Drugs, Death, Neglect: Behind the Scenes at Animal Planet

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vY0a-nafqAE

thats not nice.

its welcome and long overdue that some professional journalists look into animal planet, and expose it.

That's awful. I haven't had access to Animal Planet since before Meerkat Manor came out... I have only heard about that show because my husband's parents watched an episode while we were visiting them during the summer... I found it disgusting then by the little bit that I watched, but that's worse about the bats and the raccoons...

That's a shame. I've seen a lot of shows on Animal Planet that twist and misconstrue things around to their benefit. I've also seen a lot of Misinformation given on many occasions, specifically in regards to specific breeds of dogs. For the sake of entertainment? :(

To start, I don't agree with mistreatment of animals in the slightest

However, a lying media organization twists the facts surrounding animal treatment, and we trust another media outlet to honestly report the facts surrounding this??

Sounds kinda ironic to me….

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mephibosheth1

To start, I don't agree with mistreatment of animals in the slightest

However, a lying media organization twists the facts surrounding animal treatment, and we trust another media outlet to honestly report the facts surrounding this??

Sounds kinda ironic to me….

---

not all journalists are real journalists, some are fakes and just make stuff up and merely create the impression of being knowledgeable.

its not ironic at all. animal planet are known to misrepresent stuff for profit. mother jones is known for good professional journalism. different track records, different reputations. there is a difference between someone like Glenn Beck, and someone like Glenn Greenwald. some make it a habit to spread lies, some make it a habit to report the truth. some are known for good research skills, some are known to cut corners.

no irony at all. journalists are not all the same, to my knowledge animal planet does not even have any real journalists, they have writers and filmmakers. excellent journalism does exist.

EDIT: maybe you could argue that a professional journalistic media outlet like mother jones would not like to rip another media outlet that has a similar good reputation a new one. but i can tell you that outlets of high journalistic quality will see nothing in common between themselves and something like animal planet, and will be perfectly fine with shredding animal planets to bits, if the actual facts allow it.

First, I despise what Animal Planet has become.
Second, I know there's been a lot of staging and mistreatment of animals during the filming of some of the reality shows.

But... Mother Jones is not what I would call a good source for truthful reporting. Most of what I saw was also from what you could term "disgruntled employees" who no longer work for AP, so it's hard ot say that it's automatically truth.

I'd lean towards most of it being true. I see some signs of drugged state in that zebra, just from the small amount of film in the youtube video. Zebra are not ponies and him wrestling it to the ground by it's jaw and screeching while pinning it's head down is NOT a acceptable way to handle a zebra. Come to think of it, it's also not acceptable to do to a pony, but it's less acceptable with a zebra who has wild instincts and will stress more.

Grabbing the poor cornsnake as if it were a spitting cobra was also deplorable. The incident with the baby raccoons thing is a little bit overhyped. Baby raccoons often survive days without a mother when rescued(I've personally seen them coming in when my aunt used to bottle them when the city workers found them). Yes, they are delicate and yes, the company does NOT need to be dragging baby raccoons around in order to accommodate a shooting schedule.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pythonfriend

its not ironic at all. animal planet are known to misrepresent stuff for profit. mother jones is known for good professional journalism. different track records, different reputations. there is a difference between someone like Glenn Beck, and someone like Glenn Greenwald. some make it a habit to spread lies, some make it a habit to report the truth. some are known for good research skills, some are known to cut corners.

---

Well, this simply varies by the viewer's political views. If people want believe something, anything pointing that way makes it correct, at least in their eyes. So to someone who's liberal, Mother Jones is a holy grail of political news, but to a conservative...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wolfy-hound

But... Mother Jones is not what I would call a good source for truthful reporting. Most of what I saw was also from what you could term "disgruntled employees" who no longer work for AP, so it's hard ot say that it's automatically truth.

---

Yeah, I'll admit, I appreciate this article, but Mother Jones is just a tad too left wing for me or anyone I'd share this article with...