Thursday, September 28, 2006

Animal Rights/Neighbour Rights

The Executive Producer of this show called to ask us to appear on the show. She said that she was rather 'affronted' that we declined to appear on the programme. I told her that we were not in any way trying to editorialise, nor had I asked them NOT to include Tony Tan on the programme, but that we were not appearing on the programme because we did not want to pander to complainants who believed that complaining loudly meant they are listened to. This is exactly what we have been telling town councils not to do - and it would be very strange to now go against what we've been saying all along.

Now she says that the new angle is going to be animal rights/neighbours rights. Firstly, I told her that we were not an animal rights organisation. She expressed surprise, so I explained to her what animal rights was versus animal welfare as she was unclear about the difference.

Secondly, I told her that while I understand that the title, has to be, in her words, sexy, we don't feel that there has to be a pitting of one right against the other. It's really a false dilemma - animal welfare if anything, enhances human rights, because it's basically about teaching people to be more compassionate and humane. If you can't be humane and not cruel to an animal that cannot talk or fight back, then what hope will there be against a person who can do both?

She said they would have to say on the programme that we were approached but did not take part. We did just send them a statement to explain why we are not appearing.

She also said that this would be our chance to put our side of the story out, but again, there will be some people who undoubtedly side with Tony Tan, and there are others. Debating (or not even debating because it's filmed separately) someone like Tony Tan isn't meaningful because it doesn't go to addressing any issues if the complainant refuses to talk to you. Apparently Tony Tan said in his interview he refused to speak with us.

They did offer to have a second episode which would be part 2 of this programme, and that we could appear on this second part, without Tony Tan. However the point is not Tony Tan personally at all. It's about the fact that it's still responding to someone who is complaining and not willing to solve this problem.

I was also surprised that the focus of the programme had changed again. I checked what HRSS and ACRES segment would be about but those will just be straight out features on HRSS and ACRES.

So we're still not taking part.


Blogger calsifer said...

Seems like the programm producers still don't get it.

And with segments on HRSS and ACRES as just straightforward features, it seems like cats are getting the short of it on the pgoram, esp with the Tony Tan phenomenon.

I think it's cheek of the exec producer to talk about affrontment.

28/9/06 3:21 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Let the stupid woman say what she wants to say. She has already shown who the star of the show is -Tony Tan. Why playing supporting role in a flawed programme with a producer who has shown to be hostile.

28/9/06 3:21 PM  
Anonymous christine said...

stay firm to yr decision.. the cat welfare decision=)

28/9/06 3:23 PM  
Blogger Mezzo said...

dawn, dawn, dawn.. you're supposed to be a fluffy-crazy cat woman, remember? Pulling all of this logical thinking out - that's not according to her script! ;)

Hee. Dawn's like the claw in the kitten's paw - unexpected, to the point, and rather hard to remove from attacking woolly thinking.

28/9/06 3:42 PM  
Blogger Dawn said...

I did wonder - hmm shouldn't I be affronted to be called a vigilante? :)

28/9/06 4:17 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

i think u hv spoilt her plans, Dawn! :)

in this ctry where the media has a monopoly, they are not used to having to pitch their ideas and having them judged for content, substance and plain common sense.

i just hope it doesn't get presented as if CWS had no answer to what this unreasonable man is saying.

28/9/06 4:29 PM  
Blogger Dawn said...

Anonymous we sent a statement to say we don't debate unmeritious claims on television. The producer said they would screen that.

28/9/06 4:34 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Be very careful Dawn, not being offensive but I am in the media and I know how powerful MC is. It is still very much a govt mouth piece.


28/9/06 6:44 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

i can very safely say that tv producers are a bunch of cigarette smoke-filled a*seholes who tend to see things rather differently from normal people. as well as speaking a highly different language from us - or fond of throwing tv technical jargons at us. they won't hesitate to remind you that they are the universe's most creative people, that's why they ended up becoming tv producers.

worked in a broadcasting company before. that's why i said i can very safely say.

28/9/06 6:47 PM  
Blogger vegancat said...

U have my support. Always sensible, down to earth and right on focus!!

28/9/06 6:58 PM  
Blogger Dawn said...

Adriane - of course we want to stay on the good side of the media, and given the right context, we'd be happy to work with them again. I think I did go to some lengths to explain why we are concerned with the focus of this programme.

28/9/06 7:18 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

What I mean dawn is be careful of what you say. You can be quoted out of context and by the time you make noise it is too late. And to Anonymous, can you not be so blanket in your view. I am a TV producer and I dont think I am a cigarette mouthing asshole....


28/9/06 10:38 PM  
Blogger Dawn said...

Adriane - you're right, but it's really out of our hands. We gave a very short, generic statement and asked them to use it either entirely or not at all.

28/9/06 11:25 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Why not show the world what an unreasonable a****** that guy really is. It can't help to tell your side of the story. If people knew the kind of bs you have to put up with on a day to day basis they might be more sympathetic to your cause.

29/9/06 11:51 AM  
Blogger Dawn said...

Anonymous - I think that the public will be able to judge for themselves what he's like when he's on television. Appearing on the programme is not going to make any difference except to add credibility to what he's saying.

For example, I think he mentioned according to the producer, that he was very open about the number of cats he trapped and sent to be killed.

29/9/06 12:07 PM  
Blogger luvktv said...

i din read the entire blog.. nor the comments.. but i guess.. if the news is not sensational enuff, they'll try to find means and ways to make it so.. they have to get the viewership ratings..

19/11/06 9:57 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home