Date:    Fri, 9 Oct 1998 12:52:14 -0400
From:    "Melissa A. Durfee" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: responding to the media
*MIME-Version: 1.0
*Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
*Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
 
>From:    Ethan Sicotte <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: Take a breath and count to ten....
>But let's not let our love of these animals toss a spanner in our ability
>to think clearly. ...
>
>I have not watched Letterman in years, do not subscribe to Jane magazine,
>haven't heard the Radio Shack ad, have never been an Audubon Society
>member, and have let both my Sierra Club and PETA memberships expire.
>
>Why would these organizations CARE what I have to say?  I do not give them
>money and am not exposed to their sponsors, which for some of them is their
>major source of income.
 
Robert Kennedy once pointed out that "The only thing necessary for Evil to
flourish, is that good man (and women) do nothing."
 
Organizations and networks DO care about their public image.  They care
what the public thinks.  It is true that they care more about how their
monetary supporters feel, they are also concerned about the general
perception of their organization by potential supporters, as well.
 
There is a vast difference between a well-reasoned and polite response to
misinformation sent out by an organization trying to correct the
inaccuracies, and an irrational tirade.  The first provides an opporturnity
to educate an individual or organization and prevent future incidents.  The
second provides the fodder for the "water cooler comments." The FML
provides ferret enthusiasts with an opportunity to vent their initial anger
and get past the point of irrational comments.  If you look over the copies
of responses sent by FML members, the vast majority of them are polite,
informative, and lacking in foolish comments.
 
The truth is that we do not live in Plato's cave where only those things
inside the cave are real.  Just because an event does not directly effect
us, does not mean it doesn't happen.  In the case of the Jane article, the
magazine published an article by a woman who knowingly and actively chose
to present false information as documented fact to further a separate
political agenda.  The same holds true for the Audubon Society and Sierra
Club.  They have both been presented with documented facts dispelling the
misrepresentations of the California Department of Fish and Game.  And yet,
both continue to support a line that has been proven false, while at the
same time parading their public image as unbiased and incorruptible
protectors of Nature.  Why would they do such things?  One reason is
because they can gain political advantage in California for their agendas.
They support the CA F&G on this issue and gain compromises on other items.
The second reason they are comfortable with the hyprocisy in which they
engage, is public ignorance.  The majority of Americans simply don't know
that these organizations are playing both sides against the middle for
their own personal and professional gain.
 
In the case of the Letterman incident, public outrage has already resulted
in a lame apology and let both Letterman and CBS know that animal abuse is
not comedy.  However, the official line from David Letterman's office is
that *he* was unaware of what was going to happen.  He thought the
cameraman was simply going to pour some water into a dish in the ferret
cage.  It was the cameraman or some unnamed staffer who decided to instead
pour a bucket of water over the terrified ferret.  The continuing outrage
has resulted in the ASPCA in NYC taking a serious interest in investigating
the incident and considering animal cruelty charges.
 
Silence over such incidents does not indicate a quiet disapproval, rather
it is a deafening endorsement of such behavior.  It is easy to remain
silent, but it takes a certain amount of courage to speak out in order to
educate the public, and oppose cruelty and lies.
 
F. Scott Giarrocco
Jopal Ferret Haven
[Posted in FML issue 2458]