Hunting, the deliberate killing of animals by people, has long been part of human cultures, providing food and other resources, as well as being a component of ceremonial and symbolic practices (Darimont et al., 2017; Alves et al., 2018). Around the world, people currently hunt for many purposes, including subsistence, wildlife population management, cultural reproduction, and recreation (Di Minin et al., 2021). Despite its long history and widespread occurrence hunting can be controversial. Unsustainable hunting can imperil populations and species, and over-exploitation has caused multiple extinctions, including the dodo (Raphus cucullatus) (Roberts and Solow, 2003), passenger pigeon (Ectopistes migratorius) (Bucher, 1992) and blue buck (Hippotragus leucophaeus) (Broom, 1949). Over and above conservation implications, hunting can be controversial because it involves taking animals’ lives. The expansion and growing acceptance of animal rights (e.g., Peters, 2020) together with an increasing awareness and consideration of animal sentience (Browning and Birch, 2022) have increased the criticism levelled at hunting, especially hunting within societies where it is no longer required for food (e.g., Horowitz, 2019).

One particularly contentious type of hunting is trophy hunting (hereafter, TH), when hunters hunt individual animals with desirable characteristics in order to keep body parts (e.g. horns, heads, hides, antlers) as mementos, or “trophies” (e.g. Lindsey et al., 2007). Legal, regulated trophy hunting is a component of wildlife management in numerous countries globally and is, by definition, distinct from illegal and unregulated poaching. Around the world, many species are trophy hunted including geese (Anser spp.) in Scandinavia (HSI, 2016), red and roe deer (Cervus elaphus and Capreolus capreolus) in the UK (Kirkland et al., 2021), white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) and elk (Cervus canadensis) in the USA, polar bears (Ursus maritimus) in Canada, tahr (Hemitragus jemlahicus) in New Zealand, markhor (Capra falconeri) in Central Asia, and a wide variety of mammal species in sub-Saharan Africa including springbok (Antidorcas marsupialis), kudu (Tragelaphus strepsiceros.) and impala (Aepyceros melampus) (IFAW, 2016; Snyman et al., 2021). Nevertheless, it the pursuit of iconic African animals such as lions (Panthera leo), savannah elephants (Loxidonta africana) and giraffes (Giraffa camelopardalis) that appears most associated with TH in public discourse. While poorly managed hunting can have detrimental effects on wildlife conservation (for example, for lion in parts of Zimbabwe (Loveridge et al., 2007) and Zambia (Becker et al., 2013; Rosenblatt et al., 2014) and lions and leopards in Tanzania (Packer et al., 2011)), income from well-regulated hunting can support conservation, community development, and poverty alleviation (Naidoo et al., 2016; Dube, 2019; Parker et al., 2020; Di Minin et al., 2021) by providing revenue and incentivizing wildlife presence on habitat that might otherwise be converted to agriculture and other uses detrimental to biodiversity conservation.

Strenuous objections to TH, especially from governments, academics, and animal protection advocacy organizations, raise serious doubts about whether it can persist as a socially acceptable form of wildlife management (Batavia et al., 2019; Dickman et al., 2019; Drake et al., 2020; van Houdt et al., 2021). International outrage following the hunting of a lion in Zimbabwe, known locally as Cecil, in July 2015 brought such objections into sharp relief (Macdonald et al., 2016). Since Cecil’s death, there has been a concerted effort by multiple organizations globally, often with celebrity backing, to have trophy hunting banned outright, to ban the import of hunting trophies, and to name-and-shame trophy hunters in national and international media (Jacobs, 2022). In response, many conservation scientists, practitioners, and African community leaders have urged caution, emphasizing the need for an evidence-based approach to TH generally, including restrictions on trophy hunting import bans (Dickman et al., 2019; Johnson et al., 2019; Hart et al., 2020; Parker et al., 2020).

