Speciesist Journalism: News Media Coverage on Farmed Animals and Care as a News Value

Abstract

Through framing analysis, this research spans a decade (2013–2022) of news on animal agriculture, focusing on the industry’s constituent bodies, farmed animals, to uncover how journalism operates with speciesism as a societal driving force. Findings indicate that animal welfare is framed as a scientific issue, while environmental news coverage downplays the struggles of these animals within industry operations. To conclude, the normative journalistic standard of accuracy is discussed as functioning primarily within an anthropocentric framework, while the news value of care is suggested as a remedy for social ignorance perpetuated by the press regarding farmed animals.

1. Introduction

Animal agriculture operates at an unprecedented scale, with billions of farmed animals1 slaughtered and processed annually for food in the United States (United States Department of Agriculture, 2024). The conditions in which farmed animals live and die are marked by overcrowding, physical and emotional distress, and harsh slaughter practices, raising significant ethical and welfare/rights issues (Almiron et al., 2018; Broad, 2014; Gaard, 2002; Freeman, 2009; Muller, 2018, 2020; Pachirat, 2011; Rooney, 2022; Rossi, 2025; Singer, 1975/2009). Despite these concerns, much of the mainstream news media coverage of animal agriculture has been criticized for marginalizing the subjectivity of animals, often prioritizing the interests of the agricultural industry (Freeman, 2009, 2016; Khazaal & Almiron, 2016; Rossi & Ferrucci, 2024; Torres, 2007). This trend persists even as evidence increasingly links factory farming to climate change, a topic that has gained considerable attention in the press (Moreno & Almiron, 2021; Kristiansen et al., 2021).

News on the functioning of animal agriculture often emerges in response to specific events, such as zoonotic disease outbreaks or undercover investigations revealing abusive practices against animals, rather than sustained coverage of the industry’s routines (Faunalytics, 2024b; Fung et al., 2011). In these instances, news frames frequently emphasize human risk or sensational aspects, which can obscure ongoing animal welfare/rights concerns (Matsuoka & Sorenson, 2018). State “ag-gag laws,” which restrict recording, investigation, or reporting of practices inside animal agricultural facilities, further complicate news coverage by reducing opportunities for systemic critique (Broad, 2014; Ceryes & Heaney, 2019). Together, these factors suggest that while certain events may temporarily make animal suffering visible, broader ethical issues often remain invisible in news discourses.

As audiences have become more engaged with ethical questions surrounding food production (Dragolea et al., 2023; Öner et al., 2024; Ruzgys & Pickering, 2024), addressing the functioning of speciesist frames specifically in news media becomes critical, yet remains underexplored. Speciesism, popularized in Animal Liberation (Singer, 1975/2009), describes discrimination based on species membership and has been theorized in parallel with other systems of oppression such as racism and sexism (Deckha, 2012). In media discourse, speciesism manifests through the marginalization of animals’ experiences and the normalization of industrial practices, reinforcing societal hierarchies that privilege human interests (Adams, 2015). By obscuring animal suffering and ethical concerns, the media contributes to socially sanctioned ignorance on animal agricultural practices and shapes public perceptions of food production and environmental issues (Broad, 2014).

At the same time, alternative discourses surrounding plant-based diets and veganism have gained traction in public debates, both as ethical responses to speciesist practices and as ecological imperatives to mitigate climate change (Twine, 2010). The rising visibility of plant-based alternatives, whether in the form of commercial products or cultural advocacy, directly challenges the normalization of industrial animal agriculture, presenting competing frames of dietary choices.

Furthermore, animal agriculture extends beyond land-based farming. Aquaculture, often overlooked in public and scholarly discourse, now represents one of the fastest-growing food sectors globally. When aquatic animals are included alongside terrestrial ones, the number of sentient beings raised and killed for food is not in the billions but in the trillions annually (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, 2024). These numbers underscore the vast scale of animal exploitation, further exposing how news media frame food production.

A central concern when examining news coverage of industrial animal agriculture is how journalistic norms, such as accuracy and objectivity, shape the representation of farmed animals. Accuracy is widely recognized as a foundational norm in journalistic practice (Society of Professional Journalists, 2014), yet what counts as accurate reporting can vary depending on the evaluative lens. From the perspective of professional standards, accuracy entails conveying facts and representing events without distortion (Society of Professional Journalists, 2014). Objectivity, in turn, is commonly defined as giving fair consideration to all relevant perspectives while minimizing personal or ideological influence in news production (Society of Professional Journalists, 2014). However, professional definitions of journalistic accuracy and objectivity exclude the experiences and suffering of nonhuman species, thereby reinforcing speciesist news assumptions.

To further the discussion on how speciesist news frames perpetuate the erasure of farmed animal suffering and minimize the severity of environmental harm, this study investigates a decade (2013–2022) of mainstream news coverage on animal agriculture. By focusing on the bodies that constitute this industry, namely, farmed animals, this research aims to uncover the functioning of speciesist news frames in the U.S. mainstream press, paying particular attention to how news values, as categories of newsworthiness, shape journalistic content.

2. Literature Review

2.1. The Framing of News and Farmed Animals

Frames serve as “organizing principles that are socially shared and persistent over time, that work symbolically to meaningfully structure the social world” (Reese, 2001, p. 11). Building on this idea, frame analysis offers a critical lens for examining how news narratives are constructed, where frames operate as cognitive structures that organize and give meaning to events (Durham, 2001). These structures not only shape public understanding but also reflect and reproduce socially constructed realities (Johnson-Cartee, 2005). Importantly, frames contribute to the maintenance of a social order by marginalizing narratives that challenge dominant ideologies (Durham, 2001, p. 135). Viewed through this lens, journalism functions as an instrument of social control, privileging the perspectives of dominant groups while downplaying or omitting those of marginalized communities (Gans, 2004).

