Monday, March 24, 2008
Hipocrisy and The New York Times: Dog Fighting vs Bull Fighting
Whats the difference?
So The New York Times has this article about a prize bull from Spain. His owner, who is a famous bull breeder, has decided that he wants to clone him to preserve his investment. Well enough, people do all sorts of bizzare things. But how can The Times, the same paper that condemned Michael Vick's dog fighting operation, treat bull fighting as a legitimate sport, and cover this story as newsworthy?
By sending a reporter to visit and interview the owner the paper accomplishes nothing more than cementing the guise of legitimacy this barbaric activity needs to be stripped of, and reinforces a double standard for the abuse and torture of animals. What is the moral difference between breeding dogs and fighting them to the death, and breeding bulls for the sole purpose of having them elaborately and slowly executed in front of a cheering crowd? None.
The New York Times eviscerated Michael Vick in a series of articles detailing his brutal exploits with canines and every step of the subsequent police investigation, and then finished up with a feel good interactive media story called Another Chance for Vick's Dogs about how some of Vicks dogs were rescued by a group in Utah that specialized in rehabbing abused animals. Apparently, for the paper, dogs count almost as people, and bulls, well, they are something you just eat.
I am not a member of PETA and I have never claimed to be an animal rights activist. I am a well established carnivore who loves to eat beef. But bull fighting is just SICK. It is no different than torturing a cat or a dog then killing it, or forcing them to fight each other to the death, and would be identified by most psycologists as psychotic behavior. That it is a historic part of Spanish culture does not imbue it with moral supremacy. Its terribly unfortunate that The Times would consider newsworthy the use of new cloning technology to further this barbaric "sport," in which the only competition is to see how long the bull fighter can keep the crowd engaged in what is a certain, grim, bloody fate.