Kelowna Capital News: A recap of its sensationalism, bias, defamation, and misrepresentation of the facts
Kelowna Capital News reporter, Marshall Jones coverage of the Beaverdell dogs situation begins January 17, 2003. He writes an article for the Kelowna Capital News entitled "Plight of Apprehended Dogs Questioned"
http://www.kelownacapnews.com/archive/2003/01/17/stories/7874_full.html?latest_date=2003/01/17
In this article he states "This week, animal groups were in a frenzy after a rumour circulated that the dogs would be destroyed on Thursday. The rumour was false..."
Everyone knows by now that it was truth, not a false rumour. No apology has been made to any of the "animal groups" for publicly dismissing their concerns as a false rumour.
Mr Jones' second article about the Beaverdell Dogs, "SPCA Puts Down 10 Dogs it Seized From Beaverdell Farm", excuses the SPCA's decision to euthanize 10 more dogs.
http://www.kelownacapnews.com/archive/2003/02/03/stories/8143_full.html?latest_date=2003/02/03
Mr Jones quotes only SPCA regional manager Bob Busch, who claims the SPCA gave the dogs "every opportunity" to recover. Jones does not ask any of the volunteers who worked with the dogs for their opinion. He finishes this article by stating that, "This round of euthanizations came two weeks after animal rights and dog groups criticized the SPCA for not doing more to care for the dogs". He makes no effort to offer a deeper explanation as to why animal rights groups are critical of the SPCA for euthanizing more dogs, nor is any one of these animal rights groups invited to make comment regarding their criticisms.
On February 6, 2003, The Responsible Animal Care Society (TRACS) issued a press release to local media, including the Kelowna Capital News. This press release detailed seven points of concern shared by animal welfare groups in B.C. regarding how the Kelowna SPCA has managed the Beaverdell dogs case so far. This press release is intelligently worded and non threatening, and ends with the announcement of a candlelight vigil to be held in memory of the euthanized Beaverdell dogs on Friday Feb. 7, 2003. Despite receiving this press release, the Kelowna Capital News does not publicize the seven concerns it details.
Link to TRACS press release:
http://www.animaladvocates.com/cgi-bin/newsroom.pl/read/2092
On Feb. 7, 2003 Kelowna Capital News publishes Mr Jones' article entitled "SPCA Under Attack".
http://www.kelownacapnews.com/archive/2003/02/07/stories/8229_full.html?latest_date=2003/02/07
This article shamelessly sensationalizes the emotional reaction of a handful of ex-SPCA volunteers and staff to the killing of the Beaverdell dogs. Information is relayed only from the SPCA's point of view, and only the SPCA is quoted. None of the ex-staff or volunteers is asked to comment. Words like "converging" and "wrath" are used to describe the behaviour of these concerned citizens who are not given the chance to tell their side of the story.
Furthermore, facts become distorted. None of the ex-volunteers or staff ever used the word "knife" with regards to the accusations of senior SPCA staff "stabbing" dogs in the heart to euthanize them. The only person who ever used the word "knife" is Kelowna SPCA branch manager Russ Forand when he was interviewed on CKOV radio about the euthanizing of the Beaverdell dogs. Forand created sensationalism with his use of the word "knife", and Mr. Jones repeats this sensationalism in his article.
Mr Jones continues his one-sided coverage of this tale. He ends this article by advertising the upcoming feature he plans to give the SPCA in the Sunday edition: "For more information on efforts the SPCA took to rehabilitate the Beaverdell dogs and the effect the dogs had on staff and volunteers, read our Close-up feature this Sunday."
No interview with any of the ex-staff, ex-volunteers, or independent animal welfare groups. No coverage of the TRACS press release. These concerned citizens are not allowed a voice of their own through the press. Instead, they must endure being depicted as Mr Jones sees them, and as the SPCA sees them - as threatening, hysterical, and without any credibility.
Sunday's Kelowna Capital News (Feb. 9, 2003) contains two pieces by Marshall Jones. The first is the cover story on the Kelowna SPCA with regards to the Beaverdell dogs.
http://www.kelownacapnews.com/archive/2003/02/10/stories/8263_full.html
This article reveals the obvious: Marshall Jones has no interest in providing the public with accurate, well researched, unbiased information. This piece is utterly one-sided, shallow, full of speculation, sensationalistic, and shamelessly glorifies the SPCA. There is even the inclusion of a graphic photograph of a person who has sustained a bite wound from a dog, leading the reader to believe that it was a Beaverdell dog that did the biting. But if one reads the fine print, no, this victim had nothing to do with any of the Beaverdell dogs.
Jones' description of the dog Chewy is overdramatized and speculative: "He was going to attack, if ever the girl was left alone." This is pure sensationalism. Not only is it disrespectful to the memory of an innocent dog, it has no basis in fact.
We are also treated to senior staff member Kathy Woodward's melodramatic account of how she was allegedly almost killed by a dog named Fudge.
