rights groups were represented at the above meeting, which approved of fishing and of “killing rogue seals.” Two more typical examples: “Some members believe that the rowdier element within the vegan cause…is the result of infiltration by anti-vivisectionists… ” -- the Vegan Society is anti-vivisectionist and has been since its founding in 1944; “Vegetarianism as a moral stance only makes sense if it excludes eating any living thing .”

One of the greater confusions can be found in features on, and interviews with, “vegetarian” celebrities who eat fish and famous vegans who more often than not are described as vegetarians . Such confusions also are compounded. While a Radio Times preview referred to a cookery program’s focus on the “strict vegetarianism” of Gujarati cuisine, the television program served up meals containing milk and yogurt . A review of the program informed readers that, “The Gujarati cuisine is so strictly vegetarian that it eschews all root vegetables .” By this confusing and seemingly ineluctable processvegans-to-vegetarians-to-fisheating-to-macrobiotics and its many variantsanimal liberation is broken up and swallowed by the bloody body politic (Adams, 1990, p. 79).
We must allow that those responsible for such typical representations are confused and/or just plain sloppy. But the media’s interchanging of terms is indicative of something more profound than their assumptions of popular rhetoric(s) and the steadfast denial of the word liberation -- unless associated with the “terrorists” of the Animal Liberation Front -- and the mixed use instead of rights-welfare-lovers serves to minimize any sense of animals being in bondage. But we need to consider Confusing’s bedfellow, Redefining, by which the media may make their own meanings of the issue(s), lead the public through the thicket of confusions, and suck animal liberation back to welfarism’s animal-use norms and values.

Redefining

Animal liberation philosophy usually is bypassed except in name(s), and the media appear to move with the times in order to keep them in their place. The state’s animal welfarism becomes the representation of liberation; the struggle between state/non-state welfarisms becomes the representation of the state-welfarist/non-state-liberationist struggle. Discussion may start out with animal liberation but slips back, at best, into regulationism. As a bridge into this territory, the first example not only excludes liberation but also confuses and redefines it.

Warmly reviewing the first in a Brass Eye television series that satirized current affairs programs -- the current affair here being “animal rights” -- Germaine Greer described animal rights as “incoherent,” citing as an example the fictional dinner-party that liberals who objected to veal calves kept in crates but not to lobsters kept in boxes lampooned on Brass Eye. Yet, this example of inconsistency is characteristic of welfarism, and it was the ambivalent welfarist orthodoxy Greer was criticizing when she, like Brass Eye, thought she was ridiculing animal rights . Seemingly ignorant of animal rights theory, Brass Eye and Greer have managed to reproduce and reinforce an identity previously constructed by media/movement interaction.

Animal liberation is also “got hold of” by the orthodox and redefined within welfarist ontology by more dedicated moves. A Newsnight item on animals trapped for their fur, for example, was illustrated with powerful video footage from the Lynx-David Bailey oeuvre and of caught animals writhing in agony. But the program’s host named anti-fur campaigners as “animal lovers” and framed the studio discussion in terms of “which traps are best?” And, with a sigh of relief that the peril of buying products in ignorance of their country of origin and its bad human rights record was virtually over (South African oranges), a Times columnist now felt pressured to recognize the ethics of food production at home. Are these eggs “barn fresh?” The hierarchical structures of a different apartheid naturalize both sequence and shift, from human then to animal, then from rights to welfare.
Thus the meaning of the issue is subtly relocated back into the safe “sphere of legitimate controversy” (Shoemaker & Reese, 1991, p. 188; Hallin, 1986, pp. 116-117), and often accompanied by various sins of omission. In a lead article supporting the relaunch of London Zoo, The Times had this to say:

The world is far less sanguine about the confinement of animals than it was when London Zoo was founded in 1828. The pre-Enlightenment belief that man has careless dominion over the beasts dies hard, but the writings of Bentham and Schopenhauer against animal exploitation are gaining intellectual currency. Contemporary philosophers such as Tom Regan and Peter Singer offer a new vision of “animal rights” too puritanical to be enacted. But the appearance of Bentham’s slogans against animal suffering in shop windows is not simply faddish .

