Saturday, January 30, 2010

the suffering of animals and the call to mercy



I feel obliged to address a column published by Rosie Dimanno in the January 28, 2010 edition of The Star. In the article "Skater Weir brushes off zealots in fox fur flap", Dimanno chastises animal rights protestors who are critical of figure skater Johnny Weir's use of animal fur in his costumes. It is clear that Mrs. Dimanno has a very particular opinion, and certainly she has the right to express her views. I am not condemning her ideology about the subject, but rather the painfully unprofessional journalism which she evidences throughout her piece. Principally, she condemns the views of animal rights activists without actually addressing any of their concerns.

For example, Dimanno quotes a letter from of one of the animal rights activists, and in the next sentence states "Animal rights zealots are parasites who feed off the peltry sins of celebrities in order to command media attention". There are two problems here. Firstly, she does not address the actual words expressed in the letter by the activist. Animals are indeed killed in order to provide decorative fur for clothing in a time when synthetic substitutes are available. The letter calls for a moral inquiry into the situation, and Dimanno responds by sidestepping the issue. Secondly, the use of the word "zealot" has clear negative connotations which will definitely colour the opinions of Star readers. Later in the article, she calls animal rights supporters "the righteous Cute 'n' Cuddly brigade" and "wackadoo crusaders".

While Dimanno might not care what animals go through, as a writer who publishes in a newspaper that ostensibly adheres to the traditions of journalism, she should be more engaged with her story. Instead of providing a substantive defence of the use of animal fur for clothing, she resorts to childish namecalling. In short, her language denotes a lack of critical inquiry into the issue which she purports to be writing about. Her column is no better than the numerous blogs which proliferate for free on the internet. Is The Star not supposed to adhere to a higher standard than uninformed punditry? If Dimanno's article is any indication of the journalistic principles in operation at The Star, then I cannot think of a reason for the continued existence of the paper beyond maintaining the salaries of incompetent writers.

For the record, I am an academic and a vegetarian who supports animal rights to the same degree that I am support human rights. If Dimanno wishes to engage in a more critical debate in future articles, perhaps I can suggest that she actually do some research instead of demonstrating her ignorance.

Read the original article here.