Kunskap och konsekvens : En kritisk diskursanalys av tv-programmet Köttets lustar och den tillhörande debatten på Facebook

Sammanfattning: The world's high meat consumption is one of the main causes of global warming, it increases the risk of cancer and heart diseases, and causes a lot of suffering for animals. In December 2017, SVT showed the TV program Köttets lustar, which highlighted the different aspects of meat consumption. The program put a lot focus on how animals are affected by the meat industry, and the question of whether it is ethical to eat meat. The program reached great attention in mainstream media and on social media.   This study investigated the different discourses in the question of meat consumption in Köttets lustar, how they were framed by SVT, and the struggle between the discourses in the debate that the programme generated on SVT’s Facebook page. The aim was to see how the framing affected the debate on Facebook. The used method was Fairclough’s critical discourse analysis. In the analysis of the programme, six discourses were found: the animal rights discourse, the discourse about veganism as a sect, the masculine discourse, the public health discourse, the climate discourse and the economic discourse. In the debate on Facebook, the struggle was primarily conducted between the animal rights discourse and the economic discourse.   The animal rights discourse advocated that we should not consume meat at all, and used arguments from the climate discourse and the public health discourse to strengthen its thesis, while all the other discourses advocated continued meat consumption. The main problem with meat consumption was that we eat too much meat, and not the ethical question. The economic discourse - which emphasizes the consumer's responsibility to choose the "right Swedish meat" in a fair amount that takes better account of climate, animals, health and the environment, was dominant. The economic discourse also increased its dominance by placing greater emphasis on parts of the animal rights aspect, which makes it more difficult for the animal rights discourse to enhance its power.