Abstract

In spite of the well-documented links between global warming and the animal-based diet, human dietary choices have been only timidly problematized by legacy media in the recent decades. Research on news reporting of the connection between the animal-based diet and climate change shows a clear coverage deficit in traditional journalism. In order to reflect on the reasons for this failure, this paper discusses moral anthropocentrism as the human-supremacist moral stance at the roots of mainstream ethics and the climate crisis. Accordingly, the animal-based food taboo is defined here as our reluctance not only to change but to even discuss changing our food habits, a strong evidence that moral anthropocentrism is not addressed as a problem, which amounts to a type of denial. Through a literature review conducted on the most relevant comparative studies of deontological codes, this paper shows that codes of journalism do not escape moral anthropocentrism, and thus contribute to prevent journalists from stressing the relevant role diet plays in our ethics and sustainability efforts. The paper ends by suggesting ways to expand and update media ethics and deontological codes in journalism to dismantle both the taboo and the moral anthropocentric stance it is based on.

Highlights

  • Climate change denial refers to the stances that advocate against the evidence posited for humaninduced global warming

  • It can be claimed that antispeciesist glasses are needed for recognizing moral anthropocentrism in media ethics and society

  • We may stay blind to moral anthropocentrism in spite of, or because of, being immersed in it

Read more

Summary

Introduction

Climate change denial refers to the stances that advocate against the evidence posited for humaninduced global warming This typically includes denial of any or all of these aspects: The warming of the earth and climate change (trend skepticism); the attribution to human activities as the cause of climate change (attribution skepticism); the severity of the consequences of climate change (impact skepticism); and the strong scientific agreement on the reality and human cause of climate change (consensus skepticism) (McCright, 2016). These dimensions, only refer to literal and interpretative types of denial, that is the denial of facts and of the logical consequences derived from facts—following Cohen (2001) categories of denial. This paper aims to contribute to this realization by focusing on this latter type of denial–here defined as the denial of the moral anthropocentrism

Objectives
Findings
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call