I was asked some questions (a few not so nicely). Some of them I've
answered before. Some not. I made things kind enough to not offend and
answered them in general here. Some answers involve the tastes and needs
of both of us, but in some I haven't asked Steve so I just refer to myself
then.
The first is what Steve and I personally want in any ferret publication:
1. Accuracy, accuracy, accuracy. In fluffy things it's just errors, but
with health and legal stuff it's ESSENTIAL. Ferret medicine is largely so
new that double checks by vets and owners are sometimes very hard to do.
That means that errors in these things might kill ferrets. When the errors
involve rabies they can damage legislative efforts. Anything which might
negatively affect legislation is something which needs careful checking.
2. That the publication does not "out" people UNLESS the people WANT it.
Remember back to trying to get the Compendium of Animal Rabies Control
changed? There were some heated conversations here between two camps
with opposing viewpoints of what would work the fastest. People still
remained friends -- some of us very tight friends -- but the views were
diametrically opposed. The same thing happens with whether people in CA
should reveal their identities. Some people think it's too dangerous; I'm
in that camp. Others think that once it's obvious that anyone -- neighbor,
friend, employer, religious leader, celebrity -- may own a ferret and adore
it, that then the opposition will be weakened because ferret owners won't
be classified as "weirdos". Who is right? I don't know. What I DO know
is that if a person is "outed" then that individual MUST request it before
such action takes place. "Outing" someone who has not requested it is
turning FFZ hellions loose on someone who might not have taken protection
precautions. (My personal hope is that anyone who does request "outing"
HAS already made protection arrangements as is logical.)
3. Provide retractions when errors happen are essential; I am VERY happy
with the positive progress in that regard.
4. We want things that aren't going to be in every entry-level ferret book
or article we pick up. We want to read about new efforts to improve
medical care, new advances, people on the cutting edge of legislative
efforts and what they find works (and sacrifices they have made until they
are able to get legislation when applicable -- although some are shy on
that regard and won't publicly mention those), people who are researching
medical advances (in university vet schools, comparative medicine schools,
clinics, etc.) and their love for ferrets, ways in which we can improve our
care of our furries kissers since there is always room for improvement no
matter how many years of experience one has, etc.
Is there room for more than one ferret publication? That's easy:
Yes. We already get AFR, Modern Ferret, the Star Ferret report, and a
newsletter (which reminds me that I owe a donation) and do not find
ourselves sorry that we get any of them. We like to learn. Would Steve
and I read others? Also easy: Yes, ***BUT*** such a publication would need
to fulfill our criteria above to be worth our money, very possibly reaching
that goal by using the suggestions below.
How can other ferret publications fulfill our needs?
1. Fact-check! Do not EVER -- NEVER, NEVER, NEVER -- have an editor who
doesn't know squat make a final decision on how something is written or
what photos will accompany it. That's pretty well obvious and should not
be happening and continuing, but it is. How can this goal be reached
accomplished? One way would be to hire an editor who knows ferrets. (No,
not me; I'd be a lousy editor with my bad spelling and lack of standard
grammar.) If editors who don't know the topic are to continue in charge
then there's a two-fold way to achieve this accuracy goal: people who KNOW
ferrets must receive a prepublication sample and their choices of what is
in there must be the FINAL choices, secondly the articles by people who
don't know ferrets must be fact-checked by people who do know ferrets well
and the corrections of the fact-checker must be the final choices. It is
possible that an editor can learn, of course, but it is ESSENTIAL that in
the meantime (until the copies don't come back with corrections for ***at
least*** three months straight) that fact-checking be used extensively when
an editor doesn't know the subject matter. This will save ferrets' lives,
protect ferret owners, and give credibility to the publication. Such
corrections by the fact checkers would obviously be pre-publication.
2. If you don't have permission to "out" someone then don't do it.
3. Retract whenever you need to do so.
4. The next sections needs would have to be fulfilled IF applicable. We
just could NOT buy from a company if that company hurt us by damaging a
reliable resource to us all, or hurt some friends. Either is despicable
but on different levels.
Why did I say that IF someone from a certain publishing house is sliming
Modern Ferret that the person should be fired? Should an apology be
public?
Last question first and both just from this household and not for Mary and
Eric: not necessarily. It would depend on the level of damage to Modern
Ferret. If Modern Ferret is ever destroyed by employees of a competitor
due to underhanded actions then I figure that both a public apology and
getting Modern Ferret restarted would be called for as a MORAL response to
the situation by the competing publishing house. Yes, that is expensive
but it's not excessive as a moral requirement; it's just plain fair.
Besides, we couldn't respect them with anything less IF this turns out to
be the situation so couldn't put money there. If Modern Ferret bounces
back like I know they WILL do with people's help (given that we all enjoy
an accurate, helpful publication from people who help ferrets regularly
both at work and away from work) and with plenty of ads (now might be a
great time to place some since people will hopefully read it more after
this clap-trap), then IF the other publication finds that employees are
involved I think a private letter to Mary and Eric which apologizes and
promises to fire any employees who do this in the future is called for,
as well as letter to all the publication's employees/writers warning them
that such behavior is unacceptable and others will be canned, too, if the
offense happens again. There's no reason to go public with an apology IF
corrective actions are swift and comprehensive. Why? Because there is no
reason for a responsible company to have to face such an embarrassment.
Firing and warning other employees is standard corporate behavior in any
responsible company. When it doesn't happen the company is one to avoid
completely. Any logical corporation knows that a few bad employees can
damage the company reputation severely since people WILL generalize from
the employees to the company; therefore, completely severing ties is
essential, as are the letters to employees and to those injured. I hope
that even as I write this there is checking going on to find if the slime
campaign involves any employees, and to take comprehensive corrective
actions including firing them in as painful a fashion as possible -- no
matter what their levels -- if so. It's certainly possible that such
actions ARE being taken. We'll all wait with baited breath to see if they
are and what happens. I am not at this point inclined to write off the
company which publishes the FIRST magazine to which I ever subscribed (Cat
Fancy -- back as child), but the actions of the current Fancy corporate
executives in relation to the sliming against Modern Ferret and the
accuracy situation will play the two major parts in future reading
decisions. Steve and I do NOT at this point buy the publications of Fancy
due to the problems mentioned; we WOULD buy them IF the problems were
definitely corrected.
Sukie
P.S. Am having some problems with my spell checker changing words when I
make a spelling error -- substituting in words not wanted -- and am trying
to track down the cause. If you see some strange wording it might be me or
it might be that.
[Posted in FML issue 2795]
|
