Fw: "SF Considers Licensing Animal Owners" - inaccuracies
Very well said, especially the last sentence. On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 1:48 PM, Jonathan Harris < jonathanharris@earthlink.net> wrote:
FYI
-----Forwarded Message----- From: Jonathan Harris Sent: Aug 13, 2010 4:40 PM To: fm@kqed.org Subject: "SF Considers Licensing Animal Owners" - inaccuracies
To whom it may concern:
This morning's news report concerning yesterday's San Francisco Animal Control and Welfare Commission meeting ("SF Considers Licensing Animal Owners") included one minor inaccuracy and two much worse distortions within a single sentence:
"After 3 hours of debate, San Francisco Supervisors backed off that idea [the idea of banning pet sales], beset by criticism from pet shop owners and animal lovers."
The minor inaccuracy was that the report referred to "supervisors," giving the impression that the ban was being considered by the SF Board of Supervisors, not the ACWC (whose members are "commissioners"). I assume someone already caught this.
Far more serious was your characterization of ban opponents as "pet shop owners and animal lovers." In the first place, the opponents who spoke last night more accurately might have been called "a mixture of pet sellers, breeders, industry trade association and corporate representatives," as well as private citizens. How many of these corporate apologists are truly animal lovers is an open question to me, when one of could say something like, "We don't know that birds suffer in cages."
Second, do you imagine that supporters of this ban, many of whom were in the audience and also gave public comment, are NOT animal lovers? Because that is what your phrasing implies.
When you rewrite or follow up on this story, please use more neutral and accurate language. And please do not refer to the sponsors and supporters of this ban as "Animal Rights activists," as some reports do. The ban was first proposed by a member of the Animal Welfare Commission, and its supporters have come overwhelmingly from grass-roots rescue organizations such as Mickaboo Companion Bird Rescue, Save a Bunny, and Cavy Spirt (a rescue for guinea pigs and hamsters). Their concern is animal welfare, not animal rights.
Yours sincerely, Jonathan Harris Pinole, CA
Great job, Jonathan. Thanks so much for doing this. tammy On Aug 13, 2010, at 1:48 PM, Jonathan Harris wrote:
FYI
-----Forwarded Message----- From: Jonathan Harris Sent: Aug 13, 2010 4:40 PM To: fm@kqed.org Subject: "SF Considers Licensing Animal Owners" - inaccuracies
To whom it may concern:
This morning's news report concerning yesterday's San Francisco Animal Control and Welfare Commission meeting ("SF Considers Licensing Animal Owners") included one minor inaccuracy and two much worse distortions within a single sentence:
"After 3 hours of debate, San Francisco Supervisors backed off that idea [the idea of banning pet sales], beset by criticism from pet shop owners and animal lovers."
The minor inaccuracy was that the report referred to "supervisors," giving the impression that the ban was being considered by the SF Board of Supervisors, not the ACWC (whose members are "commissioners"). I assume someone already caught this.
Far more serious was your characterization of ban opponents as "pet shop owners and animal lovers." In the first place, the opponents who spoke last night more accurately might have been called "a mixture of pet sellers, breeders, industry trade association and corporate representatives," as well as private citizens. How many of these corporate apologists are truly animal lovers is an open question to me, when one of could say something like, "We don't know that birds suffer in cages."
Second, do you imagine that supporters of this ban, many of whom were in the audience and also gave public comment, are NOT animal lovers? Because that is what your phrasing implies.
When you rewrite or follow up on this story, please use more neutral and accurate language. And please do not refer to the sponsors and supporters of this ban as "Animal Rights activists," as some reports do. The ban was first proposed by a member of the Animal Welfare Commission, and its supporters have come overwhelmingly from grass-roots rescue organizations such as Mickaboo Companion Bird Rescue, Save a Bunny, and Cavy Spirt (a rescue for guinea pigs and hamsters). Their concern is animal welfare, not animal rights.
Yours sincerely, Jonathan Harris Pinole, CA
Tammy Azzaro Mickaboo♡
participants (3)
-
Jonathan Harris -
Michelle Yesney -
Tammy Azzaro