TH is of interest to the public in the Global North, and features often in the media (e.g., Morss, 2021; Jacobs, 2022; data in this study). Mainstream media shapes public opinion (McCombs and Valenzuela, 2020), and public opinion, in turn, can shape political opinion and inform policy choices. Research on dynamic interrelationships between public opinion, media advocacy, and policy has tended to focus on issues such as foreign policy and climate change (Soroka, 2003; Baum and Potter, 2008), but recent studies demonstrate they are important in biodiversity conservation. For example, Shiffman et al. (2020) showed that inaccurate and biased reporting of conservation threats to sharks, in particular a media focus on shark-finning in preference to other more important threats, shifted public opinion towards a position where sustainable shark fisheries are thought to be impossible. This then pushed people towards media-attractive shark finning policies and away from other policies that would likely have far greater impact on shark conservation. Shiffman et al., 2021 analysis of newspaper coverage in English-speaking countries demonstrated a bias in favor of charismatic terrestrial species compared to marine species. Bombieri et al. (2018) argued that biases in coverage of predator attacks may decrease support for predator conservation. Chandelier et al. (2018) demonstrated differences in how local and national newspapers framed stories about recolonizing wolves in France, with implications for wolf management.

Legislation that directly or indirectly restricts well-regulated TH could have negative conservation impacts in areas of high conservation concern and importance, as well as negative economic impacts in these same areas (Dickman et al., 2019; Parker et al., 2020). It is therefore important to understand what media information the public and policy makers receive on the issue. In this study we analyze all trophy hunting articles published in the 15 most popular national UK newspapers from July 2010 to June 2020. This date range provides five years of coverage either side of the death of Cecil the lion and allows us to examine differences in mainstream media coverage of TH before and after this event. We examine the sentiment of media coverage, as well as the taxonomic and geographical foci of TH articles to assess how these compare with TH in reality. This approach allows us to investigate how TH is covered in UK mainstream print media, and whether the death of Cecil is associated with any changes in that coverage.

Initial coders agreed in their sentiment judgements for 459 articles (73.6%), showing moderate agreement (Cohen’s kappa = 0.49, p < 0.001). The third coder agreed with one of the initial coders for 145 articles (23.2%), and 20 articles (3.2%) required discussion among all three coders ( Figure 1 ). Of the 20 articles that required three-coder discussion to agree a final judgement, 2 (10%) were anti, 5 (25%) were complicated, 12 (60%) were neutral, and 1 (5%) was pro.

Of the 624 articles published on TH between 1 July 2010 and 30 June 2020, 311 (49.8%) appeared in tabloid newspapers and 313 (50.2%) appeared in broadsheet newspapers. Sixty-three articles (10.0%) were published during the five years before 1 July 2015 (pre-Cecil), while 561 articles (90.0%) were published during the five years after 1 July 2015 (post-Cecil) ( Figure 2 ; Supplementary Table 1 ).

During the overall ten-year period, 12 articles (1.9%) were pro-TH, 394 (63.1%) were anti-TH, 109 (17.5%) were neutral, and 109 (17.5%) were complicated. A larger proportion of tabloid articles than broadsheet articles were anti-TH (84.2% versus 42.2%), while a larger proportion of broadsheet articles than tabloid articles were pro-TH (3.5% versus 0.3%), neutral (23% versus 11.9%), and complicated (31.3% versus 3.5%) ( Figure 3 ).

Of the 63 pre-Cecil articles, 21 (33.3%) appeared in tabloids and 42 (66.7%) appeared in broadsheets. Of 561 articles post-Cecil, 290 (51.7%) were published in tabloids and 271 (48.3%) were published in broadsheets. Of the pre-Cecil tabloid articles, none (0%) were pro-TH, 14 (66.7%) were anti-TH, 5 (23.8%) were neutral, and 2 (9.5%) were complicated. Of the tabloid articles published after 1 July 2015, 1 (0.3%) was pro-TH, 248 (85.5%) were anti-TH, 32 (11.0%) were neutral, and 9 (3.1%) were complicated ( Figure 4 ).