In what seems like a perpetual cultural lag, it was, for The Times, Bentham and Schopenhauer, not Singer and Regan, who represent the burgeoning intellectual paradigm. “Animal rights” has been acknowledged, although its influence has not, and speciesism acquires a new patina. What we are not told is that Bentham and Schopenhauer (both “meat” eaters) pre-date and, in an indirect way, gave rise to much nineteenth century animal legislation and thus to the (still sheet anchor though now under review) Protection of Animals Act 1911. The Act, based on legal-rights utilitarianism and a certain resignation (the “inevitability” of animal use), codified and entrenched the developing welfarist ethic, effectively froze the world of human/nonhuman relations, and controls its meanings (e.g. of cruelty; but not so much of what it is but of what it isn’t). Plus ça change….

It is apparent then that the debate is still being framed in terms of (illegal) cruelty, the base line of welfarism (à la the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals) rather than in terms of, say, Regan’s (1983) dissident “not all harms hurt” and “animals are not our resources.” This is illustrated specifically by a full-page Daily Telegraph feature dubiously headed, “Everyone is against cruelty to animals. But opinion differs sharply over what is cruel -- and about the best ways to combat it. ” One of the four articles on the page concerned Paul and Linda McCartney’s purchase of land to protect deer from hunting, but written by a farmer who was “bitter about the damage done by the rock star’s love of deer.” The farmer attacked the (undefended) McCartneys because deer obstructed his animal farming that, itself and its own inherent cruelties were beyond question. A second article, “Vets split in the debate on ethics” explored the ambiguous position of vets in the pay of “questionable” farming systems such as battery (and not simply) egg production. Notably, it was the (unnamed) “originators of the contemporary debate on ethics” whose voices were excluded from what is, crucially, an older debate . A third article (“Killing them kindly: the skills of the stalker”) represented the deer/human relationship as one of naturalized culling, again in classic cruelty/kindness terms. But, most revealingly, the final article was the regular angling column, typographically marked off from the rest of the page. Angling remained aloof from the cruelty debate. The only way for the angler to combat cruelty is to cease angling, the unthinkable liberationist solution.

The kindness/cruelty framing reaches its apogee in the guiltless decency area that both re-establishes and ring-fences legitimate animal concern. Selected animal-using practices are identified as being things which can be done “with a clear conscience,” or which are “guilt-free.” In this, there is the increase in moral capital for the animal-using system and its checks and balances. A regular columnist-cum-organic farmer makes a pitch for “meat we can honestly enjoy” and informs readers that, “Being organic, it is as environmentally friendly as you can get; it treats farm animals with respect and demands of them what they are naturally capable of giving .”

These three points “make sense” only if it is presupposed for each that nonhuman animals are humans’ resources and that agriculture has to involve them. The essentialist code is revealed not least by the use of the objectifying “farm” rather than the objective “farmed.”

This area though is also notable for its delusions. In an article titled “Feasting with a guilt-free complex: Max Davidson feels no qualms about tucking into rabbit sausage,” Davidson described the other foods he ate at the same sitting -- cod, crab and venison -- and was proud that a (wild) rabbit had taken the place of a pig on that particular occasion. “Morally,” he wrote, “the [rabbit] dish was a masterstroke .” It is not a vegan, or even vegetarian, diet (“rabbit food”) that is the moral masterstroke but, still, rabbit as fooda tactical masterstroke that blanks out the unsustainability of such food production that has led to intensive rabbit, fish, crab, and deer farming.

The final example here is a sketch for a case study of media coverage of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE). The BSE “crisis” is two crises: one spoken and shaped by/shaping the government-farmer-consumer discourse, a policies and methods legitimation crisis; and one excluded by this, the legitimation crisis in the monolith of animal-based agriculture, one diffused by representing all food-poisoning scandals as discrete excesses . By this ploy, animal liberation and its comprehensive challenge has been not only marginalized but also taunted. Media practice has been to deny space and time to liberationists clamoring for attention, while condemning them for not being outspoken on the issue . During the 1996 crisis within the chronic BSE crisis, orthodox outrage was expressed against the government’s BSE-eradicating policy, which was killing healthy animals, as if “healthy” animals were not slaughtered as the norm. In a rash of press articles and television diatribes, it was the media that represented genuine animal concern, a fantastic process which fed into the mythology of animal liberationists (“phonys”) not really caring for animals at all (the ulterior motives approach to “explaining” animal liberation (Tester, 1991).