Frames operate as flexible cognitive schemata, shaping how actors perceive, classify, and respond to information, and predicting which interpretations are likely to be reinforced or contested (Goffman, 1974; Scheufele, 1999). In media contexts, frames can be employed strategically, allowing actors to influence perception and guide decision-making through selective emphasis and narrative construction (Lakoff, 2010). “Since language that is repeated very often becomes ‘normally used’ language, ideological language repeated often enough can become ‘normal language’ but still activate that ideology unconsciously in the brains of citizens—and journalists” (Lakoff, 2010, p. 72). This perspective positions framing not merely as a descriptive tool but as a theoretical framework that connects cognitive structures, communicative strategies, and social influence in the production and reception of meaning.

Once narratives are embedded within prevailing journalistic frames, alternative perspectives become increasingly difficult to introduce (Tuchman, 1978). These principles are shaped by market forces and institutional dynamics (Beale, 2022; Dyer-Witheford & Mularoni, 2021; McManus, 1994), which can contribute to the exclusion of critical perspectives and the marginalization of dissenting voices. In this context, frames serve as overarching structures that encompass themes and discourses, shaping how news narratives are constructed and understood. Frames serve as boundaries that shape both the inclusion and exclusion of information within narratives, guiding attention toward particular elements while leaving others unaddressed, not only influencing what is communicated but also what remains unsaid (Altheide & Schneider, 2013).

In coverage of farmed animals, these dynamics are particularly salient, where the framing of issues can shape ethical considerations, public attention, and policy debates (Freeman, 2009, 2010). News stories tend to reinforce essentialist and universalist views, framing industrial farming practices as normalized and legitimate components of the food system. As a result, animals are positioned as objects rather than subjects within these narratives (Cole & Stewart, 2014; Freeman, 2009; Twine, 2010). The ways in which media content is constructed reveal underlying societal structures grounded in speciesism, or the ideological presumption of human superiority over other species, positioning this system as an overarching social organizing principle (Muller, 2020; Adams, 2015). News media, more specifically, reinforce speciesist assumptions by presenting nature and animals as passive resources for human use (Almiron et al., 2018; Freeman, 2009), often omitting the subjective experiences of animals themselves.

Speciesist journalism emerges as a key site of inquiry in this context. Although journalists have increasingly turned their attention to issues such as climate change (Strydhorst, 2025) and the ethics of food production (Buddle & Bray, 2019), it often fails to question the ideological underpinnings of speciesism. This oversight is rooted in Enlightenment-era paradigms of rationality that discount animal subjectivity (Donovan & Adams, 2007; Donovan, 2016). As a result, animals are “spoken about” rather than acknowledged as having standpoints of their own (Donovan, 2006, 2016; MacKinnon, 2001).

The discursive, and physical, distancing of the general public from industrial farming practices (Pachirat, 2011) contributes to the broader social production of ignorance regarding the treatment of farmed animals and the systemic conditions that sustain their exploitation (Broad, 2014). Such distancing is also embedded within intersecting structures of power: capitalist logics of commodification that reduce animals to units of production (Nibert, 2002) and patriarchal systems of domination that naturalize hierarchies of control and violence (Adams, 2015). In most cases, the only interaction between farmed animals and the general public occurs at the moment of consumption, when animals are perceived solely as food commodities (Adams, 2015). This invisibility complicates news narratives, as meaning-making processes in stories involving farmed animals require journalists to navigate ethical, scientific, and industry-related considerations that are frequently overlooked (Freeman, 2009). Therefore, media practices reinforce this separation, allowing food consumption to proceed with minimal ethical reflection (Adams, 2015) and constraining journalists and audiences from challenging entrenched assumptions about human–animal relations (Freeman, 2009).

To address this gap, scholars have argued for the integration of empathy alongside rational analysis (Donovan, 2006). Such an approach can offer a more comprehensive framework for interrogating the cultural and political contexts that sustain speciesism (Gaard, 2002). Integrating empathy with rational analysis, rather than privileging reason alone, can provide a more expansive framework for analyzing how news media reinforce speciesist norms while simultaneously presenting opportunities to challenge them (Adams, 2015; Donovan, 2006; Gaard, 2002; Plumwood, 1993).

2.2. News Values as a Logic of Framing Selection and the Lack of Care

The framing of news stories is shaped by institutional norms and practices, including the application of news values (Gans, 2004). “News values are worth studying because they inform the mediated world that is presented to news audiences” (Harcup & O’Neill, 2017, p. 1470). In line with conventional journalism practices, news values are largely oriented toward human-centered narratives. While journalism traditionally privileges rational, objective reporting, empathy for humans often operates as an implicit value, subtly shaping coverage without being explicitly acknowledged. This tension between emotional engagement and professional norms of detachment highlights how ethical considerations are selectively applied in news narratives, influencing which stories receive attention and how they are framed (Deuze, 2005).

Political economic contexts help reinforce cultural norms (Fraser, 1990), while news values often reflect societal arrangements shaped by elite influence (Herman & Chomsky, 2002). An examination of news values facilitates an understanding of how content production influences the events that are deemed newsworthy, thereby shaping public perception and comprehension of news (Caple & Bednarek, 2016). This approach underscores the interplay between media practices and societal norms, illustrating how specific narratives are constructed and prioritized within the news landscape (Hall, 2019; Gans, 2004).