Of pre-Cecil broadsheet articles, 2 (4.8%) were pro-TH, 14 (33.3%) were anti-TH, 11 (26.2%) were neutral, and 15 (35.7%) were complicated. Of post-Cecil broadsheet articles, 9 (3.3%) were pro-TH, 118 (43.5%) were anti-TH, 61 (22.6%) were neutral, and 83 (30.6%) were complicated ( Figure 4 ).

At least 70 species were mentioned in articles across the period, although in some cases common names were used for groups of species, such as “deer”, “bird”, “bear”, “antelope” and “rhino”. Consequently, some of the “species” mentioned, and counted here, are not taxonomically accurate species but will nonetheless allow a comparison between the animals mentioned in media with species actually hunted. The top 20 animals mentioned are shown in Table 1 , with the top five being lion (Panthera leo), elephant (African species assumed, but with no distinction usually being made between forest (Loxodonta cyclotis) and savanna (L. africana) species)), rhino (one or both of the African species, white rhino (Ceratotherium simum) and black rhino (Diceros bicornis)), but rarely named to species level), leopard (P. pardus), and bear (combined to include black (Ursus americanus), brown (U. arctos) and polar bear (U. maritimus)).

Of the 27 countries specifically named in 435 articles, the top four nations are southern African: Zimbabwe is the most mentioned across the 10-year period (N=146 articles; 33.6% of articles mentioning a country, 23.4% of all articles), followed by South Africa (N=105 articles; 24.1% of articles mentioning a country, 16.8% of all articles), Namibia (N=25 articles; 5.7% of articles mentioning a country, 4.0% of all articles) and Botswana (N=20 articles; 4.6% of articles mentioning a country, 3.2% of all articles). Collectively, these four nations are mentioned in 296 (68%) of articles that mention a country by name. Canada is mentioned in 19 articles (4.4% of articles mentioning a country, 3.0% of all articles) and the USA in 15 (3.4% of articles mentioning a country, 2.4% of all articles). Collectively, the UK and its individual nations are mentioned in 51 articles (11.7%, of articles mentioning a country, 8.2% of all articles). There was an increased focus on southern Africa and north America after Cecil, when reporting also included countries not mentioned before Cecil, including Mozambique, Ethiopia, Mexico, Brazil, Mongolia, and Pakistan ( Figure 5 ).

We analyzed all trophy hunting (TH) articles published over a ten-year period (July 2010 to June 2020) in the most popular UK national newspapers. More than 90% of all coverage occurred in the second half of the study period, following the killing of Cecil of the lion, marking this event as a watershed moment in the mainstream media reporting of TH ( Figure 2 ). Although slow to gain media traction initially, interest in Cecil increased rapidly following an emotional mention by US talk show host Jimmy Kimmel on July 29^th 2015 (Macdonald et al., 2016; Somerville, 2017). Media interest in trophy hunting declined steeply between 2015-16 and 2016-2017, but increased thereafter. In each post-Cecil year, the frequency of articles covering trophy hunting was higher (minimum = 44 articles, 2016-17) than any year in the pre-Cecil period, when trophy hunting was only rarely mentioned in the UK press (maximum = 17 articles, 2010-11) ( Figure 2 ).

The overall sentiment of articles was largely anti-TH. This effect was more pronounced in tabloids (84.2% anti) than broadsheets (42.2% anti) ( Figure 3 ). Tabloid articles tended to have a much clearer negative stance, with few articles adopting any form of nuanced position, reflected both in the higher frequency of anti-TH articles and the lower incidence of articles scored as complicated (3.5% in tabloids, 31.3% in broadsheets, Figure 3 ). The death of Cecil the lion is linked to a massive increase in the appearance of TH articles in UK national newspapers, but it also seems to have changed the sentiment of narratives presented. Tabloid articles against TH increased sharply post Cecil, whereas broadsheet anti-TH articles fluctuated across years during the same period and did not exhibit the same sharp increase ( Figure 4 ). Broadsheets, as might be expected, had the highest proportion of complicated and neutral articles, and published almost all pro-TH articles. Pro-TH articles were very uncommon overall (3.5%), and only one appeared in tabloid newspapers following Cecil’s death. Articles that recognized the nuance and complexity of TH (i.e. judged as complicated) were most common in broadsheet newspapers in the pre-Cecil period, further reinforcing that Cecil was a pivotal moment in UK newspaper coverage of TH.

