The temperature in New York City sizzled yesterday at 96 degrees when more than 70 determined people took to the streets to protest Senator Gillibrand's called for massacre of 751 geese from Jamaica Bay Wildlife Refuge last week.
Despite the blaring sun, the mood was somber as protesters stood in silence and mourning with graphic signs to communicate the reasons for their angst and vigil.
One small boy held a sign asking plaintively, "Why Did You Kill My Friends?"
A young woman held a sign proclaiming, "Painfully Gassing Geese is NOT Euthanasia."
A line almost a block long of protesters in front of a Senator's office with photos and graphic signs should have been enough to garner media attention.
But, as usual during animal cruelty protests, most of the press was conspicuously absent.
However, to this point, one media outlet has reported on the protest for the geese:
Unfortunately, once again, we have a media report, (this time from the Epoch Times) that raises more questions than it answers.
The journalist writes for example, "The USDA then used a combination of "lethal and nonlethal methods" to remove the Canada geese from Jamaica Bay Wildlife Refuge Monday, July 9, according to a statement from Gillibrand's office." (Emphasis supplied.)
One wonders what "non-lethal" measures Gillibrand's office is referring to as according to Martin Lowney of the USDA, all the geese rounded up are now dead. That is not "non-lethal removal" by any twisting of facts or stretch of imagination.
Is this just one more example of the press being made to look foolish, quoting one thing and then contradicting that information in a later paragraph?
Later in the same article: "Roughly 700 of the geese were set to be euthanized. A USDA spokeswoman told CBS News that the captured geese would be slaughtered upstate, and the meat would be donated to food pantries." (Emphasis supplied.)
Here we have "euthanized" and "slaughtered" practically used in the same sentence despite their almost opposite meanings.
Meanwhile, other articles reporting on the same issue, stated that the captured geese were "gassed."
So far in less than a week, we have three media explanations for how the geese died: "Slaughter, gassing and euthanasia." (Though presuming one of the other two explanations are correct, the term "euthanized" is obviously misapplied and wrong.)
Are these all examples of bad journalism? -- Failures to ask questions, get the story right, understand word meanings or quote correctly their sources of information?
Or, are they really something else? -- For example, informational sources having difficulty keeping their stories and their lies straight?
It might be reasonable to expect that some journalists are rushed when doing a story and being human, might be inclined to error.
But, ALL of them? -- Including a journalist from The New York Times?
That doesn't make sense.
Gillibrand's office is simply wrong (and apparently lying) when claiming any of the geese rounded up last week were "removed non-lethally."
That is absolutely false.
Gillibrand's office is also lying when repeatedly telling reporters geese were "euthanized."
This is a particularly egregious lie, knowing the aggressive and inescapable manner with which the flightless geese were rounded up, crammed into small crates, trucked long distance in the heat and killed by undetermined process..
There was nothing either "merciful" or "good" about the deaths these animals were subjected to. Of that much we can be certain.
Last week in a phone conversation, New York State Director of USDA Wildlife Services, Martin Lowney told me he did "not know" precisely how the geese died.
"They are all food now. That is all you need to know." Lowney told me repeatedly in response to the question. (i.e.They are all dead which indicated none of the geese were removed "non-lethally" as per Gillibrand's false claim.)
But, it would be easy for the State Director of Wildlife Services to determine how geese actually died by calling the "processing plant" the geese were sent.
Then again, according to USDA spokesperson, Carol Bannerman, some of the geese were delivered live to food banks (which, if true, would raise questions pertaining to testing of slaughtered or gassed geese for human consumption).
The bottom line is that although the roundups are supposedly over, we still have no idea how the 751 geese rounded up from Jamaica Bay and other city locations over the past two weeks actually died.
And apparently, neither does the media.
Journalists are instead being made to appear like incompetent and bungling fools.
For these reasons and more, I have chosen to post as the lead photo to this blog entry, the picture of the young woman who in silence yesterday proclaimed, "Painfully Gassing Geese is NOT Euthanasia."
For that matter, neither is slaughter. -- PCA
*************
No comments:
Post a Comment