Voice of America Puff Piece on Ingrid Newkirk

If you wanted to know why so many people misunderstand the subversive, anti-human nature of the animal rights movement, just look at this ridiculous puff piece of Ingrid Newkirk, byline Faith Lapidus, that appeared--your tax dollars at work-on the Voice of America. From the story:

She founded PETA--People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals--in 1980, with a mission much larger than vegetarianism. The organization fights to end the suffering of animals on factory farms, in the clothing trade, in the entertainment industry, and in laboratories. Some of PETA's first campaigns targeted research labs where monkeys and chimps were used as test subjects.

Yes, well PETA doesn't just want to end suffering, it wants to end all human use of animals--a point that Lapidus somehow missed in her reporting. Moreover, the targeted labs where monkeys were test subjects involved the Silver Springs Monkey case, which falsely accused Dr. Edward Taub of animal abuse and almost stopped a tremendous rehabilitation technique for stroke victims and children with cerebral palsy from being developed. (Hit this link for details.)

And this junk from Newkirk gets swallowed whole:

"We don't need to, in the 21st century, test our shampoos and our floor polish on animals in these crude ways," Newkirk stresses, adding "but it will take a public outcry before we stop." PETA scientists have talked to the U.S. Environmental Protecting Agency about promoting modern, non-animal tests, which, Newkirk says, "are far quicker, far more efficient, and they apply--because you use human data--more accurately to the human condition."

Readers of SHS know that we can't do away with scientific testing on animals--which is not about floor polish. Human trials, are of course, necessary in emerging research. But you can't start there and you need to test various matters on living organisms to move forward--and that is often too dangerous to peform on people. If we want scientific and medical advancement, we need to research on animals.

Notice also the cutesy pictures accompanying the piece, such as the one I uploaded here of Newkirk feeding the pigeons in the park. All in all, this reads more as if it were written by Newkirk's PR agent than a reporter. But make no mistake: Newkirk is a profoundly misanthropic radical. The VOA should have at least included some indication of that fact.

Clueless Media Promotes Animal Rights Views by Permitting Research Denigration to Go Unchallenged

PETA has filed a complaint against a research lab with the USDA. Par for the course. Often (but not always) such complaints are found to be baseless.

But this entry is not about the complaint, rather the reporting about it that tells only half the story. This AP article, byline Judith Kohler, permits animal rights activists to denigrate the value of medical research using animals without challenge or opposing comments. From her story:

Dr. John J. Pippin, a Dallas cardiologist who works full-time for a group that advocates alternatives to animal research, said animal experimentation is "inhumane and cruel" despite the best intentions of researchers...

Pippin, who works for the Washington-based Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine [me: an animal rights advocacy group masking itself as scientifically based], said he used to conduct research on dogs but stopped about 20 years ago after deciding it wasn't ethical or scientifically sound. He said breakthroughs in medicine and science typically happen after research with humans because most of the results in animals don't transfer. "I do believe that most people on the research side of things believe in what they're doing," Pippin said. "I also think, by and large, that looking at the big picture, they have tunnel vision."

But this is false and fails to take into account the full breadth and scope of the scientific method--a matter I will deal with in the book I am writing on animal rights. At the very least, if she was going to include the above in her story, the reporter should have contacted researchers and/or their advocates to counter the false assertion that medical research with animals does not help advance science and lead to the substantial alleviation of human (and animal) suffering! Failing to do so misinformed instead of elucidating the story's readers.