How does the media shape the way we think about animals? Why do we see some as food and others as companions? This article explores the hidden power of media in reinforcing societal norms that justify animal exploitation—and how vegan campaigners are using storytelling, activism, and strategic messaging to challenge these narratives. By uncovering the ways media obscures animal suffering and examining how advocacy can reframe the conversation, we explore the opportunities and challenges of shifting public perception toward a more compassionate world.
Winston Churchill once said, “A pessimist sees the difficulty in every opportunity; an optimist sees the opportunity in every difficulty.” This sentiment captures the complex role of the media in shaping public attitudes toward animal suffering and vegan advocacy. The media can act as both a powerful platform for change and a significant barrier, reinforcing societal norms that justify the exploitation of animals. For vegan campaigners, this contested space presents both challenges and opportunities to reshape public discourse and challenge dominant ideologies.
The Power of Media in Shaping Beliefs
The way we view animals is deeply influenced by cultural conditioning. Dr Melanie Joy, a Harvard-educated social psychologist, introduced the concept of “carnism”—an invisible belief system that conditions people to view certain animals as food while treating others as pets. This system protects meat-eating from moral scrutiny by making it appear “normal, natural, and necessary” (Learn more about carnism).
The media plays a crucial role in reinforcing this ideology. Advertisements, news coverage, and entertainment often depict meat consumption as an unquestioned norm, obscuring the suffering involved in animal agriculture. Fast-food advertisements, for example, frequently use cartoonish, cheerful farm animals to promote their products. Such imagery distances consumers from the reality of factory farming, making the consumption of animals seem harmless and even humorous.
The media’s ability to frame societal norms is what communication scholars call the “reality effect.” When repeated often enough, media representations begin to feel like objective truth rather than cultural constructs. This has serious consequences for animal advocacy, as it creates a world in which animal suffering is hidden from view, and those who challenge the system—such as vegans—are often portrayed as extreme or out of touch.
The Marginalisation of Veganism in the Media
Media portrayals of vegans often reinforce stereotypes that depict them as militant, radical, or even hypocritical. Tabloid headlines such as “Militant Veganism is Out of Control” (The Independent) illustrate how veganism is often framed as a disruptive force rather than a moral and ethical movement. This kind of negative representation can discourage engagement with vegan ideas by reinforcing the perception that veganism is impractical or extreme.
This marginalisation is not accidental. The concept of “Manufacturing Consent,” popularised by Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman, explains how mass media serves powerful economic interests by filtering information in ways that benefit dominant groups. The meat and dairy industries, which invest millions in advertising and lobbying, have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo. In 2023, for instance, Tyson Foods spent over $2 million on lobbying efforts, shaping public discourse in their favour.
This economic influence makes it more difficult for alternative perspectives, such as those advocating for animal rights, to gain mainstream attention. When vegan campaigns do break through, they often face backlash or are framed in ways that undermine their message.
The Absent Referent: How Language and Imagery Obscure Animal Suffering
One of the key ways the media maintains the invisibility of animal suffering is through what feminist scholar Carol J. Adams calls “the absent referent.” This concept refers to the way animals are erased from discussions about meat consumption.
For example, animals are often renamed after death: “cow” becomes “beef,” “pig” becomes “pork.” This linguistic distancing makes it easier for people to consume meat without thinking about the suffering involved. Similarly, the use of euphemistic phrases such as “humane slaughter” or “processing” sanitises the brutality of animal agriculture, making it more palatable to the public.
Marketing tactics also contribute to this disconnect. Supermarkets often use imagery of fictional, idyllic farms to create the illusion of ethical meat production, even when the products come from industrial factory farms. By portraying animals as happy, willing participants in their own consumption, media and marketing efforts reinforce the status quo while suppressing ethical concerns.
Countering the Narrative: The Role of Vegan Campaigns
While mainstream media often works to sustain carnist ideology, it also provides opportunities for vegan activists to challenge these narratives. Independent media platforms, social media, and documentaries have played a crucial role in exposing the hidden realities of animal suffering and shifting public perception.
