Posts
Ray Paulick has done an admirable job today of trying to separate the truth from the animal-rights movement fiction about the cancellation of HBO's horse racing-based drama "Luck."
I was greatly enjoying "Luck." It was the only series on television I faithfully watched every week. I was even further impressed by the dedication to the production and its fans displayed by cast members John Ortiz (@johnortiz718), Tom Payne (@justanactor) and hall-of-fame jockey Gary Stevens (@HRTVGary), who routinely interacted with viewers and participated in a weekly #LuckChat on Twitter.
When news broke that a third horse associated with "Luck" had died at Santa Anita, there was concern among the show's fans that it wouldn't survive the negative publicity. That proved true when public pressure -- largely fueled by People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals -- was apparently too much for HBO to bear. The series was canceled.
Ray has tackled the task of unmasking PETA as one of the least ethical major charities in America. And when it comes to PETA, I'm not certain there could be a less-reputable group in America being treated by the media as though it IS reputable. I spent 20 years as a journalist and have been appalled that the healthy skepticism typically directed toward nearly every source is so often completely absent when reporters speak with PETA. I can only think of two reasons.
1. PETA is so impassioned in its position and so polished in its theatre that journalists are too readily convinced the vehemence and varnish with which the PETA message is delivered equates to veracity. ("They seem so informed and insistent; it must be true!")
2. Journalists have an admirable, but sometimes misguided, commitment to "tell both sides" of the story. That's great when both sides are making potentially valid points. It's a disservice to readers when one side is peddling propaganda that at best is loosely based in truth, at worst is often complete fabrication. When PETA is the first, loudest and most reliable "other opinion" for an animal-related story, it's too easy for a busy (or lazy) journalist to just take PETA's quotes and run with them.
For the record, PETA sneaks around. PETA twists the truth. PETA outright lies. PETA hypocritically scolds people for mistreating animals and "kill" shelters for engaging in euthanasia, while a study of PETA records shows the organization euthanizes 95 percent of the stray dogs and cats it takes in. In 2011, PETA's Virginia headquarters killed more than 1,900 dogs and cats, finding new homes for only 24. Charity Navigator shows PETA collecting $35 million in revenues last year and spending 85 percent of that on "programs," but when PETA kills almost every animal that comes into its "care," what sort of "programs" could those be? (Answer: Huge advertising campaigns, publicity stunts, lobbying, hiring staff (including convicted eco-felon Gary Yourofsky), euthanasia, financially supporting ecoterrorists like firebomber Rodney Coronado, and staging its "covert investigations" into cruelty wherever it can be found -- or merely imagined.) PETA would rather you or your children die than that your life be saved through medical research that involved animals.
Humane treatment of animals is moral and right. Taken to PETA's extremes, the notion becomes insanity. But as Penn & Teller tell us in their own "Bullshit!" episode exposé of PETA: "In any conflict, the crazier party usually wins ... which is why PETA is doing so well." (LANGUAGE WARNING: Don't view the Penn & Teller link if you have sensitive ears.)
The horse racing industry should never do anything -- NOT ONE THING -- merely to appease PETA, and neither should Hollywood. (Fat chance of the latter.) PETA is not a reasonable and grounded critic of the industry; it is not a trustworthy partner in affecting appropriate change. Horse racing, Hollywood, the restaurant business or any animal-ag business trying to work with PETA would be like offering the scorpion a ride across the river on your own back.
So if change needed to take place on the "Luck" set, or if cancellation was the only option, it should have been for valid reasons far beyond the simple fact that PETA was predictably flipping its collective wig.
Anyone who questions the ability of PETA itself or animal rights activists in general to take extreme positions unfounded in fact -- even sanity -- should read the comments under a story at the Today Show Web site this afternoon. It is being described as "abuse" and the dog "living in hell" for a 4-year-old goldendoodle to be employed as a service animal for a 3-year-old girl who must be tethered to oxygen. (The dog carries two bottles in a specially designed vest when the pair go out to play.)
Needless to say we can't be blind to the racing industry's troubles nor deaf to all criticism. The industry has serious horse-welfare issues that must be addressed.
But offhand I'd suggest there are four general "camps" when it comes to undertaking, observing and judging this effort. Two of them are serious problems; a third is our primary audience and challenge.
First, there are racing industry professionals who believe nothing is wrong with the sport. Whether through selfishness or merely wishful thinking, they believe no ban of race-day meds is necessary, no extra effort or thought given to the pursuit of safer racing for the horses. These people are the industry's biggest impediment to necessary progress. Their culture and obstructionism have clearly proven difficult, sometimes impossible, to overcome in the past.
Second, there are the industry professionals and fans who ardently believe in and support horse racing, but who equally believe that the humans involved must make every reasonable effort to protect the equine athletes. If we love and value these animals, we should always treat them accordingly. Good ideas for improving horse welfare will come from this sector; so must the energy and the sheer force of will to achieve them in the face of opposition within the industry itself.
Third, there are PETA and vocal animal rights activists. Frankly, there's nothing racing can do to appease these people. Ever. Regardless what we say or do, they are the antithesis of "preaching to the choir." Our goals as racing's advocates are to give them as little ammunition as possible for their attacks, and to provide accurate information that hopefully keeps this can of mixed nuts from poisoning the fourth group.
And that fourth group is by far the largest -- those ranging from casual fans to non-fans who are completely disinterested in the sport, but who don't want to see animals abused or needlessly suffer. These people do NOT believe (as PETA founder Ingrid Newkirk once said) that "a rat is a pig is a dog is a boy." Most of them will eat the surf and turf. They own cats and dogs and hamsters and parakeets. They have their human-animal priorities pretty well in order. And they comprise, I'm guessing, at least 80 percent of everybody.
Billy Martin once noted that on any baseball team there will be a couple of players who hate you, a couple who would do anything for you, and the rest are undecided.
"The secret of managing," Martin said, "is to keep the guys who hate you away from the guys who are undecided."
And in a very real way, that's the secret of managing horse racing's image and trying to reverse the downward trend in its fan-base in the 21st century. Those of us who would do anything for the good of horse racing need to be the agents of progress in the sport and the buffer of truth that separates the vast majority of moderately interested and disinterested observers from the agenda-driven animal rights zealots who won't stop until there's not a single horse left being raced, nor dog carrying oxygen bottles, nor beef placed on a bun.
PETA alone will never have the power to shut down horse racing. But a willfully and woefully misinformed general public who are eventually provoked into crying out to everyone from the networks and advertisers that carry and sponsor racing to state legislatures and Congress that can crush us under the weight of government, just might.