Set this in its historical context, and it becomes more intriguing. The crisis began when the first signs of the disease appeared in April 1985, and BSE was identified in November of the following year. In 1984, the British Broadcasting Company (BBC) had been showing Sarah Brown’s hugely successful vegetarian cookery series. In 1986, Cox wrote what was to become the bestselling Why You Don’t Need Meat. This is identified as the period when media coverage took a turn for the worse (McIvor, 1998; Ryder, 1989). Also since then, and despite the steadily increasing numbers of vegetarians and vegans in the United Kingdom, only one other dedicated vegetarian cookery series has been screened . Yet, animal-based cookery series have proliferated throughout the BSE crisis . Within these, vegetarian and vegan dishes have appeared (the latter especially accompanied by a sniffy comment from the celebrity chef) but alongside other “exotics” -- try Chinese, Italian, French, Indian, Thai, vegetarian, vegan cuisine: ethnics not ethics. Again, here is the swallowing up of animal liberation by private-sphere digestion. Simultaneously, television has bombarded its audiences with celebratory programs on zookeepers, vets, doghandlers, wildlife, and pets (and bloodsports). Although more about human interest(s) in animals than about animals’ interests, these have been reasserted as the true areas, indeed the zenith, of genuine British animal concern, boosting a sense of unity and stability.

This appropriation finds its most practical-private manifestation, perhaps, in pet keeping. And we can discern here not so much a history repeating itself but one turned inside out. One of the major (though disputed) claims made for pet keeping during the industrialization and urbanization of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries is that it assisted in an increase in awareness and appreciation of animal consciousness and individuality (Thomas, 1983). That is, pet keeping led to an increased animal concern. Now, however, the reverse seems to be more the case: Increased animal concern -- initiated by the contemporary animal liberation movement -- is being translated into increased pet keeping and pet dumping .

Dancing in the Dark

Media and movements are dialectically bound, always in motion and alert to one another’s motion -- be it embrace, flight, or thundering blow. The most appropriate metaphor to describe their relationship is dance -- sometimes a dance of death (Molotch 1979, p. 92).
I want to highlight three areas of concern here by offering some concluding remarks about the Exclusion-Confusing & Redefining maneuver itself; the public interest role and due impartiality of media; and the requirement for further research into animal liberation/media interaction.

In the pattern of media activity identified, we can see how dominant ideology transforms the movement’s aims and negates its claims, which, themselves, aim to transform dominant speciesist ideology. Ostensibly at least, it represents an obstacle to the formation of an animal liberation consciousness. Moreover, the (animal-using) scientistic-technological media discourse delimits the way in which “reality” and its problems are defined and maintains the unthinkability of an animal-free paradigm in, for instance, agriculture and scientific-medical research.

At present, within the discursive or hegemonic “struggle,” the media would seem to be hosting (not a neutral term) a struggle more between competing welfarisms than between animal slavery and animal liberation . Fundamental to this appropriation of animal liberation discourse by, at best, a welfarist one, is the avoidance strategy -- not engaging with it head-on. Debate continues or even increases about ways of rearing-producing-using animals (no bad thing given the extent of animal abuse) but is cut short when about using them/not using them (and remains non-existent on television, and virtually non-existent in the press, about animal liberation in its wider contexts of health, environment, land, and water use).

Animal liberation is appropriated and sold back as welfarism: effectively, a cultural enhancement and closure. What utility can be found in animal liberation is assimilated into speciesist discourse, appropriated like “nature,” thereby neutralizing the animal liberation beast, bringing it under control. (In this sense, the media/movement “dance” is more of a wrangle). There is a relationship between how both animals and animal liberation are treated: Both become invisible except as forms and tropes. Both are hollowed out and swallowed up, but their skins remain as something else used to clothe other bodies.

