That’s why in documentaries like CNN you see the documentarian play a more hands off role , merely stating the facts and looking into all sides of the chosen topic.

The show is not meant to be two-sided. He comes in from one extreme to another, but it does not go both ways. The hunter was there to learn about animal rights, the show was not about the justification of hunting. Plus, they might have talked about it more in the house, but one hour is not enough to show both sides.
I also dont think people realize that just like any other subject of activism there is different methods of getting the message out. Most people in our cause do not agree with how Lorri handled the questions he had on-air. Beating around the questions with the same answer was not helpful at all. For people that are unsure or do not really think any of it is true. I feel the best way is to do what the neurologist did. Tell him the straight facts and how it effects “you” personally. After people see the effects against themselves, they are more likely to then want to see what the abuse is to the animals. But graphic protests, to me, are insulting.

Also, I had my mom watch this program. She grew up on a farm. But not all farming is equal in America. Now I dont know what type of farm you are talking about, Lorraine. But, the vast majority of people who have been around the type of industry that was portrayed and that dominants or food supplies, are not like local, small farms. Most dont even see them as farms, but call it Industrialized Farming. The animals are a product, not a being. Living near a factory farm, is causing great physical damage to the people and their environment. It’s just like living near a power plant, but in this case there is barely any laws or regulations limiting the ‘farmers’ actions. Manure run-off is the major source of water contamination is ALL rivers in america. If you were around this type of farm, most likely you would have something to say. Groups of citizens across the nation are forming together to boycott and stop these forms of agriculture from coming near their towns.

I worked for Merck (the pharmaceutical company) as a sale’s rep some year’s back. My clients were lab animal testing facilities in the midwest. Now I can’t speak for what happens on the coasts — but I was, inside of close to 100% of the animal testing labs that existed in kansas, nebraska, Iowa and Missouri at that time. Over and over, decorating the walls in many of these places was a very compelling poster (produced and distributed by some organization representing biomedical researchers) that showed a beautiful little girl, sick and tucked into a hospital bed, and surrounded by stuffed animals. The caption on this poster said, “The animals that really helped this little girl aren’t in this picture.” But here’s what I found most disturbing. probably 80-90 percent of the labs in these four states, their research had NOTHING to do with saving human lives. Most of these labs were animal health companies and most of their research was about trying to find the next big opportunistic pathogen of pigs, chickens or cows, and then be the first to market with a vaccine or drug to fight that infection. Then they would develop some slick advertising and PR to scare the farmers to death that if they didn’t use their new product, (each batch tested once again in animals for safety and efficacy) they would suffer catastophic economic harm, when too many of their animals succumbed. Of course it was obvious to me even at that time — that when you cram too many animals into too small of an area, deprive them of fresh air and sunlight, and feed them unnatural diets — they will be unusually susceptible to oportunistic infections.

It all seemed very dishonest to me that all these animal health companies were riding the bandwagon of “Animal research saves lives” and their research had nothing to do with advancing human well-being.