The politics of animal rights activism: A frame analysis of the 2019 national direct action

IF 0.9 Q3 COMMUNICATION
Madeleine Rojahn, E. Hawley
{"title":"The politics of animal rights activism: A frame analysis of the 2019 national direct action","authors":"Madeleine Rojahn, E. Hawley","doi":"10.1386/ajr_00080_7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article analyses news coverage of the 2019 animal rights direct action in Australia. A combination of frame and discourse analysis was applied to 39 news texts published between 1 April 2019 and 25 July 2019 across three news outlets ‐ the ABC, Hobart’s Mercury\n and The Australian. Our analysis paid particular attention to the inclusion of sources, and we found that elite sources dominated the news coverage, resulting in a replication of the very power imbalance that the activists were struggling against. We also found that language choices\n resulted in the construction of the direct action as threatening, harmful and ‘un-Australian’. Our study shows that Australian news coverage of animal rights activism often marginalizes activist viewpoints, promoting a sense of division rather than diversity. While it is relatively\n easy for animal rights activists in Australia to gain mainstream news attention, these activists face powerful ideological barriers when attempting to raise awareness of their cause because the news media tends to obscure rather than open the pathway to a constructive public discussion on\n the issue of animal welfare.","PeriodicalId":36614,"journal":{"name":"Australian Journalism Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2021-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australian Journalism Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1386/ajr_00080_7","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"COMMUNICATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

This article analyses news coverage of the 2019 animal rights direct action in Australia. A combination of frame and discourse analysis was applied to 39 news texts published between 1 April 2019 and 25 July 2019 across three news outlets ‐ the ABC, Hobart’s Mercury and The Australian. Our analysis paid particular attention to the inclusion of sources, and we found that elite sources dominated the news coverage, resulting in a replication of the very power imbalance that the activists were struggling against. We also found that language choices resulted in the construction of the direct action as threatening, harmful and ‘un-Australian’. Our study shows that Australian news coverage of animal rights activism often marginalizes activist viewpoints, promoting a sense of division rather than diversity. While it is relatively easy for animal rights activists in Australia to gain mainstream news attention, these activists face powerful ideological barriers when attempting to raise awareness of their cause because the news media tends to obscure rather than open the pathway to a constructive public discussion on the issue of animal welfare.
动物权利运动的政治:2019年国家直接行动的框架分析
本文分析了2019年澳大利亚动物权利直接行动的新闻报道。框架和话语分析的结合应用于2019年4月1日至2019年7月25日期间发布的39个新闻文本,这些新闻文本来自三家新闻媒体——美国广播公司、霍巴特水星报和澳大利亚人报。我们的分析特别关注消息来源的纳入,我们发现精英消息来源主导了新闻报道,导致了活动人士正在努力反对的权力不平衡的重演。我们还发现,语言选择导致直接行为被构建为威胁、有害和“非澳大利亚”。我们的研究表明,澳大利亚对动物权利活动的新闻报道往往将活动家的观点边缘化,促进了一种分裂感,而不是多样性。虽然澳大利亚的动物权利活动家相对容易获得主流新闻的关注,但这些活动家在试图提高对其事业的认识时面临着强大的意识形态障碍,因为新闻媒体倾向于模糊而不是打开关于动物福利问题的建设性公众讨论的途径。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Australian Journalism Review
Australian Journalism Review Social Sciences-Communication
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
17
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信