Scholarship has identified some consistency in the usage of news values within newsrooms. Among this set of news values are frequency, threshold, absolute intensity, unambiguity, meaningfulness, cultural proximity, consonance, predictability, unexpectedness, continuity, composition, and references to elite nations (Galtung & Ruge, 1965). Additionally, Harcup and O’Neill (2001) observed the use of values such as power elite, celebrity, entertainment, surprise, bad news, good news, magnitude, relevance, follow-up, and newspaper agenda. A list latter expanded to include exclusivity, conflict, audiovisuals, shareability, and drama (Harcup & O’Neill, 2017). Other news values observed in journalistic practice include timeliness, relevance, identification, conflict, sensation, and exclusivity (Schultz, 2007), as well as prominence, timeliness, proximity, impact, magnitude, conflict, oddity, and emotional impact (Yopp & McAdams, 2021).

Animals have been recognized as elements of newsworthiness, particularly within the context of entertainment news values, with a notable emphasis on domestic animals, especially dogs (Harcup & O’Neill, 2001, 2017). Additionally, animals feature most prominently in stories when providing “the added advantage of offering an appealing picture opportunity” (Harcup & O’Neill, 2001, pp. 274–275). In their updated 2017 study, the authors reiterated the significance of animals as components of entertainment news values. Furthermore, pets are frequently highlighted in news stories due to their “universal appeal” under the news value of emotional impact (Yopp & McAdams, 2021). As noted, “it is the quality that draws audiences to children, young people, and pets, as well as stories tied to love and romance” (Yopp & McAdams, 2021, p. 105). To the researcher’s knowledge, no studies have specifically identified farmed animals, as individual and sentient beings, as fitting within any element of newsworthiness, that is, as being categorized under established news values.

An ethic of care, as developed in feminist scholarship, emphasizes relationality, attentiveness, and responsiveness to vulnerability (Donovan, 2006; Tronto, 1993). In journalism, this orientation raises questions about professional norms that treat empathy as bias and often limit recognition of suffering, especially for nonhuman animals (Moreno, 2025). Care-based approaches may complicate the dominance of objectivity and detachment by broadening the scope of what is recognized as ethically significant in reporting (Ward, 2019). These insights resonate with calls for renewed ethical frameworks to address animal exploitation (Almiron & Tafalla, 2019; Moreno, 2025).

Scholars have also suggested using language that foregrounds animals’ sentience and moral consideration, rather than framing them as consumable products. Non-speciesist terminology can encourage audiences to recognize animals as beings with inherent value and may subtly challenge the normalization of their exploitation (Leach & Dhont, 2023). Since industrial animal exploitation is closely linked to environmental degradation and climate-related harms, ethical frameworks that consider both human and nonhuman interests may provide a useful lens for addressing these interconnected concerns (Best, 2014; Almiron & Tafalla, 2019). This does not imply a singular solution but rather suggests that care can be a productive value for reimagining how newsworthiness is defined and how stories about nonhuman lives are framed.

3. Research Questions

To explore how news framing, influenced by prevailing news values, shapes news representations of farmed animals, this study proposes the following research questions:

RQ1: What themes were used to organize U.S. mainstream news coverage of farmed animals over a decade (2013–2022)?

RQ2: How were frames employed by U.S. mainstream news media over a decade (2013–2022) to portray stories related to farmed animals, and how did news values appear to shape the presentation of these narratives?

4. Methodology

4.1. Textual Analysis Guided by Framing Theory

This study employs a qualitative textual analysis, guided by framing theory, to examine the portrayal of farmed animals in U.S. mainstream news media. It is part of a broader project that uses multiple methodologies to analyze U.S. news media coverage of farmed animals. Textual analysis facilitates self-reflexivity without asserting absolute truths (McKee, 2001) and positions social texts as sources of meaningful insights into the topics under examination (Altheide & Schneider, 2013; Babbie, 2016; Baxter & Babbie, 2004), allowing for interpretations that move beyond repetitive findings (McKee, 2001).

Since framing can be applied both conceptually and methodologically (Reese, 2001), this study also utilized framing as guidance for textual analysis. News articles served as the unit of analysis for this research. Data collection followed Altheide and Schneider’s (2013) protocol, identifying key details (title, author, date, newspaper) and analyzing themes, discourses, sources, and standpoints to explore the construction of power dynamics in news narratives. Additionally, this study applied Yopp and McAdams’ (2021) news values framework—timeliness, prominence, proximity, impact, magnitude, conflict, oddity, and emotional impact—as guidance to examine news values in narratives. Therefore, timeliness reflects relevance of up-to-date news; prominence highlights key figures; proximity considers location; impact assesses consequences; magnitude relates to scale; conflict emphasizes disputes; oddity covers unusual events; and emotional impact appeals to universal emotions. Overlapping values were acknowledged.

4.2. Sample

This study examines a decade (2013–2022) of news coverage from five mainstream U.S. for-profit news outlets that publish across print and digital platforms. As “agenda-setting media” (Chomsky, 1997), mainstream news media shape public discourse by setting the agenda and defining cultural frameworks (Chomsky, 1997; Zuckerman, 2021). While digital platforms dominate the current news landscape (Pew Research Center, 2022), print circulation still shapes the news agenda (Su & Borah, 2019). Among the top-circulating newspapers (Turvill, 2022), The Wall Street Journal was excluded due to its corporate focus, and Los Angeles Times and Chicago Tribune were also excluded after yielding no relevant results in preliminary searches. Therefore, this study incorporated The New York Times, USA Today, The Washington Post, New York Post, and Star Tribune as the selected outlets.

A Factiva query for these newspapers employed the following keywords to locate news on farmed animals: “factory farm,” “factory farming,” “animal agriculture,” “aquaculture,” “farmed animal,” “farmed animals,” “farm animal,” “farm animals,” “meat plant,” “meat plants,” “food line,” “meat production,” “livestock,” “processed meat,” “process meat,” “meatpacking,” “meatpacking plant,” and “meat processing plant.” In terms of content, only full-length news articles authored by staff writers and focused on farmed animals were included. Excluded from the analysis were opinion pieces, as the focus of this study was on objective news reporting. Additionally, Q&As, interviews, lists, transcripts, recipes, and articles concerning meatpacking human workers were excluded, as the study focused on the exploitation of animals.

