Why is it, and don't get me wrong, I like animals (pets), and have had several over the years. But is seems that the current news items about some pets being poisoned by canned food has gone far beyond what was reported when people were dieing of e coli from bad veggies in tacos or whatever. It seems that the news people (who are not well known for unbiased reporting) have put critters ahead of people...

For the same reasons we here all the time about spaying or nuetering your pets because of the over population of unwanted pets, but we don't hear anything from our "TOTALLY UNBIASED PRESS" about all the unwanted children that wander our streets. Ya gotta wonder when they might start doing the same to us

I think showing pictures of cute fuzzy animals and grieving pet owners is a sure fire way of getting people's attention and hence advertising dollars, and it is pretty easy to do (not a lot of journalistic heavy lifting involved).

Also, trying to get information on human victims of a wide-spread medical event is harder to do given the confidentiality protections. You have to get a lot of forms signed to take cameras into a human hospital to interview victims. Nobody cares if a cat's "confidentiality" is compromised.

I wonder if "human misery" fatigue is a factor in this as well. We've (the planet) has had a rough couple of years with images of dead and dying humans. I know I tend to tune it out myself.

Amen OBG.

I find it ridiculous that all of our local news here are spending so much time on this issue. They have been going to local shelters talking about how it is affecting their donation, etc. Well, why didn't the media go to the local soup kitchens when we had the peanut butter recall? That affected many PEOPLE (i.e. not animals that lick their behinds and eat their vomit).

Did you know that Con Agra was not even manufacturing peanut butter at all (I saw a confidential email, go with me on this) and that the recall is still on and AFFECTS ALL PEANUT BUTTER CONA AGRA MAKES, not just the 2111 code the media was talking about in Feb.

We put dogs and cats ahead of people who are hungry. Interesting...

And to think that many people on other countries have their dogs as home defense and not as a substitution/addition to family.

And I too, am a dog person. I have had dogs all my life (currently have two children now, so no dog for at least 5 years). Dogs know it when you are a dog person, and I can train them as close to a pro without being one, so please don't take this wrong, or be offended by my opinions.

Don't even get me started on animals receiving better medical care than humans.

and if you did not know about the peanut butter RECALL OF ALL CONAGRA PEANUT BUTTER, you can read about it here . Look in the 1st sentance of the 4th paragraph. Oh yeah, also check out the part in that link where the CEO is congratulating the company for cutting costs and expaning profits. Hhhmmm, makes you wonder...

Wish I had money to buy stocks...

I have a friend whose wife works for the FDA. When the peanut butter scare was going on she had between 17 and 20 calls. Strange that with the pet food she has had over 90calls. Some people have even wanted to send in their dead pets (my guess is to help a lawsuit )

I think that we live in a sad world when people are more upset over Fluffy or Rover kicking the bucket then food that they eat making them sick. But then again human life is worth so little now days, just ask people what they feel is worse, kicking a dog or aborting a human fetus. Of all the people I asked they said kicking a dog was worse. And people wonder why I some days I pray for a good global disaster

I remember when Yessir Arafat and his "palestinians" were sending people wrapped with bombs up to the Israeli checkpoints. Then, some genius strapped some bombs to a donkey and it blew up. PETA (my favorite organization I love to hate) sent a letter saying, in effect: "Look.... Blowing up Jews in Israel is pretty cool in our books, but could you please not involve the animals in your strife? Thanks!"

I am going to use that "people for the eating of tasty animals" line.

The media produces what they think will catch your attention. And they're not even much good at that. They used to make some attempt to cover the Who-What-Where-When-Why, but that's gone down the tubes on the tube.

But I'll listen to Mommy's worries about Fluffy's long dewclaws a lot longer than I'll listen to some guy ranting about abortion. Abortion is simple: Don't get pregnant or cause someone else to get pregnant. Beyond that, it's between a woman and her doctor. Why so many other people want to control someone else's life when they don't have control over their own is a total mystery to me. It's as stupid as trying to get people to change over to your religion.

Sue

This doesn't have anything to do with the media frenzy on the subject, but animals are unable to tell us when they are sick, and cannot tell us where it hurts. That may be why the consumers have been so concerned.