So⌠this is what Mother Jones has come to. It took them seven months of investigating a reality TV show to discover it was staged and that the actors (in this case animals) were not treated well? What were they doing for the other six and three quarters months?
It is, by the way, generally perfectly legal to kill raccoons.
Maybe they wanted proof before reporting? Access to documents, developing relationships with sources, and whatnot? I get what you are saying, that reality TV is fake. But in the animalsâ cases, they didnât sign a contract to submit to any abuse or fakery.
I am devastated to learn that Meerkat Storage Unit Wars is faked.
I think itâs worth being outraged that animals are being mishandled and criminally treated in the production of faked ârealityâ. Thereâs probably a depressing number of people who watch this shit, think it bears some (albeit produced) relationship to ârealityâ, and think they know things about animals as a result. Animals they might then encounter in their lives. Thatâs not just not-education, itâs anti-education- the article describes Animal Planetâs descent into craptainment, with all the Mermaids: Actually Real?! bullshit, but pulling real animals into that kind of delusional craptainment is ethically gross. Plus, criminal mishandling of animals? Even the ones youâre legally allowed to kill if you find them in your house are generally protected by law from being tortured for your entertainment.
I started having doubts about the show when they found that shroud in the U-Stor-It in Temecula, CA, and then âprovedâ it had an image of Meerkat Jesus on it.
Your point is? It may be perfectly legal to kill raccoons, but that doesnât make it legal to torture them. Just like itâs legal to kill enemy soldiers, but illegal to torture POWs.
Three bats and a raccoon. Wow (fake reaction)
It wasnât just those animals who suffered. Whatâs your threshold for animal cruelty that generates a sincere reaction, anyway?
Fuck Animal Planet and f⌠(Iâll just go ahead and censor myself)
Itâs generally perfectly legal to do all kinds of douchebag shit, but decent human beings should know better beyond whatâs technically legal or not.
Thereâs also a lot of generally perfectly illegal things that are done in the name of morality when laws donât cut it as well, but I guess you wouldnât understand that either.
If you read the credits for a lot of ârealityâ Animal Planet shows carefully, there is often a disclaimer that some wildlife scenes were recreated under âcontrolled conditionsâ. I donât think itâs a surprise to anyone that reality shows manipulate events to increase drama, but this goes beyond that.
Iâve never really watched Animal Planet but for a few of those âToo Cuteâ shows, that are all puppies and kittens, in obvious set-ups. I do recall hearing very negative things about Steve Whatshisname before his death, (he was the one who ended up being killed by a marine animal).
Feel free to lodge your complaint over at Mother Jones if their investigative journalism displeases you so. They allow comments over there, too.
I was thinking more like, those seven months could have been used investigating something much less obvious and far more important. I love animals and everything, but that amount of effort seems excessive for the results obtained.
Iâm guessing someone who was an AP whistle blower dumped it in a reporterâs lap. Then you have the ethical dilemma of ignoring it or pursuing the story on abuses. I would go with the reporting. Why ignore something that isnât right?
COUGH FISA Courts COUGH
I donât think that every reporter has to center their attention on the same things at the same time, and yes, much more attention should be paid to that. It doesnât mean that the society should ignore instances where other types of abuses occur.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