Table 1. Articles Found/Selected per News Organization.

News Organization	Total Found 2013–2022	Total Selected
The New York Times	640	138
The Washington Post	479	126
Star Tribune	260	88
USA Today	418	77
New York Post	136	30
Total	1933	459

presents an overview of the articles selected for analysis by outlet, indicating the number of articles found versus those ultimately included.

4.3. Protocol of Analysis

Qualitative analysis was conducted manually, adhering to the framework established by Emerson et al. (2011). It involved three key steps: (1) a thorough review of the content during the “memo stage,” (2) a “line-by-line coding process” to identify emerging patterns, and (3) the transition to the “focus coding” stage, during which the data was reviewed again, leading to the drafting of the findings section. The approach outlined by Emerson et al. (2011) has been utilized in journalism research as it offers a framework for qualitatively analyzing the emergence of patterns within content (see Ferrucci, 2024; Ferrucci et al., 2023) and it was employed to examine both RQ1 and RQ2.

To maintain a focus on industry-wide discourse, the findings section refrains from naming specific publications, writers, or speakers, following the model suggested by Vos and Singer (2016). This model has been employed by scholars (Ferrucci & Canella, 2023; Rossi & Ferrucci, 2024) to provide a structured framework for analyzing discourse across the industry.

5. Findings

5.1. Routinized Themes for Routinized News Coverage

Research question one inquired about the themes that organized U.S. mainstream news coverage of farmed animals.

Table 2. Themes Found per News Organization.

Themes/News Organization	The New York Times	The Washington Post	Star Tribune	USA Today	New York Post	Total
Farming	24	14	20	10	0	68
Farmed Animal Welfare	22	19	9	10	6	66
Future of Food	18	19	6	8	3	54
Coronavirus Outbreak	9	8	9	20	4	50
Aquaculture	10	13	11	7	0	41
Antibiotic Resistance & Superbugs	13	11	10	6	0	40
Arts/Entertainment	13	8	6	4	8	39
Environment/Climate Change	9	11	9	3	0	32
Human Health	5	3	1	7	4	30
Extreme Weather Events	7	5	3	1	0	16
Non-Western Farmed Animals	4	2	0	1	2	9
Farmed Animals as Pets	0	2	4	0	2	8
Farmed Animals on the Run	4	1	0	0	1	6
Total	138	126	88	77	30	459

presents a summary of the identified themes.

The analysis revealed a discernible pattern in the content of news stories, categorized as follows: farming, encompassing overall land animal agriculture processes such as technological advancements and farming techniques; farmed animal welfare, featuring news stories that addressed animal welfare issues; future of food, focusing on trending or emerging food alternatives to farmed animal meat/dairy; coronavirus outbreak, covering meatpacking facility closures due to the pandemic; aquaculture, pertaining to news on fish farming systems; antibiotic resistance & superbugs, reporting on antibiotic usage and the superbugs that arise as a consequence; arts/entertainment, highlighting events and art reviews involving farmed animals; environment/climate change, examining the ecological impacts of animal agriculture; human health, discussing the relationship between meat consumption and nutrition; extreme weather events, addressing weather-related disasters and their effects on animal agriculture; non-Western farmed animals, focusing on the farming of animals outside of Western culture, such as dogs; farmed animals as pets, exploring the debate over farmed animals as pets; and farmed animals on the run, detailing instances of farmed animals attempting to escape from slaughterhouses.

5.2. Speciesism as an Organizing Principle of News Coverage

Research question two examined how U.S. legacy news media employed frames over a decade to portray stories related to farmed animals and how news values appeared to shape the presentation of these narratives. Four frames emerged: farmed animal welfare as a scientific issue; dietary choices as solely individual decisions; environmental news coverage as sugarcoating the suffering of farmed animals; and animal agriculture as an institutionalized driving force in news content. This section will present the identified frames and examine their relationship to the previously established themes, as well as their engagement with news values. Timeliness was identified as a consistent factor driving newsworthiness across all themes and frame constructions, complemented by overlapping news values.

Table 3. Frames Identified and Their Alignment with News Values.

Frames	News Values
Farmed Animal Welfare as a Scientific Issue	timeliness, conflict, impact, magnitude
Dietary Choices as Solely Individual Decisions	timeliness, conflict, impact, oddity
Environmental News Coverage as Sugarcoating the Suffering of Farmed Animals	timeliness, impact, magnitude
Animal Agriculture as an Institutionalized Driving Force in News Content	timeliness, proximity, emotional impact

presents the distribution of identified frames and their alignment with news values.

5.2.1. Farmed Animal Welfare as a Scientific Issue

Farmed animal welfare, when covered, was largely framed through a scientific lens, which constrained the press from considering the animals’ daily experiences and their capacity to feel emotions and pain. It is also important to note that the concept of animal rights was not found to be employed in the news stories. This frame mainly operated within stories found under the themes of farming, extreme weather events, coronavirus outbreak, farmed animal welfare, and antibiotic resistance & superbugs, having newsworthiness being detected often through narratives that conveyed news values of timeliness, impact, magnitude, and conflict.

While news coverage on farming techniques was mostly read as up-to-date news, engaging with the news values of timeliness, coverage of conditions affecting farmed animals due to weather disasters and coronavirus outbreaks also focused on news values of impact and magnitude of the events covered. Within the theme of farming, the terminology used to describe the animal agriculture industry shaped the tone of news coverage, primarily referring to farmed animals as “livestock.” Terms such as “livestock operations,” “livestock industry,” and “livestock producers” were commonly employed, along with mass terms like “poultry,” “cattle,” and “pork.”

Similarly, news coverage addressing farming practices affected by weather conditions, under the theme of extreme weather events, also depicted farmed animals as commodities and, in other words, as socially dead beings. For instance, stories highlighted that “when it’s cold, cattle and calves don’t grow as fast,” and that “packing companies prefer pigs with muscle rather than fat to maximize efficiency.” Lastly, the portrayal of animals by the press as inanimate beings, even while they endure the animal agriculture industry, was frequently found in news coverage of the coronavirus outbreak, particularly during the first half of 2020 when meatpacking plants had to shut down their operations temporarily. The threat of a meat supply shortage prompted the press to engage with the idea of meatpacking plants as “critical infrastructure for the country,” emphasizing that “you’re [consumers] going to see empty shelves” otherwise. The term “meat stockpiles” was widely used when COVID-19 first hit to describe farmed animals confined in barns, “piling up” while still alive, awaiting the reopening of meatpacking plants for “processing.” News coverage also depicted farmers’ dilemma in having “to manage the situation themselves,” often by shooting or gassing the animals, as the fast-paced industrial animal farming cycle caused the animals to go to waste.

The lack of engagement with the lived experiences of farmed animals within the animal agriculture industry seemed to prompt the notion that animal welfare issues should be addressed primarily through a scientific lens. This approach resulted in a less nuanced portrayal of animal experiences, governed by the publication of up-to-date academic scholarship focused on decoding animal sentience, mostly interacting with timeliness as a news value. Specifically, under the theme of farmed animal welfare, in which animal conditions in the industry were somewhat addressed, a story described, “a growing body of research suggests that farmed species are intelligent beings,” while tempering that point with the statement, “scientists still know far less about the minds of chickens or cows than they do about those of apes or dogs.” Another story similarly reflected this hierarchy of living beings: “animals have emotions, perhaps not as complex,” when describing mechanical brushes as a technique to help dairy cows cope with confinement, adding that “it’s like going to a spa.”

Typically, animal abuse was translated into stories within the farmed animal welfare theme using umbrella terms such as “cage confinement,” “humane/inhumane euthanasia practices,” “short life span,” “cannibalism between hens,” “the practice of culling,” and “slaughter of downed cattle/pigs.” In general, context regarding animal agriculture practices was largely omitted from news stories, potentially contributing to reader misunderstanding of industry routines. Overall, stories denouncing the abuse of farmed animals were constructed through a scientific lens and mostly approached conflict as a news value. For instance, one story mentioned the use of “downed” pigs:

“The industry estimates that about 500,000 pigs unable to walk or stand arrive at pork plants each year. Animal welfare groups cite industry-sponsored research that places the number closer to 1 million.”

Nevertheless, the term “downed” and the reasons for the animals’ inability to stand on death row were not explained, while the conflicting narratives regarding the numbers presented by the industry and those presented by animal advocates were emphasized. Downed pigs, also called non-ambulatory pigs, are those too sick, injured, or weak to stand or move without human assistance. They can become incapacitated at any point in the production process, including on farms, in feedlots, during transport, or at slaughter facilities. Despite the severity of their condition, these animals are often dragged or forced to walk, as protections for pigs are limited compared with those for non-ambulatory cows and bulls, leading to widespread animal welfare/rights concerns andpotential risks to human health (Animal Legal Defense Fund, 2025; Faunalytics, 2024a).

The killing of farmed animals in the food industry was found to be another puzzling topic within a scientific framework and conflict as a news value A news story based on a video released by the animal protection nonprofit Compassion Over Killing engaged with scenes such as “a sheep struggling as a worker slices repeatedly at its carotid artery with a knife; some animals appear to continue breathing after their throats have been slit.” The graphic content of the video was contested by the cited meatpacking plant, Superior Farms, which claimed that animals were killed when they were “absolutely insensitive to pain” after “stunning procedures” under a “humane protocol.” Once again, news narratives centered on the conflict of narratives between the animal rights group and the large meatpacking company, while neglecting the broader context and failing to fact-check the killing processes of the animals.Many stories found under the theme of farmed animal welfare were responsive to Proposition 12, a ballot passed in 2018, updating “California law that veal, pork, and eggs sold in the state don’t come from farm animals confined in cruel cages,” also engaging with conflict as a driving force in the construction of the stories, with farmers scoring a debate on the validity of the legislation. “Almost no sow farmers in the country satisfy Proposition 12’s sow housing requirements, and most believe that those requirements would harm their animals, employees, and operations,” cited an industry source in a story. Pushing further on a potential “harm” to the animals when legislation such as Proposition 12 is implemented, another article discussed the possibility of granting more space to chickens: “many farmers moved chickens from single cages into cages with a few others so they could more freely move around. But that resulted in deaths, because under poultry social organization, weaker birds are pecked to death by more dominant ones,” adding that “while smaller groups of birds are better than big ones when it comes to maintaining peace, chickens allowed to interact with one another will still kill each other.” Again, a conflict of narratives seemed to serve as a rhetorical device in journalistic framing, obscuring the actual conditions of these animals within the industry, mainly characterized by stress and overcrowded barns.

The news value of impact emerged in stories on antibiotic resistance & superbugs, emphasizing human health repercussions and what stories considered as well-being of animals. Stories did highlight the “indiscriminate use of antibiotics in animal agriculture,” and noted that “more than 70% of all the antibiotics used in the United States are given to animals.” But, also brought statements from animal agriculture officials linking antibiotic use to the industry’s commitment to “animal well-being:” “Antibiotics are part of a set of biologic tools that have enabled producers to raise livestock in ways that are environmentally conscious and more humane.” The use of antibiotics in animal agriculture promotes faster growth, described a story, and is also employed to “contain the spread of diseases.” Overall, stories highlighted industry practices such as castration and the severance of tails, ears, and beaks to reduce fighting and cannibalism, which heavily rely on antibiotics to prevent infections. Nonetheless, the factual statement that there are “no FDA-approved analgesics or painkillers for use on livestock” appeared only once among the 459 articles analyzed in this study.

