How "investigative" was a WCVB animal abuse story?

The primary point of the video accentuates the existence of animal cruelty. It is difficult to fathom why this story is worthy of debate on journalism. What was the owner of the pig farm actually going to say in defense? The discussion held on Greater Boston somewhat neglected what the viewer was actually observing. There was obviously animal cruelty present at the facility and the videographer documented it.

Bravo to Ch. 5 for showing the cruelty to pigs. I think a couple of folks on the panel were a bit picky. Stop the cruelty.
I watch every Friday.

Why is this portrayed as a Team 5 Investigates story? I don't think they conceived of it, investigated it, or edited it. Instead, this group with an agenda created the videography, presented it to stations around the country, and Channel 5 slapped its title on it as their own work. Isn't that plagiarism? That's the reason why this was discussed as a story on journalism. The question of cruelty in the livestock growing industry is just an aside to the story. As a result, I no longer believe that 'investigative stories' are the station's own work, and the early days of Channel 5, when it was considered to be the best station and news organization in the country are gone. Now, they should wonder if they aren't the worst in Boston.

Hi ALL,

ST: Team 5 Investigates was a good B-t-Press topic
ST: Aside about SO Called Cruelty

Lots of Friday's I do not think that Emily picks good topics. She also often doesn't lead a balanced B-t-Press type discussion on the topic. Emily did good on this topic.

B-t-Press should always be about examining the press/news organizations and their output OR Lack of output. It should not be about what's HOT (like Oprah) or current stuff unless an examination of frivolous or wrong news becomes part of the discussion. Sadly Emily never covers What the News ignores that is more important to Greater Boston, USA, World.

This segment being from "Our" Greater Boston area was important. I have watched Channel 5 looking like Fox copying. The SO CALLED cruelty wasn't an issue unless it was fully discussed. Couch and apartment potatoes that have never farmed other than at Shaws or Starbucks make horrible commentators.

On American Experience http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/ there was a recent story on the Great Dust Bowl experience in FDR's time. I wonder what all would say about the *needed* jack rabbit mass clubbings. In Colorado they wanted to be good to mountain lions and one mauled one of their citizens.

Time for my pork sausage, yum! yum! good with fried potatoes. And as Adam said I didn't ask the pig or the potato if it was OK to eat him/her.

Edit-01: Oops! Had to add a congrat to Emily
Edit-02: Why congrats to Emily.
At the back end of the segment Emily and Joe were having a discussion on what does and does not have to go into a report that might be called Investigative Journalism. Joe seemed to side with the Opinion/Editorial side where you don't have to give both sides, yet Emily stuck with a different and better view. Now I do understand Joe's position yet Emily was more correct.

News stations subcontract work to other independent news gatherers all the time. It's just part of the business. Obtaining news coverage from independent journalists doesn't mean that it of any less quality. Wake up and smell the coffee, we are in a internet and independent age of journalism.

There is nothing wrong with consuming meat being that we humans are at the top of the food chain. There's a difference between producing high quality meat for the population and being cruel. Anyone who actually worked on a farm would know that. Yeah, that pork sausage is also good with a side of toast and a cup of coffee :))).

Take a look at this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JJ--faib7to showing the what is done with male chicks in a hatchery.

Hey RJ,
and B-t-Press Gang,

ST: Yep! Industrial Style Farming of Meat
Just like Industrial Style Vegetable/Grain/Fish/??? Farming

Thanks I was thinking about chickens, hens and stuff yet didn't want to go there. One of Emily's guests aluded to examining New England farming methods as part of this report yet it kind of got missed. Back in a bit since I want to see if this vid catches the hens in tight fitting pens with lights to trick their biological clocks.

And here is a Pig for our non meat lovers http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1mFUn4z60s Gosh that Pig is cute and smart..

Edit-01: Ok Didn't see any pens, yet the manufacturing methods seemed OK and reasonable for our human health. Notice the worker hair bonnets. Also that rough hand sorting technique requires training to weed out possible unhealthy chicks.

Edit-02: Can a Wasp be Loved like a Pig? Now I know some spiders can unless they are Black Widows yet how about a West Nile Virus Wasp or a ?? Wasp?

"News stations subcontract work to other independent news gatherers all the time."

I'm unfamiliar with that practice, particularly without attribution. Can you cite some examples?

"Obtaining news coverage from independent journalists doesn't mean that it [is] of any less quality."

I suspect it often does, and in any case, the folks who provided this specific video were not journalists, but activists with an agenda.

Reminds me of the "independent journalists" who shot the recent ACORN video, which showed clear wrongdoing in one specific office. It was only later we learned that similar gotcha scams were tried in other offices and the "independent journalists" were shown the door.

Do you know anyone who has sent a picture or video into the local news station and it has used for on-air coverage (case, point)? Yes, there is no doubt, atribution is of utmost importance in journalism. However, there are the instances where a source may require confidentiality (e.g. Scooter Libby investigation). This was not the case. Check out the following link: http://www.thebostonchannel.com/news/21634079/detail.html. Channel 5 clearly states their source in the online edition (dated November 16, 2009).

The point is that there was animal cruelty and it was exposed. Okay gotcha so what.

To Mr. Dave:
The male chicks were segregated and thrown into grinders. Of course, the females were expected to live their first and only year of existance confined to a pen with 3 or 4 other hens. I certainly wouldn't want to eat any egg that originated in those conditions. That side of pork sausage with scrambled eggs ala mode with chicken droppings doesn't sound appetizing to me at all.

"Do you know anyone who has sent a picture or video into the local news station and it has used for on-air coverage (case, point)?"