In terms of Molotch’s (1979) metaphor, it is fortunate for liberationists and liberation that any death by this process is only symbolic (Gerbner & Gross, 1976). After all, the movement is more than able to take care of one of Kielbowicz and Scherer’s (1986) three main areas of movement/media concern -- social movement maintenance; emergence (achieved long ago); and, most pertinent, attainment of goals. The movement is continually attaining micro-abolitionist goals and -- even if major goals still are far off -- also achieving resource mobilization success. Despite, or perhaps even because of, media performance in relation to animal use and animal liberation, public opinion polls are finding high and/or increasing numbers of people concerned about human treatment of nonhumans and majorities opposing certain animal-using practices . That is, there is some index of the animal-use myth-dilution.

But while public opinion on, the fundamental inefficiency of animal-based agriculture and the unreliability of animal-based research is hardly known, weights of opinion on many animal issues -- when they are known --are not honored. Such opinion-poll news often is reported in the press but rarely on television where news and television in general, including fiction, carries on as if vivisection is still a public article of faith . In many areas, that is, the due impartiality of media is seriously compromised. The media fail on their own terms, regardless of calls for “the formation and implementation of quite different editorial criteria” (Bennett, 1982, p. 306; Connell, 1980).

The producer-consumer harmony of media texts conceals fragmentation, but how this actually translates into personal action is not so easily ascertained except from, say, the RealEat-Gallup polls on the increasing numbers of vegetarians and vegans in the country . The questions yet to ask concern where and what the animal-issue influences are; what levels of dissonance exist (belief v action); and what, indeed, are the public knowledges . This is the complex dynamic awaiting research, which includes the non-development of government policy in response to the demands of the movement and the aroused publics. Such research would also analyze audience reception-interpretation and study in greater depth the enlightening, occluding, or death-dealing role(s) different media play in such patterns of evolution. It would be careful not to dispense too readily with structural, functionalist media theory (including transmission and ritual models of communication) in favor of “anti-power,” pleasures of the text, resistance, and polysemous theses. The risk is detachment from notions of domination, ideology, and change, thus denying justice to billions of “crimeless victims” (Molotch, 1979, p. 78) whose liberation lies beyond the present incorporation of the movement’s transformed values.