5.2.2. Dietary Choices as Solely Individual Decisions

Dietary choices framed as solely individual decisions served as a narrative that was often reluctant to engage with the political and cultural status of food. Instead, reporters’ framing practices constructed meaning in ways that reinforced dietary options as largely personal choices situated within the realm of individual freedoms. This frame functioned as an ideological controller, limiting the consideration of factory farming as a system that regulates food choices on people’s everyday dietary menus. It more saliently operated within the themes of the future of food, human health, and non-Western farmed animals. Overlapping news values contributed to the construction of this frame, primarily engaging with timeliness, impact, conflict, and oddity.

Most of the news under the theme of the future of food focused on plant-based meat and was integrated with impact as a news value to enhance the newsworthiness of the stories. The framing of individual dietary choices was emphasized alongside the growth of plant-based meat options that became available in the market throughout the decade of analyzed news coverage. News stories within this theme were grounded in discourses from large meatpackers, such as Smithfield Foods, which sought to appeal to consumers by emphasizing notions of personal dietary freedom: “As a US food company and global protein leader, providing choice to consumers and adapting to their preferences will remain an integral part of our business,” as stated in one of the stories.

With the rise in plant-based2 options and substantial investments from large meatpackers, a debate over the term “plant-based” also gained traction within the news media, focusing on conflict as a news value in shaping this frame. While discussions regarding the nomenclature of novel products in the market became significant within news coverage, the relationship between everyday consumer choices and the broader context of animal agriculture was often overlooked, resulting in the erasure of farmed animals as living beings within the industry. Subsequent discussions surrounding plant-based food primarily engaged with terminological issues. An approach to the term “plant-based” itself, coined in the 1980s, was explained in a news story as follows:

“‘Plant-based’ is more inclusive than ‘vegetarian’ or ‘vegan’—not to mention popular—focusing on a healthy diet that places plant-derived foods at the forefront of the meal without forbidding consumption of all animal products all the time.”

Furthermore, the debate on the term “meat” followed, with another article from 2018 noting, “this week, Missouri became the first state in the country to have a law on the books that prohibits food makers from using the word ‘meat’ to refer to anything other than animal flesh.” A year later, in 2019, there were 24 states working on legislation to make it illegal for plant-based food to be called meat, with another story describing how “the measures’ supporters don’t want vegan or vegetarian food items to be called burgers, steaks or dogs,” adding that,

“Vegans and vegetarians insisted that the word ‘meat’ does not refer solely to the flesh of dead animals. The first definition of the word in Webster’s New World College Dictionary is ‘food, especially solid food as distinguished from drink,’ though it calls the usage archaic.”

While stories under the theme of future of food often focused on human health issues, news within the human health theme also contributed to framing dietary choices as solely individual decisions, with little consideration of the broader context of animal agriculture, using impact and conflict as key newsworthiness criteria in constructing narratives. A notable instance across nearly all the newspapers analyzed was the publication of guidelines by the Annals of Internal Medicine in 2019, which contradicted prevailing scientific opinion by stating that there was no need to reduce red or processed meat consumption for good health. However, a year later, the Annals issued a correction, revealing that the lead author, Bradley Johnston, had failed to disclose a conflict of interest, as some stories reported: Texas A&M AgriLife Research, a government agency funded by the animal agriculture industry, had provided the researcher with “$76,863 for a meta-analysis on saturated fat.”

Nonetheless, news under the theme of non-Western farmed animals explored a potential engagement with the cultural construction of dietary choices, though often through an othering process, primarily interacting with oddity as a news value. Stories frequently focused on the farming of species considered pets in the U.S. but viewed as food in other countries, particularly in Eastern nations:

“Some Koreans believe dog meat, often consumed in a stew called bosintang, helps boost stamina and virility during hot weather. It is also boiled with herbs to form a tonic called gaesoju, which is believed to aid stamina and postoperative recovery.”

Another article expanded on discussions surrounding the potential ban on dog meat consumption in South Korea3:

“Lee [owner of a restaurant that sells dog meat] also said it wouldn’t be fair to ban dog meat alone. About 15 years ago, she said, she stopped eating beef for a year after she saw a cow shedding tears as it was led to a slaughterhouse. ‘How come cows and pigs can be eaten and dogs can’t?’”

5.2.3. Environmental News Coverage as Sugarcoating the Suffering of Farmed Animals

Through an ecological lens, mainstream news coverage primarily focused on by-products of farmed animals, such as manure and methane emissions. Terms like “the economics of emissions” and “monetizing manure” were frequently employed. The environmental impacts of animal agriculture were predominantly framed through anthropocentric concerns, with the coverage lacking deeper engagement with farming processes affecting both land and aquatic species. This framing was particularly evident within the themes of environment/climate change and aquaculture. Timeliness primarily guided news narratives, with current stories reporting on the release of public environmental reports and corporate initiatives addressing sustainability issues. This frame was also shaped by the news values of magnitude and impact.

Under the theme of environment/climate change, stories often engaged with magnitude as a news value, highlighting the significance of events, including statements such as: “the amount of methane from livestock production alone is about the equivalent of the emissions from about 650 million cars;” and “if they were a country, cows would rank as the world’s sixth-largest emitter, ahead of Brazil, Japan and Germany.” Additionally, news stories about land animals highlighted initiatives by large corporations with headlines such as: “Toyota to build power plant to convert cattle manure into electricity, hydrogen;” “McDonald’s plans big cuts to greenhouse gas emissions;” and “Smithfield Foods, Dominion Energy to harvest methane from hog manure.”

