|
The Dog Press has suffered an organized attack for “promoting
the Animal Rights agenda”
in a guest column
Defining Puppy Mills
that had nothing to do with animal
rights.
 Barbara J. Andrews
©
TheDogPress
02|17|10
Did Jenny Thrasher miss the guest writer’s point in
Defining Puppy Mills
(1)
that ran in the Feb. 9, 2010
edition? Among other things, Thrasher said The Dog Press
was “so
lacking in newsworthy information that it must resort to AR
collaboration.”
Believing her letter was sincere,
I personally replied, accepting blame for editorial failure to
make the writer’s position against Animal Rights
clear, pointing out the column was about puppy mills, not animal
rights.
We provided Jenny with links to animal rights coverage in
TheDogPress, all of which clearly state our position on AR.
In
addition, I included a link to the Legislative Section
(2)
of TheDogPlace, which as
the oldest dog site in the world, has tracked the animal
rights agenda since it first emerged as a Constitutional
threat to the rights of dog owners. Both TheDogPlace and
TheDogPress have vigorously supported and publicized the leading legislative groups.
Refuting her diatribe about “the man” Thrasher said authored the
column and who she said was with animal rights groups, I assured
her Lotta Chien is a woman and the last person in the world to
support animal rights. I suggested she re-read the column which
was about supporting puppy mills.
The Dog Press doesn’t have a legal staff and given the
political misinformation churned out by many newspapers and TV
channels, perhaps that is to our credit. The Dog Press is
however, the most credible and professional source
of unbiased reportage in the sport of dogs. We don’t bore
readers with lengthy validations on every fact in every story
but what is presented as fact is fact, with references
usually included as footnotes.
We
received over a dozen complimentary letters on our coverage but as
could be expected, not everyone agreed with the cited definition
of puppy mills, including Cindy Cooke, a “dog” attorney
whom we all admire and respect.
Cindy said
"FYI,
that definition of a puppy mill is not a finding by the court,
but rather the definition that was offered by one of the parties
to the law suit. There's a big difference between a pleading or
a claim by a party and a finding by the court."
|
The posture of the case before the court was a Motion
for Summary Judgment. That is a
ruling
based on the pleadings, affidavits, and the law. It was
the defendant's motion and the case was dismissed. The
definition of "puppy mills" was included in the
Court's Finding of Fact,
under the subheading: FACTS. It is not in the Discussion
section of the Opinion, nor does the statement begin
with something like: "The defendants argue that "puppy
mills" are.... |
Well, I’m only a “practicing” attorney and if I ever get good at
it, I’ll take the bar exam. So I asked a trusted source to
check our reference for the definition. The legal
opinion which exonerates and supports my editorial insertion
defining a puppy mill is in the table.
Okay, so a legal scholar has explained the COURT’S finding of
fact and that’s good enough for me.
None
of this would be newsworthy were it not for the organized attack
on The Dog Press. Our staff never looks at chat lists
because most only provide a stage for would-be-experts or
anonymous regurgitations of bile. Thankfully, some of our
readers find such lists interesting or amusing and one reader
sent this:
“This
was posted on the St. Louis chat list and I don't know who wrote
it, that is, who MAN is, but I think it is someone who has
talked with Cindy Cooke.”
We
were amazed that the included MAN'S post was word-for-word,
exactly the same as the
accusatory Letter To The Editor from Jenny Thrasher! We received other
copies of the same “post” accompanied by comments ranging from
wondering who we had
“ticked off”, to an
observation that “TheDogPress
has the competition worried”
and one that asked “is
this person an AKC employee?”
We
don’t have answers to those questions although we doubt that AKC
is involved. True, we publish news and opinions which AKC might
prefer we didn't but I have reason to believe that AKC respects
our professional right (and duty) to report news that affects
the sport of dogs. No, it isn’t AKC that launched this attack
on The Dog Press.
My
response to
Jenny’s letter (3)
which we published as a guest column,
said in part “I
treat your read of the guest column as indicative that I failed
… As editor, my job is getting the intended message across.
So I sincerely appreciate that you took time to help me see that
the message here was not clear.”
So
please, any time we are unclear or incorrect, let us hear from
you. Your private communications are always held
private. If
you have something to share with our readers, we invite you to
submit a column or send a
Letter To The Editor
directly to
Editor@TheDogPress.com
Thank you for your continued vigilance and support of YOUR “Free Press” for without our subscribers, we could not be
the most read, most referenced, most quoted Unaligned News
For The Dog Fancy”.
Barbara J. Andrews, Editor
(1)
http://www.thedogpress.com/Columns/10021-Define-Puppy-Mills_Chien.asp
(2)
http://www.thedogplace.org/PROJECT/Index-Proj.asp
(3)
http://www.thedogpress.com/Columns/Guests/10022-Refuting-Defining_Thrasher.asp
http://www.thedogpress.com/Editorials/10022-Defining-Attacks_Andrews.asp
Handy links:______________________
|