Note
* Barry Kew, Aberdeenshire, Scotland

References

Adams, C. J. (1990). The sexual politics of meat: A feminist-vegetarian critical theory. London: Polity Press.
Anonymous (1986). The Media Cover-Up. Turning Point, Autumn, 16-18.
Anonymous (1986/87). The Media Cover-Up. Turning Point, Winter, 11.
Anonymous (1989). Spotlight on the hunt saboteurs association. The Vegan, Summer, 10-11.
Baker, S. (1993). Picturing the beast: Animals, identity and representation. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Baker, S. (2000). The postmodern animal. London: Reaktion Books.
Barthes, R. (1993 [1957]). Mythologies. London: Vintage Books.
Bennett, T. (1982). Media, ‘reality,’ signification. In M. Gurevitch, T. Bennett, J. Curran, & J. Woolacott (Eds.), Culture, Society and the Media (pp. 287-308). London: Routledgea
Bentham, J. (1960 [1789]). Introduction to the principles of morals and legislation. Oxford: Blackwell.
Berger, J. (1980). About looking. London: Writers and Readers.
Berkowitz, D. (1994). Who sets the media agenda? The ability of policymakers to determine news decisions. In J. D. Kennamer (Ed.), Public opinion, the press, and public policy (pp. 81-102). Westport, CT: Praeger.
Birke, L., & Michael, M. (1998). The heart of the matter: Animal bodies, ethics, and species boundaries. Society & Animals, 6 (3), 245-262.
Bryant, J. (1990 [1982]). Fettered kingdoms. Winchester: Fox Press.
Campbell, F. (1999). The construction of environmental News. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Connell, I. (1980). Review of More bad news. Marxism Today, August.
Cox, P. (1986). Why you don’t need meat. Wellingborough: Thorsons.
Curran, J. (2001). Media regulation in the era of market liberalism. In G. Philo & D. Miller (Eds.), Market killing (pp.216-232).Harlow:Pearson
Danielian, L. (1994). Interest groups in the news. In J. D. Kennamer (Ed.), Public Opinion, the press, and public policy (pp. 63-79). Westport, CT: Praeger.
Francione, G. (1996). Animal rights: An incremental approach. In R. Garner (Ed.), Animal rights: The changing debate (pp.42-60). Basingstoke: Macmillan.
Gamson, W. A., & Modigliani, A. (1989). Media discourse and public opinion on nuclear power: A constructionist approach. American Journal of Sociology, 95 (1), 1-37
Garner, R. (1993). Animals, politics and morality. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Gerbner, G., & Gross, L. (1976). Living with television. Journal of Communication, 26 (2).
Gitlin, T. (1980). The whole world is watching: Mass media in the making and unmaking of the new left. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Glasgow University Media Group (1976). Bad news. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Glasgow University Media Group (1980). More bad news. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
Gray, R. (1976). The labour aristocracy in Victorian Edinburgh. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Hall, S. (1982). The rediscovery of ‘ideology’: Return of the repressed in media studies. In M. Gurevitch, T. Bennett, J. Curran, & J. Woolacott (Eds.), Culture, society and the media. London: Routledge.
Hallin, D. (1986). The Uncensored war: The media and Vietnam. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Hansen, A. (1991). The media and the social construction of the environment. Media, Culture & Society, 13, 443-458.
Harris, J. (1987). AnimallLiberation: The road to victory. London: ALF(SG)/Red Rat Library.
Jones, D. M. (1996). American media coverage of animal protection. Anthrozoös, 9 (2), 72-80.
Jones, D. M. (1997a). The Media and Policy Decisions Affecting Animals. Anthrozoös, 10 (1), 8-13.
Jones, D. M. (1997b). The Media’s Response to Animal Rights Activism. Anthrozoös, 10 (2), 67-75.
Kaufman, M. (1993). Backlash: The counter-attack against the animal rights movement. The Animals’ Agenda, May/June, 14-19.
Kew, B. (1999). Fearsome truths: The challenge of animal liberation. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Durham.
Kew, B. (2000). It’s a (two-)culture thing: The lateral shift to liberation. Animal Issues, 4 (1), 1-20.
Kielbowicz, R. B. & Scherer, C. (1986). The role of the press in the dynamics of social movements. In K. Lang & G. E. Lang (Eds.), Research in social movements, Conflicts and change (pp. 71-96). London: JAI Press.
McIvor, S. (1988). The Media experience. Liberator, July-August, 23-24.
Molotch, H. (1979). Media and movements. In M. N. Zald & J. D. McCarthy (Eds.), The dynamics of social movements (pp. 71-93). Cambridge, MA: Winthrop.
Motavalli, J. (1993). Vendetta!: With the American Medical Association cheering them on, big media goes after animal rights. The Animals’ Agenda, May/June, 20-25.
Munro, L. (1999). Contesting moral capital in campaigns against animal liberation. Society & Animals, 7 (1), 35-53.
Regan, T. (1983). The case for animal rights. London: Routledge.
Ryder, R. D. (1989). Animal revolution: Changing attitudes towards speciesism. Oxford: Blackwell.
Shoemaker, P. J., & Reese, S. D. (1991). Mediating the message: Theories of influences on mass media content. London: Longman.
Simons, J. (1997). The Longest revolution: Cultural studies after speciesism. Environmental Values, 6, 483-497.
Singer, P. (1977 [1975]). Animal liberation: A new ethics for our treatment of animals. New York: Avon-Discus.
Sorabji, R. (1993). Animal minds & human morals: The origins of the western debate. London: Duckworth.
Sperling, S. (1988). Animal liberators: Research & morality. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Spiegel, M. (1988). The Dreaded comparison: Human and animal slavery. London: Heretic Books.
Tester, K. (1991). Animals and Society: The humanity of animal rights. London: Routledge.
Thomas, K. (1983). Man and the natural world: Changing attitudes in England 1500-1800. London: Penguin.
van Zoonen, L. (1996). A dance of death: New social movements and mass media. In D. L. Paletz (Ed.), Political communication in action (pp. 210-222). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.


 

For Abstracts of all issues, including the most current, click Article Abstracts

To order Society & Animals Journal, go to our secure online ordering page

You can Search the online issues of Society & Animals, as well as the entire Society & Animals Forum (formerly PSYETA) website,
for topics and keywords of your interest: