|
|
|
I must admit that as I read into the story in today's L.A. Times California section about a midnight raid by "duck freedom fighters," I kept waiting for the punch line. Twelve hundred freelance words -- and four liberated ducks -- later, it never came. Animal rights is a serious story, fine. Swiping four ducks out of 1,500 from a Sonoma foie gras maker's shed -- and he doesn't even notice they are gone -- cries out for a little whimsy. Or at least skepticism about the "cause." Something.
Conversely, The Weekly's profile of the innocent guy who was held (without reason) for torching the SUVs was absorbing. That story could not have appeared in the Times because they are too beholden by auto ads.
I still say it was weasels (human or otherwise).
Posted by: Joe Shea at September 20, 2003 10:04 AMHey, watch it, buddy! Affectionately, the WLF. (Weasel Liberation Front)
Posted by: Chris at September 22, 2003 11:11 AMHere's a link to a bit from my blog questioning whether foie gras production is actually cruel, including the piece at the bottom on Sonoma Foie Gras by Andrew Gumbel, London Independent's man in Los Angeles. He wisely points out that chicken producers are the ones the nutbags should be complaining about.
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/000169.html
Posted by: Amy Alkon at September 23, 2003 05:04 AM
Monica Almeida has the perspective of a native Angeleno who photographs Los Angeles for an East Coast newspaper: the New York Times.
of LA Observed
That duck story was the biggest piece of poop The Times has run in days. Its appearance showed, yet again, a complete lack of adult supervision of the news report. Since when is The Times authorizing its freelancers to accompany animal rights whackjobs in their criminal activities? Will some editor say yes if the ELF offers a reporter a chance to accompany it on an SUV-torching outing?
Posted by: Newsboy at September 19, 2003 09:53 AM