This thesis employed a Historical-Critical method using rhetoric and framing theory to examine the 2008 Proposition 2: Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act campaigns. The Californians for Humane Farms (HSUS) and Californians for SAFE Food (CSF) were the respective proponent and opponent coalitions analyzed in this thesis. The analysis examined sixteen campaign artifacts that were examples of how the proposition was communicated to California's voting populous. In Conjunction with the appeals and frames, the message strategies were analyzed as to how they allowed the HSUS and CSF to effectively communicate with voters. By using rhetoric and framing 4 theory this analysis was able to distinguish which rhetorical appeals effectively supported the campaigns. The analysis showed that the HSUS was successful with their campaign because of well-executed rhetorical appeals that created a concise message about animal confinement and animal cruelty issues.
","abstract_html":"<p>This thesis employed a Historical-Critical method using rhetoric and framing theory to examine the 2008 Proposition 2: Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act campaigns. The Californians for Humane Farms (HSUS) and Californians for SAFE Food (CSF) were the respective proponent and opponent coalitions analyzed in this thesis. The analysis examined sixteen campaign artifacts that were examples of how the proposition was communicated to California's voting populous. In Conjunction with the appeals and frames, the message strategies were analyzed as to how they allowed the HSUS and CSF to effectively communicate with voters. By using rhetoric and framing 4 theory this analysis was able to distinguish which rhetorical appeals effectively supported the campaigns. The analysis showed that the HSUS was successful with their campaign because of well-executed rhetorical appeals that created a concise message about animal confinement and animal cruelty issues.</p>","abstract_has_math":false,"creators":["Penfold, Elizabeth Lily"],"institution":null,"degree_name":"Master of Arts (M.A.)","degree_level":"Thesis - Pacific Access Restricted","degree_discipline":"Communication","degree_department":null,"school":null,"contributors":["Teresa Bergman"],"advisors":[],"committee_chairs":[],"committee_members":[],"year":2012,"date_issued":"2012-01-01T08:00:00Z","date_published":"2012-01-01T08:00:00Z","updated_at":"2026-07-24T05:36:52Z","subjects":["University of the Pacific Thesis;Communication in politics;Political campaigns California;Animal welfare Law and legislation California;Mass media and public opinion;Mass media Political aspects United States","Communication"],"languages":[],"rights":[],"rights_urls":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"identifier_entries":[]},"links":{"outbound_url":"https://scholarlycommons.pacific.edu/uop_etds/818","outbound_label":"Repository record","outbound_source":"dc:identifier"},"metadata_groups":[{"id":"people","label":"People","entries":[{"key":"dc:contributor","label":"Contributor","values":["Teresa Bergman"]},{"key":"dc:creator","label":"Author","values":["Penfold, Elizabeth Lily"]}]},{"id":"academic_context","label":"Academic Context","entries":[{"key":"dc:date.available","label":"Dc Date Available","values":["2012-01-01T08:00:00Z"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_discipline","label":"Discipline","values":["Communication"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_level","label":"Degree Level","values":["Thesis - Pacific Access Restricted"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_name","label":"Degree Name","values":["Master of Arts (M.A.)"]}]},{"id":"subjects_keywords","label":"Subjects and Keywords","entries":[{"key":"dc:subject","label":"Dc Subject","values":["University of the Pacific Thesis;Communication in politics;Political campaigns California;Animal welfare Law and legislation California;Mass media and public opinion;Mass media Political aspects United States","Communication"]}]},{"id":"language_rights","label":"Language and Rights","entries":[{"key":"dc:rights","label":"Dc Rights","values":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"]}]},{"id":"identifiers","label":"Identifiers","entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier","label":"Identifier","values":["https://scholarlycommons.pacific.edu/uop_etds/818"]}]},{"id":"additional","label":"Additional Metadata","entries":[{"key":"dc:description.abstract","label":"Abstract","values":["This thesis employed a Historical-Critical method using rhetoric and framing theory to examine the 2008 Proposition 2: Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act campaigns. The Californians for Humane Farms (HSUS) and Californians for SAFE Food (CSF) were the respective proponent and opponent coalitions analyzed in this thesis. The analysis examined sixteen campaign artifacts that were examples of how the proposition was communicated to California's voting populous. In Conjunction with the appeals and frames, the message strategies were analyzed as to how they allowed the HSUS and CSF to effectively communicate with voters. By using rhetoric and framing 4 theory this analysis was able to distinguish which rhetorical appeals effectively supported the campaigns. The analysis showed that the HSUS was successful with their campaign because of well-executed rhetorical appeals that created a concise message about animal confinement and animal cruelty issues.
"]},{"key":"dc:source","label":"Dc Source","values":["94"]},{"key":"dc:title","label":"Title","values":["To confine or not to confine? : an analysis of the messaging of the proposition 2 campaigns"]}]}],"canonical_facts":{"dc:contributor":["Teresa Bergman"],"dc:creator":["Penfold, Elizabeth Lily"],"dc:date.available":["2012-01-01T08:00:00Z"],"dc:description.abstract":["This thesis employed a Historical-Critical method using rhetoric and framing theory to examine the 2008 Proposition 2: Prevention of Farm Animal Cruelty Act campaigns. The Californians for Humane Farms (HSUS) and Californians for SAFE Food (CSF) were the respective proponent and opponent coalitions analyzed in this thesis. The analysis examined sixteen campaign artifacts that were examples of how the proposition was communicated to California's voting populous. In Conjunction with the appeals and frames, the message strategies were analyzed as to how they allowed the HSUS and CSF to effectively communicate with voters. By using rhetoric and framing 4 theory this analysis was able to distinguish which rhetorical appeals effectively supported the campaigns. The analysis showed that the HSUS was successful with their campaign because of well-executed rhetorical appeals that created a concise message about animal confinement and animal cruelty issues.
"],"dc:identifier":["https://scholarlycommons.pacific.edu/uop_etds/818"],"dc:rights":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dc:source":["94"],"dc:subject":["University of the Pacific Thesis;Communication in politics;Political campaigns California;Animal welfare Law and legislation California;Mass media and public opinion;Mass media Political aspects United States","Communication"],"dc:title":["To confine or not to confine? : an analysis of the messaging of the proposition 2 campaigns"],"thesis:degree_discipline":["Communication"],"thesis:degree_level":["Thesis - Pacific Access Restricted"],"thesis:degree_name":["Master of Arts (M.A.)"]},"updated_at":"2026-07-24T05:36:52Z"}