Facebook

their feelings, into consideration: "We have been very steadfast because we know we've made this decision on a factual and proper basis. We can't all of a sudden change to something we know is worse because of some emotional events happening around us."³⁵ (Holst, 2014). The above is a good example of Copenhagen Zoo's argumentation. It is factual and objective and supports their defense. Moreover, Copenhagen Zoo’s choice of words is mainly neutral and factual. The logos appeal is recurrent used throughout Copenhagen Zoo’s defense in traditional media.

6.1.10 Attack strategies

Based on the coding of selected Facebook comments, I will analyze the actor's’ use of attack strategies. When looking at the different actors present on Facebook, the majority of the critics are foreigners. Overall, only few Danes attacked Copenhagen Zoo, but when they did, they mainly used two types of attack strategies. Innocent / helpless victim and planned action. The same applies for the foreign critics. Examples of the use of innocent / helpless victim can be seen in the following:

“The truth is you fucked up big time and murdered an innocent animal for NO GOOD REASON!”

(Davies, 2014)³⁸. “Just slaughtering a baby and then feeding it to your lions etc: is unacceptable.”

(Wilson, 2014)³⁹.

The actors directly indicate Marius was an innocent and helpless victim who did not deserve to be euthanized. Moreover, the critical actors on Facebook used the attack strategy, planned action, which is demonstrated in the following quotes: “Your reasons for "MURDERING" this beauitful young Giraffe, is bullshit and inexcusable.” (Kirby, 2014)⁴⁰. “It beggars belief that you have murdered a perfectly healthy animal.” (Gardiner, 2014)⁴¹. Common for a lot of the critics is, that they all agree a murder took place. A murder is a serious and markedly different action than a euthanization. When using words like ‘murder’, it indicates the actors believe Copenhagen Zoo planned the action, which increases the degree of Copenhagen Zoo’s responsibility. The accusa-tions are very rhetorical violent and tough, which will be discussed in the following section.

6.1.11 Rhetorical devices

The attacking actors on Facebook are mainly using the pathos appeal, which means a lot of the arguments are appealing to the emotions of the reader. Moreover, a lot of the foreign actors are using a hard and emotional rhetoric with many value-loaded words. An example of this could be:

“You know that HITLETER murdered millions of people for the ecact same reason you gave in the interview as to why you are killing this baby! ” (Petch--Pollard, 2014)⁴². The use of words such as murder and killing are both referring to terrible actions and can thereby intensify the negative perception of Copenhagen Zoo. Furthermore, the euthanization is also compared to Hitler's

38 Please see appendix 21

39 Please see appendix 21

40 Please see appendix 22

41 Please see appendix 22

42 Please see appendix 21

extermination of the Jews, which is a violent and serious accusation of inhuman and terrible actions.

6.1.12 Response strategies

The majority of the Copenhagen Zoo's defenders are found among the Danish actors. They primarily used the denial response strategy combined with the reminder response strategy. Moreo-ver, use of the response strategy attack the accuser is frequently used. The use of the denial response strategy, is among others, reflected in the following image:

(Appendix 23 & 25)

The picture was used as a comment by several of the actors, both Danish and foreign. The picture was used in response to Copenhagen Zoo’s status updates, whereby they express it is not a crisis, but an act that serves a greater purpose. Users deny the existence of the crisis and presents ten different arguments on why Copenhagen Zoo has done something good (reminder strategy) and not carried out an offensive action.

The use of the attack the accuser response strategy is reflected in the following examples: “Look to your own country! befor you point your finger off other countries!! In the U.S. they hunted the wolf so must, so it cam on the list of endangered species! In 24 U.S. states you can still hunt the black bear! Many of disse states the allow hunting practices deemed cruel and "unsporting," including spring hunts, baiting, hounding, and the selling and trade of bear parts.” (Tøt, 2014)⁴³. “Zoo did

43 Please see appendix 23

the right thing here. People cannot see it has a serious problem with reality. An innocent giraffe.

Frankly” (Pedersen; own translation, 2014)⁴⁴. When attacking the accuser, it can help reduce the original prosecutor's credibility. Users point out that the critics are inconsistent in their arguments and hypocritical.

6.1.13 Rhetorical devices

The actors defending Copenhagen Zoo are mainly using the logos appeal. The logos appeal is used to highlight facts to emphasize that the euthanization was justified and reasonable. This was especially used on the picture in the above section, where ten arguments were presented.

6.1.14 Copenhagen Zoo

In the following I will analyze how Copenhagen Zoo managed the crisis communication on social media. Facebook has been Copenhagen Zoo’s primary communication channel during the Marius crisis, in addition to the press release and their website. Copenhagen Zoo’s communication on Facebook consisted of five status updates in the period February 9 to February 11, 2014⁴⁵. Their primary crisis response strategy on Facebook has been the denial strategy, combined with the reminder strategy. Copenhagen Zoo did not comment or reply to any specific user comments, during the crisis. When analyzing the five different status updates from Copenhagen Zoo, they start using the denial response strategy when they send out the second status update on February 9, 2014.

In this update Copenhagen Zoo argued why euthanizing the giraffe is not cruelty: “[…]we do not consider it cruelty to animals to first euthanize a giraffe and then feed it to the lions.” (Zoo, 2014)⁴⁶. Moreover, they recognize that people are upset, but are not apologizing, which indicates they denial of being in a crisis.

On February 10, 2014, Copenhagen Zoo releases the third Facebook update, in which they explain why they used the giraffe to feed the lions, but not why they killed it. They are therefore not defending the actual euthanizing, but the feeding of the lions. In other words, they are referring to the aspects of the case but without mentioning Marius. In this way they are still denying the existence of the crisis. Moreover, they also use the reminder strategy to justify their actions: “It may seem macabre to feed the lions with a piece of the giraffe – this is why we do it: There are two reasons why we feed our carnivores with carcasses. Firstly for animal welfare reasons; secondly to

44 Please see appendix 22

45 Please see appendix 21-25

46 Please see appendix 22

ensure that our animals use as much of their natural behaviours as possible. Carcass feeding has an improved behavioural effect on carnivores which is why we fed them with carcasses.” (Zoo, 2014)⁴⁷

Copenhagen Zoo are continuously using a denial response strategy, by not mentioning the concrete crisis. They combine it with the use of the reminder response strategy, by explaining Facebook users the beneficial outcome from their decision. This is achieved by informing the users how it is completely normal to e.g. to remove giraffes from their mother at a young age, that predators feed on meat and how birth control is not a healthy solution for animals.

6.1.15 Rhetorical devices

Copenhagen Zoo's handling of the case on Facebook is characterized by an objective and formal rhetoric. They use the logo appeal and communicate factually and objectively about the case.

Furthermore, they support their arguments with the involvement of expert sources and statements.