Shirley 1

Collin Shirley
Adam Padgett
ENGL 102-063
April 14, 2016
Medias Effect on Animal Rights
Throughout the world animal rights have been an influential topic that have managed to
change the minds of nearly every person in some way or another. However knowing just how big
this debate is has allowed many outside sources to change the thoughts and outlooks of those
they are able to influence. A good example is the way sharks were viewed as killers for many
years after the premiere of Jaws despite having relatively low attack rates. The following text
will discuss just how media affects views pertaining to animal rights and whether or not it has
been for the better or worse. Media has contributed to the confusion around animal rights,
creating misinterpretations around what animals should be cared about in this debate and also
changing the image of some topics altogether.
The discussion about whether or not animals deserve rights in human society has been
widely debated since its introduction. Many have questioned if these rights would actually help
society or disrupt it. One such man is James C. Hickman, a botanist for the University of
California who in his paper Animal Rights questioned if these perceived equalities among
species is truly for the benefit of all animals or just those that the public perceive as conscious.
He expands upon this point by stating that biologist realize that everything from sponges to
vertebrates are animals... Most of the animal rights people, however are concerned primarily
with mammals (Hickman 138). The prior quote questions the core of animal rights beliefs
making one inquire on exactly how logical these arguments are if they only target one section of

Shirley 2

the animal kingdom. The media tries to make the argument that all animals should be treated as
humanely as possibly, but this simply is not the whole truth. Nearly every news source is
obligated to change the facts in order to produce a better story and activists are not always
concerned with the lowly sponge when arguing about far treatment. One needs to be able to
either look past these fallacies or ignore them altogether as nearly every form of media is
plagued with some form of bias or misguided information.
Though it is true that the media is not always a trustworthy source it is also possible for
the viewers and activist to mishear or misinterpret information as was the case in both of the
texts Animal Extremists get Personal and MEDICINE AND THE MEDIA: Animal Rights
Activists Bury Avalanche Study. Within both of these articles people concerned with the
wellbeing of animals being used in testing have terrorized researchers and scientists due to hasty
reactions to news reports. The most recent of these events being MEDICINE AND THE
MEDIA where researchers used piglets as a means to study the effects of hypothermia on
avalanche victims. The potentially lifesaving research was interrupted and dismissed when local
media outlets in Germany, Italy and Austria found out about this study and reported it to the
masses as animal cruelty. The outraged public proceeded to send thousands of protest emails,
threats of violence and even a bomb threat without looking into the purpose or process of the
actual experiment. If they had the public would have found that the researchers were carefully
monitoring the piglets vitals to not only study them for medical safety advancement, but also to
know if the piglets were in any danger. In the case of this article it was both the fault of the
outlets and of the masses for not looking deeper into the purpose behind this experiment. It is for
this reason that media sources should make sure that their information is accurate as to avoid
misinforming a public willing to take up arms for something they believe in.

Shirley 3

Throughout media animal testing is a topic spread around and negotiated as universal
evil, but most of the assumptions toward this point are either unfounded or incorrect. Animal
rights groups seem to want animal testing to be portrayed as an evil practice done with the sole
purpose of harming animals and most of the time this is just not the case. The following can be
seen in the article Famous Monkeys Provide Surprising Results by Joseph Palca where he talks
about a group of research monkeys that had been taken into police custody after a researcher
reported that his boss enjoyed bringing harm to them. These accusations would prove false and
later in the text it is revealed that the monkeys that had been taken were suffering more by being
kept alive than if the researchers had been allowed to put them down. The fact that these monkey
had been taken away because of a belief that they were being tormented for no reason is a
contradictory topic. As the animals were now being kept alive and in pain for no other reason
than to let them be free from testing. However the monkeys in this experiment were later found
to have use in another experiment involving the remapping of synapses and were released to
researchers once more. Altogether the contradiction that animal rights groups harm animals by
removing them from testing lends itself to the idea that testing is not completely wrong as it
allows humans to gain knowledge that may assist both parties in the future.
Furthermore, animal rights activists are not always peaceful protesters, sometimes they
harass scientists and destroy entire labs in their attempts to prevent animal research from being
done. In the article Animal Extremists Get Personal a scientist working in animal research and
his family are repeatedly tormented by a group of animal rights activist. They came after this
family by sending threats, protesting outside the familys house and even planting a bomb that
managed to destroy the family car. These people were not the only ones attacked, many
researchers who worked for the same facility have had their homes and even their workplace

Shirley 4

vandalized in this groups attempts to stop testing. The constant destruction caused by these
groups scared a good amount of researchers and scientists making them walk away from their
work fearing what would happen to their families if this harassment continued. These events had
come to pass due to a news story that was circulated a few days prior that spoke of what testing
was being done at the local facility, its possible benefits and who was involved. The mention of
the scientists that were involved in these experiments gave the rights groups a whole list of new
targets for tormenting. These incidents were not the complete fault of the news that circulated it,
however activists did make use of it to plan their attacks showing that even a small amount of
information is enough to cause people to act.
Although media in general has a bad habit of misinforming the public it is not always as
affective at changing their viewpoints as some sources would have one believe. The article An
Attitude Survey of Animal Rights Activists targets the media produced stereotype that anyone
involved with or supportive of animal rights is a terrorist prepared to do anything for their
beliefs. Within this text the author conducts a survey in response to members of both scientific
and medical fields relaying the prior stereotype. The survey was hosted outside of an animal
rights event in an attempt to gather varied opinions of activists and non-activists concerning their
beliefs toward animal testing. The surveyors made sure to get attendants who were heading to the
event before it begun in an attempt to get the most uninfluenced data possible. The method
seemed to of worked as a good amount of the data shows participants in a less violent and
stubborn way then their stereotyped counterparts would suggest. The data gathered was
completely anonymous and taken without interference from the surveyor so any opinions present
are trusted to be accurate. Altogether the data taken shows participants actually favoring animal
research, this can be seen when the author states When asked what the single highest priority of