That is far from a news station subcontracting work, which you claim they do "all the time."

"The point is that there was animal cruelty and it was exposed."

How many other pig farms did these activists visit before they got the video they were looking for? Is this cruelty endemic to the industry? Were any laws broken?

How can Channel 5 know that the activists didn't egg on or encourage the cruelty to get the video they were looking for?

These and other questions are ones journalists conducting an investigation would have asked and answered.

Like the recent Acorn story, I suspect these activists merely visited farms until they got the incendiary video they were looking for. This is not journalism.

I welcome all non-violent attempts to expose and eliminate cruelty to animals. I live in farm country. Farming and/or industrial use of animals can and should be humane.

Harrybosch, would you please elaborate on the definition of journalism?

Hi Donna,

Respectfully, I don't think that exposing animal cruelty and practicing good journalism need to be mutually exclusive. I think that's a false choice.

Hi Ralph,

You're right, and you make the point perfectly. I let my emotions get the better of me on this.

Still, as a non-journalist, I (and perhaps others) would welcome being informed on the principles that should be inherent in such a piece. Harrybosch has listed some.

Thanks.

"Harrybosch, would you please elaborate on the definition of journalism?"

Webster's primary definition is as follows:

"The collection and editing of news for presentation through the media."

The way I understand this story, Channel Five did not collect this, nor were they involved in editing the raw video. As Emily pointed out, there was very little follow-up to what the activists provided.

The animal rights folks were more than welcome to post this video to their own website and provide their own commentary, and we all would have been horrified, while also understanding that these folks are activists with an axe to grind.

In this instance, it appears that Channel Five allowed themselves and their heretofore good name to be used.

Harrybosch,

Thanks. I understand your points more clearly now.

The question to us is: "Was this just a handout masquerading as investigative journalism?" The answer seems to be yes, but with the fault going to Channel Five rather than to the Mercy for Animals group who offered it.

As you mention, the animal rights group has an agenda while Channel Five is in the news business with all the standards that adhere. Competing interests were in play and Channel Five was the gatekeeper.

Well said, Donna.

Thank you.

The fact that these practices are standard and largely accepted by the pork industry is horrifying. The video speaks for itself. When it comes to cruelty to animals, it's never acceptable.

I would have been disgusted, frankly, had their been a clip of the facility that treats pigs in these ways saying how much they care about animals. I'm glad that, for once, the media coverage didn't feel the need to make something half-heartedly balanced by insisting on using a comment by the company engaged in the cruel practices. It changes nothing - the footage doesn't lie. And some of the commenters' concerns about what the standard is seems to be a way to ignore what was happening to those animals.

I thought this piece was MUCH better than the national Fox exclusive on it where they had the farm saying how shocked they were (the cruelty, other than perhaps the throwing of the animals, was all standard - I've seen a good deal of this type of undercover footage from these facilities).

I watched the footage (It's at www.MercyForAnimals.org/pigs), and you couldn't do those things to a pet pig without a malpractice suit if you are a vet or cruelty to animals charges if the pigs were dogs or cats instead.

The use of "exclusive" was definitely misplaced, though. And although clearly they "investigated" the organization's actual investigation, the news station didn't really "investigate" beyond the normal fact checking, interviewing, etc. that they would do for any other story.

Hi Donna, Harry,

ST: Investigative Reporting Links +

First off I agree with both of you, Donna's summary and Emily's tease segment title.

Here are some links that kind of give you an idea of Investigative Reporting. Piles of places teach this stuff, with some better. I was hoping to find a list some place of top 5 or top 10 requirements.

http://www.centerforinvestigativereporting.org/about

From them: The only “business” protected by the Constitution, the business of informing the public, has been eviscerated in recent years."
Look at a dictionary at this word ^ ^ ^ ^. It means something (a main thing) is missing. The main thing is "investigation"

http://www.journalism.columbia.edu/cs/ContentServer/jrn/1165270103038/pa...

At the bottom it tells you three important courses. And they went to the Phillipines where journalism is important, dangerous and not entertainment to find a leader.

http://pcij.org/about/

http://www.necir-bu.org/ourpeople_bios.html
Local Greater Boston people. DanKennedy and Emily know them.

----------------
Now I don't expect that all investigative journalists will have the depth necessary to show all sides to this topic so that the public is really informed. Manufacturing methods, Scales of Production, even reasonable Finance, Mathematics, Medical are not taught in journalism school to any depth.

Edit-01: An Aside: Every so often looking for soming called The Points of NewsWorthiness. Proximity, Conflict, Relavence, _ _ _ ? If anyone has a link or can pull this from a Journalism book please Post...

Edit-02: Since Dan is one of our Brain people and buds here is a link for NE

http://www.northeastern.edu/journalism/investigative/index.html

Edit-03: One Quote Pull from this Link and Gone on this Critical Topic

http://www.uncp.edu/home/acurtis/Courses/InvestigativeJournSpr06/JRN460S...

Investigative Journalism is digging "beneath the surface so we can help readers understand what's going on in an increasingly complex world."
Gene Roberts, editor at
The Philadelphia Inquirer and
The New York Times
Houston et al., p. viii

Hi MANY_MrDave,

Thank you for supplying the links. I appreciate your efforts, and will check out each one.

"It changes nothing - the footage doesn't lie."

How can you know that?

I saw video of an alien autopsy once.

And I saw a poor woman last summer who had a backward "B" carved in her face from an Obama supporter.

My point is that if this were indeed a true "investigative report" from a journalistic outfit that has, over time, earned my trust, that would be one thing.

This is not that.