There are many individuals in the media working to educate the public on the reality of animal exploitation across a variety of industries. In this brief guide, we highlight some studies that we think can help writers and editors craft their message, understand the media and journalism landscape, and appreciate the power of media itself. However, we’d like to make it clear that anyone discussing animal issues in the media needs to be evidence-based at all times — improving your message doesn’t mean sacrificing your credibility.

Crafting Your Message

To understand how to change public opinion of animals and food, read this review. It gives several tips for crafting your message, including asking for an opinion shift that isn’t too extreme, sharing often, picking low-bias topics, and more.

To craft a message related to civic engagement or community involvement, read this Pax Fauna research. Their narrative analysis argues that asking readers to reduce their individual meat consumption may not be as effective as a call-to-action focused on collective engagement, such as supporting a public initiative related to meat reduction, slaughterhouse bans, or other pro-animal laws. And be sure to check out the research’s 15 key recommendations.

To learn about how different pro-animal messages perform in the general public, read this Animal Think Tank report. In their study, over 14,000 participants saw different pro-animal messages, and the researchers found that focusing on animal abilities, morality, and social progress performed better than appealing to identity (like “animal-lover”) or talking about speciesism. The report and corresponding messaging guide are well worth a read.

To understand how different demographic groups may react to different messages, read this study. In particular, it found that emphasizing the environmental harms of eating red meat may be most effective in persuading young people, those with higher education, or Latine audiences compared to other audiences.

To learn about how readers may oppose animal farming based on different newspaper articles, read this study. The results showed that a portrayal of standard animal farming practices was more impactful than a description of animal welfare reforms in getting people to be opposed to factory farming.

To better understand how people perceive information about meat’s connection to climate change, read this report. The responses from focus group participants in the U.S., U.K., China, and Brazil illustrate the public’s understanding of animal agriculture’s environmental impact, and several barriers to knowledge, such as the unintuitive nature of how meat fuels climate change, the power of social norms, and the importance of personal choice. The authors point out that messengers need to be credible and should advocate for collective responsibility.

If you are working on calls-to-action (CTAs), read this analysis on norms. In particular, using “dynamic norms” about the growing amount of pro-animal sentiment is better than a “static norm” related to a flat amount of pro-animal sentiment. For example, “every year, more voters in [region] are calling on their representatives for stronger welfare laws” is better than “many voters care about animal welfare.” Also, using a CTA focused on reducing meat consumption in an op-ed was more effective than a CTA on eliminating meat consumption in one study.

Understanding The Media Landscape

In this Faunalytics study, we demonstrated that animal agriculture is only mentioned in 7% of mainstream U.K. and U.S. media articles about climate, and even fewer mention animal agriculture as a cause of climate change. Also check out similar reports from Italy and Spain and a second report from the U.K. and United States.

To understand how the media is already covering plant-based, vegan, and meat-reduction diets, check out these studies:

• This 2011 U.K. media analysis found that outlets in 2007 were often quite negative towards vegans themselves
• This U.S. study, which shows that media outlets frequently pit scientific evidence against the meat industry in an example of “both-sideism”
• This U.K. media analysis found an overall positive tone towards plant-based foods and identifies the most common ways journalists frame these issues
• This study of how Chinese outlets covered the arrival of plant-based meats in major chains
• This study in the U.K. found that 62% of environmental articles regarding meat supported meat reduction as a solution

To examine the media’s coverage of other issues, check out these articles:

• This U.K. study examined coverage of bullfighting
• This Australian study examined legal penalties for animal cruelty and how they’re handled in the media
• This Australian study examined how live export is covered in the media

To understand meat industry responses to calls for meat reduction, check out this article. It found that in the U.S., U.K., Australia, and New Zealand, the meat industry frames meat reduction as part of the “vegan agenda,” pushed by an elite minority, or an infringement of personal choice. This research will be helpful in anticipating blowback to your work. Related: check out Faunalytics’ report on how Big Ag frames animal advocates.

To understand how media outlets in the U.S. and Spain use speciesist framing, read this analysis. It first found that articles focused on legal regulation, rather than reform, of animal rights and secondly, that speciesism is portrayed as, at worst, a necessary evil and, at best, simply part of life. It also delves into how the articles use camouflage language to hide speciesist tendencies.

Understanding The Power Of Journalism And Media

To see how articles can reduce meat consumption, read our original study on interventions. In the experiment, vegetarians and flexitarians ate 2.3 fewer servings of animal products after reading a news article compared to those who didn’t.

To review how different media messages affect meat reduction, read this German study. In particular, the articles that discussed animal welfare problems (as opposed to health, climate, or personal image) ignited the biggest desire to reduce meat consumption in the sample. Across all articles, 21% of readers were willing to reduce meat consumption, with 28% of those who read the animal welfare article willing to do so.

To understand how the public reacts to coverage of animal cruelty, read this study. After seeing a news segment of farmed animal cruelty on television, nearly all viewers felt pity or sadness for the cows, anger, or admiration for the investigators. About 75% were pleased the footage was broadcast, although a minority (19%) thought it was too graphic. Half of participants felt more negatively towards a meat industry group and positively towards welfare groups. However, only a few participants (14%) felt more negatively towards the farmers themselves. Fewer than 10% of people donated to a welfare organization or stopped eating meat.

To see what the public thinks of meat when farmed animal production practices are in the news, read this analysis of a meat industry index. The analysis estimates that media coverage reduced demand for poultry and pork by 5% and 2.7% respectively — consumers may spend less on meat for up to six months following media coverage.

To understand the potential power of digital and mass media, read this Animal Ask report. Through a series of estimates, it concludes that meat-reduction advertisements save 3.7 animals per US dollar.

To improve your social media advocacy (often the way traditional media is disseminated), read our exploration of social media advocacy. The resource goes in depth about how social media can help animals, and includes several tips on how to improve your social media strategies.

If you want more information about working with or in the media, you can find further resources here:

• Food and Farming Journalism Network — Ideal for professional writers and journalists looking for resources, networking, opportunities, and more, hosted by Sentient.
• The Freedom Food Alliance — Here you can report misinformation you encounter and find write-ups of common disinformation narratives.
• How to Publish a Pro-Animal Op-Ed Webinar — Ideal for animal advocates looking to publish a pro-animal op-ed in their local paper to effect change.
• Media Resources Page — A collection of resources for engaging in the media, hosted by Hive.

Still have research questions about the media? Come to Faunalytics office hours to chat with a researcher and ask questions one-on-one!