Animal Trophyism: Has media influenced a negative or positive change for animals
My idea for the assessment is going to be under the topic of animals, and the subject I want to focus on is the hypothesis of ”Has Media and other media outlets enhanced or toned down the amount of animal awareness and abuse in the world”. The topic sounded like an interesting topic to focus on as it’s not the typical direction to take for dissecting the pros and cons of media, as the platform is full of both ends of the spectrum. What i want to look into is how much response has been given to either sides of the argument (pro or con), whether it has caused an increase or decrease in hunting, what actions have been taken to make it a debate and whether the platform itself is encouraging it or is not even a main factor. On the hunter’s side, i can look into how they are using the social media platform to show off their trophies and how the backlash they receive should be treated in a different way.
Through a lot of viewpoints, hunting has always been looked at in a negative light. The very nature of killing animals free in the wild has been met with extreme reactions, both sides being very vocal about their opinions. Introducing social media into picture has opened up some complicated consequences in regard to how it perceived. A poll surrounding the topic in an article has stated that 22% of teenagers log onto their favorite social media site more than 10 times a day, and a lot of problems can be stemmed from its simple use, like teenagers facing a lot of stressful situations through cyber-bullying, or adults not being able to handle its newer style as appropriately as other forms. The bottom line is, it can be a place of openness, but it’s also hounded by a lot of negativity. On the obvious level, a free openly viewable platform that shares pictures means that with every picture of a hunter posting their latest kill, it is shared with a tone of hate and backlash. What this un-contextual photo gives off, is often very different to how the hunter’s themselves actually act and feel about their lifestyle. Often the people behind the photos don’t relish in the suffering of the animal, yet the separation the image creates makes the people behind the action more aggressive and eviller than many may be. The detachment and widespread of social media have also had its negative spins on things that appear positive; with examples like the #keepitpublic, a hashtag meant to identify the places where endangered species of nature are as a way to limit the hunting in specific areas. However, this proved to backfire slightly as these photos being shown off on social media directs the hunters to said areas, the exact opposite mission of the hashtag. Despite the trophy hunting controversy, it has given hunters a place to interact with each other and share their first moments, and even manages to highlight a interesting difference in how different cultures view the activity, mainly how the African society views it. An article focusing on Neo-colonialism and Greed, the article brings up how the African society judges the act of trophy-hunting as negative not so for the actual deed itself, but rather viewed as a western (mainly American) act of hypo criticism and that it brings up bad memories of past historical issues, proving that it can hold bigger scares than expected.
An article focusing on Animals in the Media showed that the topic of hurt or killed animals has an effect on people’s own mental health as well as showing a reflection of the negative side of humanity, most news outlets and especially social media platforms have arguably increased these ideas. The strengths of social media are as noticeable as its flaws and both contribute to the negativity surrounding anything hunting or even animal related. With photos comes separation and that leads to a lack of context which then leads to a lot of strong opinions being voiced. This doesn’t only apply to digital mediums like Facebook or Twitter however, the social network has also opened itself up through television and computers overall. The general public are used to taking in every detail that is giving to them on-screen, and now with the addition of a medium allowing people to voice their own opinions, that combination leads to some monumental moments. Case in point, the infamous Harambe zoo incident, involving a Gorilla shot to death after a young boy fell into the enclosure. This sparked a massive debate online of whether or not this was a good decision and even led to its own hashtag. While not exactly about a hunting situation, it highlights the similar impact that social media has had on the overall animal activism impact.
Animal activism and abuse has always existed before the creation of social media and news broadcasting outlets, but their highlighting of these occurrences along with the internet’s fast reception and widespread leads to so many more people getting their voices out, for better or for worse. It has connected hunters and supportive groups in positive ways, but it’s also led to a lot more animal killing and trophy sharing. Either side will have their pros and cons and neither will ever be able to get rid of the other, but hopefully news and social media can find a better balance between sharing and forcing information.
https://www.petersenshunting.com/editorial/hunting-social-media-impact/368271
https://www.gohunt.com/read/life/social-medias-impact-on-hunting#gs.z6pzzy
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2211973618300862
https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/127/4/800?source=post_page—–3f89a46ab400———————-