The environmental frame constrained a contextualized coverage of land animal agriculture through a speciesist approach to the term “climate emergency,” which was used by the press as “solely about sustainability.” Furthermore, stories reported that “animal agriculture is a major source of both carbon dioxide and methane,” while also stating that the human population “could number 9 billion or 10 billion by midcentury. All those people will need to eat,” now featuring overlaps between the news values of magnitude and impact in some of the stories, when not only the broader scale of the event is considered, but also its impacts.

Alternatively, stories under aquaculture portrayed fish farming as a contemporary trend that offers a “sustainable alternative to land meat production.” Here again, there is an overlap of magnitude and impact as news values to lift news constructions within this frame. Overall, two primary definitions were used to describe the expansion of legitimacy of aquaculture farming systems in the U.S.: the potential to “save” the oceans through an environmental approach and the ability to provide food for a growing global human population. The concept of animal sentience in aquaculture narratives, framed within an environmental context, was notably absent.

Discourses from U.S. corporations were prominently featured in aquaculture news stories, which often conveyed an optimistic tone, suggesting that the press was fostering a public debate on sustainability issues. Aquaculture is “vital if the world’s 7.75 billion people want to keep eating fish and shellfish without draining the ocean;” stated one article, while another added “the global appetite for fish is growing faster than the human population,” highlighting that “Cargill, one of the world’s largest industrial companies, has made several recent investments aimed at solving some of the barriers.” A third story asserted:

“Farming and ranching have depleted land and animals species on a broad scale worldwide, and as the global population grows by an estimated 2.4 billion people in the next three decades, the world will need to produce 70 percent more food than it does today. The oceans—covering more than two-thirds of the planet but producing just 2 percent of its food—could be a substitute for terrestrial farming.”

5.2.4. Animal Agriculture as an Institutionalized Driving Force in News Content

Remarkably, when news stories were framed outside the institutional boundaries of the animal agriculture industry, a more contextualized understanding of farmed animal sentience appeared to be captured by the press. Although only a few stories were found to compose the themes of farmed animals as pets and farmed animals on the run, they illustrate how news construction shifted when animals are depicted outside the walls of factory farms. Physical and symbolic barriers that typically separate the press from factory farming practices seemed more permeable in these contexts. Similarly, stories within the arts/entertainment theme addressed animal sentience, even in settings where animal exploitation remained prevalent, such as state fairs. The primary news values driving these stories, in addition to timeliness, included proximity and emotional impact.

For both themes, farmed animals as pets and farmed animals on the run, the newsworthiness of the stories seemed to be influenced by the proximity of the events to the newspapers in which they were published. Additionally, emotional impact enhanced the newsworthiness of these stories; however, it predominantly emphasized human emotional responses while offering limited narratives on the emotional standpoints of the animals involved. Under the theme of farmed animals as pets, a news story about a “trending” issue of adopting chickens as pets summarized: “our rescues need homes, not jobs,” a sanctuary manager explained, adding “people are using them [chickens] for food, but they don’t know or understand what impact that has on the animal.” Following, the possibility of farmed animals being transferred from barns to backyards was discussed in the story, suggesting a reflection on what constitutes the status of an animal as a pet or as food. Another story that reported on the controversy surrounding farmed animal species as potential pets highlighted a dispute between a city resident and the local government: “a potbellied pig named Peco must find a new home after the Brooklyn Park City Council rejected a measure broadening the definition of pets in the city beyond cats and dogs.” The animal’s tutor was interviewed for the news story and declared that “her 140-pound pig was quiet, clean, and vaccinated, ‘just like a dog.’” The city council then added, “the complaint [to analyze the case] was that he was a pig. Not that he was noisy or causing any disturbance or destroying anything. We have to investigate it and follow through with our procedures.”

Additionally, under the theme of farmed animals on the run, stories of animals escaping from slaughterhouses engaged with farmed animals as sentient beings: “A cow managed to break free from a slaughterhouse,” adding that “It was sent to a sanctuary in New Jersey and given the name Freddie, after Freddie Mercury, the lead singer of Queen.” Another story captured people’s reactions to a bull that broke free from a slaughterhouse: “let him stay alive!” and “he earned his stripes!” A third story also addressed the compassion expressed by the public regarding a calf trying to escape from a slaughterhouse: “the poor thing, he didn’t know what to do.”

Farmed animal sentience and the exchange of emotions with humans were similarly captured in news stories under the theme of arts/entertainment, highlighting the publication of articles on books, art exhibitions, and films. Once again, the news value of emotional impact was integrated into the construction of this frame. For instance, one story noted, “Okja’s oppressors, like E.T., are part of a system that refuses to recognize her as anything more than a thing,” on the launch of the film Okja in 2017, which features a science-fantasy story about the relationship between a girl and a super pig. Another article discussed the movie Free Birds, “an animated tale of turkeys attempting to reclaim Thanksgiving.” Additionally, a third story reported on the launch of That Animal Rescue Show, a docuseries about Texas animal rescue organizations, stating, “we have our dogs, cats, and pet birds, but people are generally far removed from farm animals and wildlife—urban America in particular,” in reference to an interview with the producers about the rescue of animals, including farmed animals.

Moreover, stories about state fairs, presented as spectacles that allowed visitors to explore a connection with farmed animals, were published with statements such as, “Visitors flock to the center to watch farm animals, including goats, sheep, pigs, and cows, give birth and tend to their young.” Another story focused more specifically on the connection between farmed animals and children, particularly in the context of school visits to farming settings. In this context, a child remarked, “She likes to be touched,” in reference to a cow.

