Remember a few years back when “humane advocate protectors” got their biased opinions of greyhounds into every nationwide news story that dealt with any type of mass animal graves? Even when the stories turned out to have nothing to do with ex-racing greyhounds, “humane advocate protectors” managed to get their venomous hate of greyhounds into the news, claiming this is the fate of greyhounds.
What sort of journalist would simply run with the hate of the self-proclaimed “humane advocate protector” experts rather than research the full story as well as issue a follow-up when it was announced that the animals found were not greyhounds? Does bad news sell more newspapers? Do “humane advocate protector” tie into anything to keep those donations rolling in, even when it does not involve ex-racing greyhounds?
The “humane advocate protectors” count on the fact that most people will not look for the errors in a story and will just believe what they read on the internet.
Have you ever noticed that the “humane advocate protectors” specialize in not answering questions, changing the subject when it comes to their dealings and demands for transparency and accountability? Why do they turn the tables, crying out that they are the truth and those who question their facts, their motives, their practices or do not join their case are the "unholy"?
The next time you see a post or comment or letter to the editor from a “humane advocate protector” quoting chapter and verse of their agenda, ask yourself a few questions as you formulate a response:
1 – Who has made the statements? (Is the writer representing or is a supporter/member of an organization with a biased agenda?)
2 – How does the writer present their information? (Is the writer a member of an organization using biased agenda resources generated by the same organization?)
3 – What’s missing? (Did the writer give a complete picture - what did the writer fail to talk about - is the writer using deceptive statistics that have not been verified by uninterested parties - does the writer receive any type, any form of compensation from the organization)
4 – Does the writer address and answer follow-up inquiries or is the response a change of subject/an attack on the person asking questions/responding to nothing addressed in the question. (Often those with something to hide may use counsel to provide a legal-sounding response that does nothing more than deflect the lies, distractions and biased opinions)
Why do "humane advocate protectors" accuse all individuals not in 100% agreement with them of being "with the industry" and lying?
Perhaps it is just a simple case of an individual truly looking to learn the truth about questions and statements that are obviously one sided or misleading.
It is time for people to let the daylight in upon the "humane advocate protectors" and point out that they are part of biased organizations and personally profit from biased or misleading statements that they themselves circulate.