Then there is the superficial coverage of the very real problem of dog attacks on people. Jones relays a few statistics, and quotes the local poundkeeper. Nowhere does he ever address the reason why so many dog attacks occur: because the SPCA has neglected to enforce cruelty laws that would prevent people from desocializing dogs, thus making them potentially dangerous, nor has the SPCA ever attempted to control the breeding of dogs, thus curbing the overflow of backyard breeders who flood the market with large- breed yard dogs. If the SPCA had been enforcing cruelty laws seven years ago, Gaston Lapointe would never have been allowed to desocialize these dogs that the SPCA has now killed. No prevention, only occasional media grandstanding with the occasional puppy mill raid. Marshall Jones obviously has no grasp of this concept, but then, he's only been talking to the SPCA, so why would he? He wouldn't deign to listen to the opinion of independent animal welfare organizations, so it's no wonder his coverage is so shallow.
One could go on and on ad nauseum about the flaws, misinformation, sensationalism, speculation, and bias that riddle this piece. More on this article can be found at:
http://www.animaladvocates.com/cgi-bin/newsroom.pl/read/2136
Despite the obvious bias of the aforementioned article, Marshall Jones outdoes himself with his editorial column in the same issue. This editorial is not only typically biased towards the SPCA, it is also horrendously slanderous of the independent animal welfare groups, whom the Kelowna Capital news has still not given a chance to voice an opinion publicly.
The link to Jones' editorial does not work, so it is reprinted as follows:
Kelowna Capital News
Sunday Feb. 9, 2003
Some Animals Are Not Fit For Human Co-habitation
by Marshall Jones, staff reporter
"For several years I had one of the rarest pets going, or so I was told.
Our orange tabby cat we called Bump was a female. Those who know say they are rare, but we just thought she was cute.
Cute, however, only got poor Bump so far since she was the meanest critter I have ever met. With kids on the way we had no choice. I scooped her up and took her to the SPCA so they could put her down. I wouldn't have wished her upon anyone.
The look on the woman's face who took her was sickening. She was repulsed by me and I understood why. She had to do my dirty work.
It was a fairly easy decision for us, surely a painful one. I make no apologies for choosing a dead cat over a shredded child.
I don't understand the people who think differently. To listen to the rabid animal rights groups around here, the risk of potentially dangerous animals is one we all should endure.
They are frenzied these days because the SPCA had to do my, and your and their dirty work by putting down 28 dogs from Beaverdell. The SPCA couldn't stomach releasing those dogs into a world of supremely irresponsible pet owners and the risk of one of these 70-90 pound beasts attacking somebody or making hamburger out of someone's pet.
It's a risk the SPCA rightly and justifiably wasn't willing to make.
But rather than inflict their anguish, despair and efforts on the people who put the SPCA in such an unenviable position, the righteous moral army of the animal activists is unleashed upon the easiest of targets, the SPCA itself.
Using lies, rumours, and bullying, they attack not only the SPCA, they harass workers at home, direct their vitriol on anyone associated with the SPCA or, if that doesn't get to them, their children at school.
I wish they would come clean with the real reason for these attacks.
They say it's the animals, and at one time it probably was. But this is about power, not charity. TRACS, the humane society, various dog rescue groups, they all want what the SPCA has- money and legitimacy.
For even with all the mistakes the SPCA has made over the years, and there are many, I wouldn't trust the zealots with such heady decisions. Nor do they want the responsibility. They want no- kill policies knowing full -well that means turning away the unadoptable animals.
There remains no solution for the unadoptable dogs and anyone who tries to convince us otherwise is just really, really bad at math.
Until the pet overpopulation problem is licked, those in the trenches must do our dirty work, sparing your pets only an undignified death in a gutter somewhere. The efforts of the critics would be better spent in helping them achieve that goal."
Two things are glaringly obvious here. The first is that Marshall Jones has absolutely no comprehension of the depth and intricacies surrounding animal welfare issues in our world. But why would he? He's only ever talked to the SPCA.
What is important here is that he degrades and slanders anyone who disagrees with the SPCA. The people he slanders are the same people whose voice he has consistently ignored. They have not been given a chance. Only one side of the story has been told.
From the British Columbia Press Council:
"Newspapers should defend their hard-won right to exercise the widest possible latitude in expressing opinions, no matter how controversial or unpopular the opinions may be.."
As well, "newspapers and journalists shall strive to avoid expressing comment and conjecture as established fact."
Okanagan Animal Welfare Foundation feels strongly that Marshall Jones has contravened the guidelines set forth by the BC Press Council. We have written to the Kelowna Capital News asking them to rectify this situation. We have informed the Kelowna Capital News that if no attempt is made to publish fair comment and facts from all sides involved with the Beaverdell dogs, we will notify BC Press Council of this matter. To this date we have had no confirmation from Kelowna Capital News that any changes will be made regarding this issue. Furthermore, to this date only one letter to the editor has been published regarding this topic. Not surprisingly, it defends the SPCA. None of the letters sent by independent animal welfare workers have been published.
If you feel that Marshall Jones' coverage of the Beaverdell dogs has been biased, please write the Kelowna Capital News, at bgerding@kelownacapnews.com
For more information on the British Columbia Press Council see www.bcpresscouncil.org
Let's work together to let both the SPCA and the media know that we will not be ignored, dismissed, or slandered.
Jennifer Dickson
President, Okanagan Animal Welfare Foundation