My email to a rural journalist:
A couple of years ago I wrote my journalism honours thesis on the use of sensationalistic language to describe shark attacks in the media. Through my study of linguistics and interviews with many journalists and shark experts, I found that, whether intentional or not, sensational language was being used by journalists when reporting shark attacks and was consequently influencing public perception of sharks as dangerous animals. This is problematic considering that many species of sharks are endangered and there are very few measures in place to protect sharks, despite the very, very low probability of being involved in a shark attack. In fact, you’re much more likely to be hit by lightening, die in a car crash on the way to the beach or be killed by a rhino than a shark, yet a large proportion of Australians are terrified of sharks.
I could go on forever about my thesis as I found it a very engaging and complex topic. However, to get to my point, I am noticing some parallels in the language used to describe shark attacks and that used to describe the processing of meat. I feel that given the public’s current ambiguity around farming practices, abattoirs and the live export trade, it’s in the agricultural industry’s best interests to be aware of the influence that their language may have on the public.
I understand that farmers use an industry-specific vocabulary in their dialogue, and that words have very different connotations in different contexts. However, the general public is so uneducated and misinformed about farming practices that a farmer or agvocate’s word choice may unintentionally encourage a more emotive reaction that may further damage the livestock industry in the public esteem. For example, the word ‘slaughter’ implies a violent, bloody carnage. Yet we (the rural, pro-beef livestock producers to whom I pledge my alliance) are trying to convince the public and animal welfare groups that industry practices are humane. Using words like ‘slaughter’ when discussing these practices unconsciously suggests a direct contradiction.
Therefore, I urge all rural journalists, farmers and agvocates to carefully consider their word choice when discussing livestock etc. and to avoid overly strong and emotive words when possible. While I only really thought about this issue in detail yesterday, following a journalist’s tweet, I feel that it is something that the industry needs to be aware of, if only to monitor their vocabulary when discussing farming practices with the media, public and animal welfare groups. As a city girl who moved to the outback, I know first hand how little most of the population knows about the reality of farming practices and how influential animal activist groups can be, for example in the #meatfreeweek campaign. Let’s not give them any more ammunition.
I don’t yet know what my next step, if any, will be in my attempt to bring my concerns to the awareness of agricultural spokespeople. But, if you have an opinion on this issue, I look forward to discussing it with you as it’s something that I feel is overlooked in the agricultural industry’s push to educate metropolitan Australians about farming practices, particularly in this time of ‘dairy wars’, ‘meatfreeweek’ and ‘hadagutful’.
The article that got me thinking (last paragraph, in particular): http://www.abc.net.au/rural/news/content/201303/s3720506.htm Words used in an innocent, functional way may incite an emotive response from people unfamiliar with the livestock industry. They’re the ones buying meat, let’s not scare them with news of 85,000 head being slaughtered, when they can be ‘processed’ instead.