Documentaries like Dominion and Earthlings have been instrumental in making animal suffering visible by using graphic footage to challenge the sanitized images presented in mainstream media. Similarly, campaigns such as iAnimal by Animal Equality use virtual reality technology to immerse viewers in the experience of factory-farmed animals, making it harder for them to ignore the suffering involved.
Another powerful strategy is to challenge the absent referent by focusing on the individuality of animals. Research shows that giving animals names and using pronouns like “he” and “she” instead of “it” helps bridge the emotional gap between consumers and the animals they eat. A striking example occurred in the UK during the 2001 foot-and-mouth disease outbreak when a photograph of a young calf named Phoenix sparked widespread public outrage, leading the government to change its culling policy. This demonstrates the power of storytelling in reframing the way people think about animals.
Navigating the Challenges: Finding the Right Messaging
Despite the success of many vegan campaigns, there are still challenges in effectively engaging the public. Graphic imagery, for instance, can be powerful but also overwhelming, leading some viewers to disengage due to emotional distress. For this reason, some campaigns take a different approach, using humour and satire to reach audiences in a more accessible way.
The film Carnage (2017), directed by Simon Amstell, uses comedy to imagine a future in which veganism is the norm and society looks back with horror at its history of animal exploitation. By using humour, the film avoids triggering defensiveness while still encouraging viewers to reflect on their eating habits.
Other campaigns focus on health and environmental benefits to attract mainstream audiences. The rise of plant-based food marketing reflects a shift in consumer demand. However, there is a risk that framing veganism solely as a dietary trend rather than an ethical stance could dilute its core message about animal suffering.
The Future of Vegan Advocacy in the Media
The media remains a double-edged sword for vegan activism—it can be both an obstacle and an invaluable tool. While mainstream media often upholds carnist norms through language, imagery, and corporate influence, vegan campaigns have found innovative ways to challenge these narratives and make animal suffering visible.
By using media strategically, activists can expose the truth about animal suffering, challenge the status quo, and present veganism as an ethical, compassionate way of living. If you’re inspired to take action, you can start by sharing educational content, supporting vegan organisations, or engaging in conversations that challenge carnist narratives. Watching and recommending documentaries, joining advocacy groups, and even making conscious consumer choices all contribute to reshaping public perception. With persistence, creativity, and the right messaging, we can help create a future where animals are no longer invisible victims.
Adams, C. J. (2015). The Sexual Politics of Meat: A Feminist-Vegetarian Critical Theory. New York: Bloomsbury.
Cottle, S. (2006). Mediatized Conflicts: Understanding Media and Conflicts in the Contemporary World. Maidenhead: Open University Press.
Downey, J., Titley, G., & Toynbee, J. (2014). Ideology critique: the challenge for media studies. Media, Culture & Society, 878-887.
Grauerholz, L. (2007). Cute Enough to Eat: The Transformation of Animals into Meat for Human Consumption in Commercialized Images. Humanity & Society, 334-354.
Joy, M. (2011). Why We Love Dogs, Eat Pigs and Wear Cows. Massachusetts: Conari Press.
Meikle, G. (2018). Making Meanings and Making Trouble. In G. Meikle, The Routledge Companion to Media and Activism (pp. 1-16). Oxon: Routledge.
Mossner, A. W. (2021). Screening veganism – The production, rhetoric, and reception of vegan advocacy films. In L. Wright, The Routledge Guide to Vegan Studies (pp. 309-318). New York: Routledge.
Stewart, M. C. (2021). (Mis)representing Veganism in Film and Television. In L. Wright, The Routledge Handbook of Vegan Studies (pp. 319-332). Oxon: Routledge.
Trauth, E. (2021). Friends Don’t Let Friends Eat Tofu: A Rhetorical Analysis of Fast Food Corporation ‘Anti-Vegan-Options’ Advertisements. In L. Wright, The Routledge Handbook of Vegan Studies (pp. 343-326). Oxon: Routledge.
Winters, E. (2022). This is Vegan Propaganda . London: Vermilion.
Wright, L. (2015). The Vegan Studies Project; Food, Animals and Gender in the Age of Terror. Athens, Georgia: University of Georgia Press.