Post-Cecil, there were clear spikes in articles in 2018-19 and 2019-20 ( Figure 3 ). There are three factors during this time that we propose may be responsible for these increases in TH interest in UK print media. First, the Campaign to Ban Trophy Hunting (CBTH), a UK-based organization pushing for trophy import bans appear to have begun actively pushing trophy hunting stories (especially to tabloid newspaper The Mirror) across this period. Second, the UK government elected in 2019 had, as a manifesto promise, a commitment to ban the importation of hunting trophies. In response to this, and to media pushes by groups such as CBTH and the Born Free Foundation, more than 130 scientists and practitioners (including two authors here) signed a letter in the journal Science pointing out that such bans would likely imperil biodiversity (Dickman et al., 2019). This letter attracted considerable coverage and pushback in the press. Third, the nationally popular TV show Love Island had a contestant with a history of hunting. Trophy-style photographs of this contestant with a number of animals he had shot featured heavily in the press with an associated backlash that lasted for several weeks and likely accounted for the spike in (especially tabloid) coverage of TH in the media in 2019-20 ( Figure 4 ).

Interestingly, the death of Cecil’s son, Xanda, in July 2017 under essentially identical conditions was picked up by the UK media (BBC, 2017) but did not produce a noticeable spike in articles ( Figure 2 ). Given clear continued media interest in trophy hunting through this period, this is perhaps surprising but serves to highlight further that the Cecil story was a particularly unusual media event. It could be that the lack of “novelty” offered by the Xanda story was part of the reason it did not go viral. In contrast, the next viral trophy hunting story, the Love Island spike, was certainly novel, being centered around a minor celebrity appearing in a tabloid-friendly reality TV show.

Media coverage of trophy hunted species was not well aligned with the reality of which species are commonly hunted. In total, eight of the top 10 species mentioned are southern African species (lion, elephant, rhino, leopard, giraffe, buffalo (assumed cape buffalo (Syncerus caffer) but rarely named specifically in articles), hippo (Hippopotamus amphibius) and zebra (Equus spp.; not identified to species level in articles). According to Snyman et al. (2021), the top 10 species hunted in South Africa, the country in the region with the greatest number of visiting hunters (ibid), are, impala (the most hunted), warthog (Phacochoerus africanus), springbok, kudu, blesbok, Burchell’s zebra (Equus quagga burchellii), gemsbok (Oryx gazella), blue wildebeest (Connochaetes taurinus), bushbuck (Tragelaphus scriptus) and nyala (Tragelaphus angasii). Thus, with the possible exception of Burchell’s zebra, none of the most hunted species appear in the top 10 UK newspaper mentions, although three most-hunted species do appear in the top 20 (impala = 20^th, wildebeest – 19^th and warthog = 14^th) (see Table 1 ). Even collectively, “antelope” did not make the top ten, although “deer” (not distinguished into species) was the eighth most mentioned. The so-called African Big Five (lion, leopard, elephant, rhino (black and white together) and cape buffalo) all appear in the top ten (although some mentions of buffalo conflate cape buffalo with water buffalo), and four of the Big Five (lion, elephant, rhino and leopard) are the top four mentions. Overall, UK newspaper coverage of trophy hunting appeared far more focused on species considered charismatic (Albert et al., 2018) than on species most commonly hunted (Bichel, 2021; Snyman et al., 2021). This represents a major inconsistency between the practice of TH globally and its portrayal to the public by UK newspapers, potentially creating a misleading impression that trophy hunters target exclusively, or primarily, charismatic animals such as the African Big Five. Images were not displayed in articles downloaded from Nexis Uni, but online checks showed that TH stories were commonly illustrated with images of readily identifiable African species such as lion, elephant and giraffe. The presence of these photos alongside stories of TH could reinforce this misleading impression among the public.