6. Discussion

Mainstream news media eschewed framing the industrialized slaughter of farmed animals as a social issue, which stemmed from a hesitation to recognize nature as a site of oppression. Nature is a space in which humans and animals coexist; nevertheless, there is a “chief justification of human superiority over nature” (Plumwood, 1993, p. 15). This lack of political engagement with nature as an autonomous entity prompts only part of the story to gain the attention of the press, which normatively ought to strive for accuracy. If nature is a space composed of human and nonhuman actors, then the interests of the latter are conditioned by the interests of the former in mainstream news construction, even in times when the climate crisis and food ethics gain traction in the news. This process is neither straightforward nor fluid, as hegemonic approaches are continuously reimagined to feed the journalism superstructure. This resolution leads to the first contribution of this study.

6.1. Journalism, Accuracy, and Social Consent in Animal Abuse

The first contribution this study makes to literature is an examination of mainstream journalistic framing that generates social consent for the torture and abuse of farmed animals within factory farming systems. While accuracy is a normative in journalism, news revealed a disengagement from a contextual approach surrounding animal agriculture, prompting several questions: Is accuracy intrinsically functioning within the human-centric framing prevalent in news media? In other words, is journalism telling stories in full if it does not integrate the standpoints of species other than humans? Finally, can the field of journalism critically assess the relational status of accuracy as a normative standard?

Standardized aspects of animal agriculture, such as the confinement of farmed animals in barns, their conditions upon arriving at meatpacking facilities, and practices on the killing floor, remained unclear. This disengagement from accuracy as a journalistic standard undermines the portrayal of farmed animals’ life and death cycles, reinforcing their material and symbolic abuse by the animal agriculture industry and legitimized by the press. The question “Where does my food come from?” is framed as a matter of individual choice rather than a political issue, while debates about animal welfare are shaped by the meat industry. Additionally, framing farmed animals within an environmental context serves as a propeller of anthropocentric coverage. Audiences may remain uninterested in politically engaging in the treatment of animals within factory farming systems, dismissing the adoption of flexitarian, vegetarian, or vegan diets. However, if the press is to function within a covenant of trust with its audiences, a more comprehensive portrayal of animal food systems should be integrated into news stories, as journalism plays a critical role in fostering informed audiences.

6.2. Care as a Standard News Value Towards Interspecies Social Justice

The second contribution this study makes to literature is the proposal of care as a standard news value in journalism. Although emotional impact was identified as a news value with the potential to capture the experiences of farmed animals, it often epistemologically shifted toward human emotions. The value of care has the potential to extend empathy beyond the human realm, shedding light on the struggles faced by other species. Given that definitions of news values are not fixed and can evolve over time (Harcup & O’Neill, 2001, 2017) and considering that current press ontologies often overlook the social agendas of animals, extending empathy to animal groups could bridge the gap between the press and social issues that have yet to be integrated into news coverage. This approach fits within the framework of interspecies social justice, which acknowledges the interconnected struggles of both humans and animals as means to confront systemic oppression (Kim, 2015). News values, as criteria for content selection, has the potential to elevate animals as stakeholders in news narratives, thereby potentially subverting frames that contribute to social ignorance regarding their individual interests and sentience.

Given that newsworthiness is inherently linked to news values (Harcup & O’Neill, 2001, 2017), revising these standards become essential to accommodating nonhuman actors as stakeholders in news narratives. While care is increasingly recognized as a normative driving force in journalism, at least towards humans, the political economy of the field often complicates its integration into everyday journalistic practices for animals, with discourses from the food industry as influential forces in news production. Market-driven journalism theory reveals that the field operates within a dual model, serving both public interest and market demands simultaneously (McManus, 1994). Consequently, the for-profit model of mainstream news media tends to promote content endorsed by economically powerful institutions, resulting from the financial ties between journalism and the food industry, such as the continuous flow of advertising revenue from the latter to the former. Adopting care as a news value could guide journalists in incorporating animal standpoints into news reporting, thereby highlighting the significance of these perspectives in news coverage.

Coverage that emphasizes animals’ sentience and acknowledges their individuality and subjectivity aligns with an ethics-of-care perspective that foregrounds relational responsibility and empathy toward animals. Furthermore, the lack of communication between the press and animals is rooted in a speciesist construct that regards written and verbal human languages as the exclusive means of generating news content. While journalists cannot quote animals in news stories if they rely solely on human modes of communication, expanding the scope of communication to include shared practices—such as body language, facial expressions, and vocalizations—could provide insights into animal standpoints. This approach requires an epistemological shift “from theorizing about animals to the animals themselves” (Donovan, 2006, p. 305) and emphasizes that care “must therefore be extended to mean not just ‘caring about their welfare’ but ‘caring about what they are telling us’” (Donovan, 2006, p. 305). By integrating care as a standard news value, journalism could play a crucial role in mitigating the social death of marginalized individuals, whether nonhumans or humans, when interspecies social justice is considered.

This study has limitations, including a qualitative approach to analyzing news values through framing analysis. Future research could benefit from a mixed-methods approach that includes content analysis to examine how news values shape coverage of farmed animal stories. Additionally, the exclusion of visual elements and opinion articles in this study limits the exploration of journalistic storytelling, and future research could further enhance understanding by incorporating visual and editorial analyses. Further studies could also compare different market-driven news organizations to deepen understanding of the political economy surrounding news on farmed animals and expand findings on accuracy as a normative standard in journalism. Lastly, another avenue for research could explore the incorporation of care as a standard in journalism, using both theoretical and empirical approaches to investigate the adoption of the value in newsrooms, particularly focusing on the role of emotion in news production.