Shirley 5

the animal rights movement should be, nearly half of the activists checked categories other than
animals used in research (Plous 195). The information collected through this study shows that
stereotypes throughout media can lead to a large amount of wrongful accusations. But through
this article one can see exactly why researching a topic beforehand can lead to a less bias outlook
when encountered with misinformation.
Furthermore is the idea that not all activist are blind in their beliefs, instead it is sources
like television news networks and papers that twist these topics, perpetuating this stereotype. The
idea that media hasnt affected activists as many would assume is explored in An Attitude
Survey of Animal Rights Activists. The article involved relays the opinions and feelings of
animal activists on the topic of rights, but does so in a way that shows how many of the activists
support testing in some way. The activists are shown to know what benefits come from this
testing in turn providing an image of this group that has not been affected by commercial media.
The protesters in the article Animal Extremists Get Personal show the exact opposite, this
being people who fight for their beliefs without any concern for those who get hurt. These
protestors seemingly attacking scientist without looking into the actual experiments their
involved in. These contrasting views serve as a reference for those who look into experiments
logically to determine if they are actually beneficial without the influence of news media and
those who are driven by these news stories to commit criminal acts.
But, these two groups only cover a portion of who is involved in these media and rights
debates. The unseen group being the people actually involved with everything these protesters
discuss. In the article The Animal Rights Battle a farmer speaks on how animal rights should
be implemented in farming practices as to remove the disturbing sections of mass farming
culture. One danger described is that of putting hens into wire cages stacked from floor to

Shirley 6

ceiling extending from one end of the long building to another (Woolverton 25) as described
within the text. The author expands upon this by saying how those involved in the rights
movement are not wrong for wanting to stop this movement. He states that the violent methods
most activists use may be the only way to stop the mistreatment of animals, this is because most
researchers and farmers wont listen to any rational discussion leaving only violence as a result.
The fact that animal rights violence is still wrong does remain but the fact that it may be the only
way to stop mistreatment on a large scale leads one to believe that most forms of media have not
accurately described the circumstances of these researchers or of the activists involved. However
why is it that some animals are pursued so vigorously to have rights when people are okay with
the kind of treatment of farm animals described in the prior article? One would believe it is the
profit both farmers and the public receive from this mass farming endeavor, farmers are paid and
the public is feed nothing is questioned. It is this varied treatment of animals that is ignored by
not only television and papers, but nearly every form of media in an attempt to keep the profit
from diminishing. This blindness to rights for profit truly shows just how misguided many are in
this debate, leaving little to no options for activist to act outside of violence which in turn
continues a wrongful stereotype for media sources to extort.
To sum up animal rights activists and protestors have yet to see eye to eye with television
and news sources, each attacking the other by any means that would prove eithers point. Media
has been a helpful development throughout time but it is not always correct and this is due not
only to the views of media industry, but also the varied responses of the public. Even though the
idea that not all animals are covered under the blanket of rights leads some to question if the idea
is reliable enough to follow. People must remember to not always trust without researching
themselves as this will only lead to misinformation. To this point contradictions are always a

Shirley 7

danger and to avoid them one must make sure to not blindly follow what the media says as it
may not always be accurate. But it is not always the fault of the media sometimes people act out
of instinct for what they believe, this in turn lead to dangerous groups of uninformed activists.
Bias also plays a role in this media battle as it can twist a simple misunderstanding into a storm
of fallacies leading people to take action where none is needed. Lastly is the fact that violence
may be the only way that the targets of animal rights respond to leaving activist with little to no
way to vary their approach. But hopefully knowing correct information and giving fair treatment
will lead this debate to come to a fair and humane conclusion that benefits both sides of this
debate. In conclusion media may not always be correct or unbiased so it falls onto the shoulders
of the public to take the extra step and find out whether or not the information they are listening
to is correct, then based on those results take the approach they believe is fit.

Shirley 8

Works Cited
Archer-Lean, Clare. "Animals, Fiction, Alternatives." Social Alternatives 32.4 (2013): 3-5.
Academic Search Complete. Web. 29 Mar. 2016.
Hickman, James C., and Judith S. Weis. Animal Rights. BioScience 35.3 (1985): 138138.
Web. February 29, 2016.
Miller, Greg. Animal Extremists Get Personal. Science 318.5858 (2007): 18561858. Web.
March 1, 2016.
Paal, Peter et al. MEDICINE AND THE MEDIA: Animal Rights Activists Bury Avalanche
Study. BMJ: British Medical Journal 341.7764 (2010): 133133. Web. February 29,
2016.
Palca, Joseph. Famous Monkeys Provide Surprising Results. Science 252.5014 (1991): 1789
1789. Web. February 29, 2016.
Plous, S. An Attitude Survey of Animal Rights Activists. Psychological Science 2.3 (1991):
194196. Web. February 29, 2016.
Woolverton, Michael. The Animal Rights Battle. Rangelands 11.1 (1989): 2525. Web.
February 29, 2016.