{Note from mods - this thread split from here: COVID-19 effects on zoos and animal conservation} I think you overestimate the importance, influence and size of the anti-zoo lobby in most countries. The general public still likes to go to zoos - especially when they have small children. Why anti-zoo lobbyists' statements rather frequently find their way into the media can be, among others and according to my observation, contributed to two things: - It's an emotional, controversially discussed subject that concerns animals. Increased public interest is almost a given, especially when cute and popular animals are involved. - A lot of modern journalists don't have an academic background in natural sciences or a working class / rural background. Most of them are city slickers with very little real experience with animals. In combination with a liberal / left or left-leaning political orientation, whose group identity kind of requires you to be against zoos (and be able to quote Rilke's "The Panther" poem automatically when someone even slightly mentions the word zoo), this has resulted in a generally negative and critical tenor of journalists (at least among of the ones who write for The New York Times, The Guardian, Der Spiegel, Der Standard etc.) when it comes to zoos and even more so circuses and dolphinaria. Furthermore, they are no longer able / willing to be objective enough to steer away from conveying this dismissive attitude to their readers. The only time they have to curb their dislike is when they have to report about cute baby animals born at the zoo. I'm actually a bit worried that by continuously focusing on families and small children as their major target audience and therefore adding more and more amusement / "event" elements for the sake of the dearly needed revenue, zoos will turn more and more into amusement parks, and thus become an even easier target for the anti-zoo lobby and the snobbish journalists supporting them.
The Guardian's coverage of zoos is a rather more mixed than you suggest (though I'm not denying it's happy to print anti-zoo opinions). Today's accompanying magazine includes a piece written by a London Zoo keeper who lives within the zoo extolling how great that is (completely positive, sounds glorious) and the paper routinely prints pictures of (usually cute) animals in zoos -though, strangely, these pictures are usually from continental European zoos rather than the UK.
I would say the same goes for the New York Times and their local zoo the Bronx Zoo. They have at times posted stories that the zoo would not be happy about say Happy the elephant (although imo that situation is something the zoo should have explained and therefore the journalists were in the right). Yet they also regularly publish pieces about the WCS’s in-house and international conservation. This gives the zoo and the society so much free media access. Most conservation stories in the times also get quotes from WCS staff, especially regarding the wildlife trade and covid-19. So while its not always positive, their relationship generates far more good media than bad media.
Both the Spiegel and Der Standard have published random positive pieces on zoos now and then; however, this doesn't change the general attitude and inherent issue that I've described above. It's a bit like as if one of the very pro-feminist writers (something The Guardian is, well, let's say well-known for) has to write something positive about men and negative / critical about women. They'll grudgingly do so, as they need the paycheck, but somewhere, at least in the end of the article, they might sneak in something showing their true colours. Do I generally dislike journalists? No. But I've observed the aforementioned attitude for a while now and I've had my share of experiences with representatives of the media. Often in WdG, and often positive, but also some that made me more careful.
Oh yeah, I'd concede the journalists instincts are probably, on balance, more anti-zoo than pro-zoo but the newspaper as a whole is not strongly committed enough to not publish pro-zoo stuff. (if a good story suits). Let's not forget their ex-journalist Ben Mee brought Dartmoor Zoo.
I'm not sure if the current profession of an ex-employee / colleague is going to propitiate a newspaper against the profession as a wholr.
I was more implying that some (ex)journalists from the paper have been significantly pro-zoo. But, as an intelligent person, I'm sure you knew that.
Very interesting assesment of this situation and I agree with most of what you have written here. There is generally speaking a group identity and one that is unfortunately linked with the liberal left-leaning end of the political spectrum when it comes to zoos. Part of this collective identity does tend towards a feckless group-think type behaviour where people do not critically think about complex and nuanced issues and just have their viewpoints dictated to them by a vague and amorphous definition of what is "progressive". It is actually very frustrating for me as I would place myself towards being more centre-left leaning in most positions though I am not at all into mindless group think (not just regarding zoos but pretty much everything). More and more I find myself feeling a deep sense of estrangement from a lot of what is passing nominally as "the left" nowadays which is concerning to say the least. I think zoos unfortunately get shafted and disparaged by many on the left because of their association with "oppression" and "cruelty". The valid argument that these institutions are actually critical for conservation interventions often gets drowned out by all the hysteria and shouting. In my opinion the organizational cultures of a lot of zoos actually don't help matters at all when they make either zero or merely mediocre commitment to in-situ conservation and environmental education. Stonewalling and not being tactically "on their toes" / "the offensive" with the zealots and their campaigns doesn't help matters either and inevitably loses hearts and minds. Another issue is that there is often a lack of public engagement and effective communication to the public regarding complex conservation issues and the necessity of zoos in the simplified language that is required.From what I have observed this just continues to give fuel to the argument and propaganda of the "Animal rights" zealots out there and legitimizes their ideology in the eyes of the masses. I think the need for public engagement presents a very powerful and self evident argument for why environmental educators are such essential team members for any zoos and why they should not be treated as superfluous or as "dead wood" as they often are by administration.
I remember over a decade back the New York Post published a story claiming Happy was kept in 24/7 solitary confinement completely indoors with no windows or other access to the outdoors, all without bothering o actually ask the zoo about it. Pretty sure that's what kicked off the whole Happy controversy in the first place, or at least it's the earlier reporting I've found on the subject. Either way, the Post has caused a lot of trouble for the zoo and I can't say I've found them to have a very zoo-friendly attitude since.
The post and the times are completely different papers though. The post is a right wing tabloid, while the times is one of the nations best papers (although with the Wall Street Journal in my opinion).
Yeah I know, I was just pointing out an example of a New York paper being biased against the zoo. ~Thylo
On the bright side there is good old Mongabay who in their articles frequently (but not uncritically which isn't necessarily a bad thing) come to the defense of zoos and their ex-situ contributions to conservation. Although I know that they are technically not at all the average tabloid rag.
Just an advice: In case you ever need to deal with media in a zoo: TV needs to film interesting images. So show them an interesting image, which your grandmother would like to see in a TV. Preferably one which does not make you look like a complete idiot. You may be cuddling an animal, feeding it, or taking a cobra in a protective gear. TV will be happy and you get a good coverage. Journalists need to find an interesting, possibly controversial story to write about. So preemptively give them a good story your grandmother would like to read about a zoo. Tell them how passionately you save this animal from extinction, or how desperately you fight for life of an orphaned animal, or some love story between two animals or whatever. The journalist will be happy and you get a good coverage. Just accept that media generally know nothing about zoos or animals - they write about too many things. The danger is that if you don't give them a good material, they will create one for themselves, being totally ignorant. And write total nonsense, or worse, will try to make a story over how bad your zoo is.
It's not that they write about too many things. As mentioned before, the majority of journalists has no background in natural sciences, a less than basic understanding of zoology and close to zero practical knowledge regarding (wild) animals. The sparkling interest that tje encounter with a wild animal ignites in all sane humans, except for the most indurated Homo technicus, is there, but you need to guide it through a large void. Otherwise, they'll do as you say and make up sensational stories. Jusr mind your words as carefully as possible.
Thank you for the advice - is it based on anything solid, any personal experience or knowledge? - as it describes a World very different from the one we live in.
Nothing special, just a handful of personal encounters with journalists from a national radio and 3 big newspapers, several successful articles and two mixed-up ones (full of factual mistakes) and a hour-long radio program which turned to be spread over all day.
