Integrating ethical assessment and media content analysis to explore social conflicts over large carnivores

Human-Wildlife Conflicts (HWCs) present ethically complex scenarios that intersect social, ecological, and animal welfare considerations. Conflicts are further complicated when extreme events, such as large carnivore attacks on humans, attract intense media attention. Media coverage plays a pivotal role in shaping public risk perception and tolerance toward wildlife, influencing policy decisions. While media content analysis has been applied to HWCs, the representation of stakeholder voices and underlying ethical dimensions in media narratives remains underexplored. To address this, we developed a novel approach integrating ethical assessment and media analysis and tested it on the case of JJ4, a brown bear that fatally attacked a person in Northern Italy. Using the Ethical Matrix (EM), we mapped stakeholders' (both human and non-human) ethically relevant demands and analyzed their portrayal in online media through reported statements. Based on 76 reports and 336 quotes, our findings revealed imbalances in stakeholder representation, with animal rights and welfare advocates dominating the discourse, while others were notably underrepresented, along with their concerns. Media primarily framed the conflict as a clash between public safety and animal welfare, overlooking broader environmental considerations crucial for wildlife management, with the risk of oversimplifying the complexities of HWCs and further exacerbating opinion polarization. These results highlight the need for more pluralistic media portrayals of HWCs that reflect the full scope of ethical considerations and stakeholder perspectives. The integrated approach we adopted provides actionable insights for decision-makers to foster more balanced and informed management strategies.