The horrific images of cows and sheep been tied up and beaten, slowly dying so their remains can be eaten, has caused an outrage among the Australian public and is continuously highlighted throughout the media. My issue of live exports out of Australia is a key example of the deep layers involved in the media. The question I want to dig my teeth into is, how the media favors the humanitarian side of this story, without fully considering the political perspective. This story is fueled by the instant humanitarian response from the audience, however I wonder what if we turned the spotlight around and reported on this story from the politicians point of you. Audiences demand an explanation and a solution to this cruelty, without considering how the government is supposed to do this. Suddenly, Old McDonalds Farm takes on more of an “Animal Kingdom” persona.
Don`t get me wrong. In no way, am I defending the Australian Government for allowing this trade to continue in this way, I am merely pushing people to reflect on what they are really asking. I myself am an animal activist and am deeply disturbed when I see tortured animals. I was inspired to choose this topic as a media issue after skimming through the Herald and stumbled across a small article on the continuous political debate regarding this issue. My first instinct was too be outraged that this monstrosity is still continuing, then I thought, there must be a reason. I researched further and educated myself on the Australian laws and limitations on export and import, and was stumped. There are two sides to this media issue the environmental and humanitarian, and the political perspective. The audience`s empathetic side is targeted, without supplying the readers with all the facts, laws and how they can become involved.
So now I am here to establish the facts that I have encountered. The program, Four Corners, initially sparked the issue of live animal exports. “A Bloody Business,” aired in May 2011, and revealed the horrific conditions the live exported animals are succumbed to. For those that have not seen it, the episode really is disturbing. The facts are that this trade started 30 years ago and has exported as much as 150 million sheep and cattle to countries primarily in the Middle East and Southeast Asia. Ships that transport these live animals can carry as much as 100 000 animals at a time, where trips can last 3 weeks. More than 2 million exported animals died on these ships, from starvation, diseases and sometimes even stress. Once they reach the imported nations, the Australian Government is no longer responsible for the animal`s treatment. The issue that Four Corners graphically portrayed shows imported nations slaughtering these animals in a brutal and an inhumane way. Not to mention the appalling conditions the animals suffer before their slow death. Around 4 million sheep are sent to the Middle East every year, however tens of thousands die on the ships during transport. Each year, over 500 million cattle are exported to namely Southeast Asia, also seeing hundreds die on the voyage. Australia`s export trade is worth $300 million a year, with Indonesia alone. This is not a small local business. So now you have the facts. These statistics are without bias or graphic images. However, we can all see that there is still a problem.
Like the rest of the Australian Public, I could not finish my lamb chops when I heard about this issue swarming throughout the media. When a compelling human-interest story is under the radar of media journalists, not much else is newsworthy. I believe this is so, because human-interest pieces, like this, will always receive a reaction. We cannot deny it; few people could ignore this story when it was first released. The awful treatment and transport of our cattle and sheep to foreign barbarians, was and is unacceptable. The audience is always compelled to unite to the same conclusion: this needs to stop. I am not undermining this response, as it is legitimate. I felt it too, quite strongly. However, the media knows this and keeps adding fuel to the BBQ fire. By doing so, the environmental theme is the only theme that characterizes the tone of the media piece.
Now, the other side of the coin that I want to consider is the political perspective. This viewpoint of the story represents the dirty, dark, hidden side of the coin. Politics and the government serve as the scapegoat for this issue. They are the ones to blame. After all they are the ones that govern the trade industry. What the media does not elaborate on is the laws. The Australian Position Statement on the Export of Livestock, states that during the transport and moving stages the Export vessel needs an A.Q.I.S certificate, confirming it meets the humane requirements reviewed in the Statement. The law also states that, the Statement ceases when disembarkment is fulfilled. This means that the Australian Federal Government are no longer responsible for the export`s treatment, and by intervening they would be breaching an international agreement. What this means is, that if the Federal Government were to stop this they would need to negotiate with the countries where the stock is being imported. This costs time and money, and is understandably not a priority for the Federal Government.
So these are the main points I want to discuss in depth throughout my blog. I personally believe in this issue and want to see it resolved. I think by people knowing all the knowledge that is available to them, we can help find a solution and do so in the right direction.
Stay tuned for next week`s blog!
Thanks for reading. Any comments are appreciated.
journo2day 