Trophy hunting is a global activity, but some countries are more associated with it than others, including some where TH is a well-established part of their conservation approach. Southern African nations, including South Africa, Namibia, Zambia, Zimbabwe and Tanzania are particularly popular destinations for hunters seeking African trophies, with hunters typically travelling from North America and Europe (IFAW, 2016; Snyman et al., 2021). In 2014, Botswana imposed a moratorium on hunting but lifted it in 2019 amid controversy that illustrates differences in local versus external perspectives on TH (Velempini, 2021; Hammond et al., 2022). Further afield, Pakistan (especially for argali (Ovis ammon) and markhor), Scotland (red deer and red grouse (Logopus lagopus), England (fallow (Dama dama) and non-native muntjac (Muntiacus reevesi) and Chinese water deer (Hydropotes inermis)), the USA and Canada (including white-tailed deer, moose (Alces alces), bears (American black bear, brown bear and polar bear) and cougar (Felis concolor)) and New Zealand (especially non-native red and fallow deer, tahr, chamois (Rupicapra rupicapra) and wild goat (Capra)) are all popular destinations. Almost certainly because of Cecil the lion, Zimbabwe was the most mentioned country across all articles, followed by South Africa. South Africa is a major destination for African trophy hunting of many species (IFAW, 2016; Snyman et al., 2021), but UK print media mentions appeared to be swayed largely by coverage of captive-bred lion hunting, commonly termed “canned hunting”. Canned hunting brings none of the conservation benefits associated with well-regulated TH, and conservationists who defend TH for its conservation benefits tend not to support canned hunting (Webster et al., 2022). By failing to distinguish between TH and canned hunting in simplistic coverage, UK newspapers again risk misleading the public.

Our analysis shows a clear pre- and post-Cecil divide in terms of quantity and sentiment of coverage of TH in UK newspapers. Coverage increased during the ten years we studied ( Figure 2 ), with a preponderance of anti-TH articles focused on charismatic species. These species are not in fact subject to a high degree of TH, and in several cases hunting them has been linked to well-established conservation benefits (‘t Sas-Rolfes et al., 2022), but these species are well-known and well-loved by target audiences. Less well-known and less charismatic species like impala or springbok are rarely if ever mentioned, despite many more individuals being hunted. Likewise, and doubtlessly related to the species most mentioned, much of the UK newspaper narrative has solidified around southern African nations despite TH being a globally significant activity. Overall, the death of Cecil the lion is associated with a pronounced increase in coverage of, and a marked simplification of narratives on TH that has gone hand-in-glove with an increase in public disapproval and proposed legislative restrictions on TH.

The lack of recognition of the complexities of hunting in media coverage also tends to exclude the perspectives of rural Africans whose self-determination is at stake and who must bear the costs of living alongside iconic but often dangerous animals. We urge researchers studying wildlife conservation in sub-Saharan Africa to convey these complexities to the media, to discuss more transparently when TH is successful, when it is not successful, and why some people might choose to have it as part of their wildlife management strategy. Similarly, we urge journalists to follow Morss (2021) by looking beyond simplistic narratives and recognizing that TH is not the simple, clear-cut outrage that UK newspapers have tended to depict, especially post-Cecil. Given the proven benefits of TH to conservation in many of the nations, and for many of the species, most commonly depicted in UK newspaper coverage, the trends we uncover are concerning from the perspective of biodiversity conservation and from the perspective of social justice. Left unchecked, UK newspaper depiction of TH has the clear potential to cause negative outcomes for conservation through its impacts on public perception and political opinion, and therefore on policy. Policies that restrict or constrain well-regulated TH may undermine self-determination of people living in the Global South to serve preferences of people living in the Global North. In doing so, they risk perpetuating enduring injustices associated with international conservation that have recently attracted substantial criticism (Chaudhury and Colla, 2020; Madzwamuse et al., 2020; Rudd et al., 2021).

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

NY and AH share first authorship. AH devised the study and lead the write up and analysis, with all authors contributing. NY undertook the primary research under AH and DH supervision. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.