Just read this on our Golden Retriever group and thought it would be a good idea to make everyone aware. Apparently there is another programme in the pipeline, a follow up to the first one that has done all the damage. The KC have been telling breed clubs that they have scouts out to find out information and will be at shows and Discover Dogs, so just be aware if you get someone who seems a little too interested in your breed or health matters! Don't know all the exact details as this was all that was posted on our group but i suppose a call or visit to KC website might give more info!

Best Wishes

Mel.

> so just be aware if you get someone who seems a little too interested in your breed or health matters!

Wouldn't think anyone who honestly gives correct information to people enquiring about there breed would need worry.

People always come up to you at DD and ask questions like this so the only way we would know is if there's a camera crew there too :).  Had a phone call last night and he was very up on the health issues of even something that we've never had a problem with in our country.

If they did come up to me I would be asking how many of the dogs in rescue and non-KC registered pups are as stringent on health testing than we are that show?  Although unfortunately I'm not going to be there this year just can't afford it.

I believe BC's are one of the next breeds to be hit by this company.

I don't mean to be contentious here, but surely the only people who need to be "vigilant" are those with something to hide?

> but surely the only people who need to be "vigilant" are those with something to hide?

I don't think it is necessarily only those.   I think anyone inexperienced in dealing with the press can also fall victim to misrepresentation.

With all due respect Julie non of the people who worked and were interviewed for the first program thought and truely believed they had anything to hide, clever editing sorted that idea out. 

As a journalist you know how things work and very few are as they portray themselves, quote from Ms Harrison "There is no requirement of me as a programme-maker to give equal weight/airtime to opposing views." http://davidcavill.wordpress.com/

I have to agree with David on this one thereby lies the problem with this type of journalism.

> but surely the only people who need to be "vigilant" are those with something to hide?

Not necessarily.  I think anyone not media savvy could fall victim to misrepresentation by omissions or skew of emphasis, much as appear to have happened the KC.

> quote from Ms Harrison "There is no requirement of me as a programme-maker to give equal weight/airtime to opposing views."

How appalling :-(  That may be her creed as a freelance producer but there is no excuse for the BBC exercising the same lack of integrity with licence payers money in broadcasting her slant.

"With all due respect Julie non of the people who worked and were interviewed for the first program thought and truely believed they had anything to hide, clever editing sorted that idea out.  "

Yes, I agree that in some circumstances editing can skew things, but I don't think Ronnie Irvine saying that scientist could tell him nothing, or the woman who bemoaned the fact that vets wouldn't put healthy pups to sleep and many other examples were down to editing. Also, it doesn't matter how much material was disregarded - they got people saying damning things. That isn't down to editing, that's down to people saying damning things. I still say that if you are a breeder who does things above board, who does health tests and breed for health, you have nothing to worry about from the media.

Again, (becuase it's difficult to tell tone from written posts) I'm not trying to be contentious, just interested to debate this. :)

Words can be taken out of context, contributors have not been able to see the "final" version wherein they might have been able to put their point over better than the first attempt.

I think people are becoming more and more wary of journalists - the wo/man in the street may not have the same way with words that the wordsmiths themselves have!

Personally - I'd stay behind the parapet!  If and when MY point of view was guaranteed to be published, then I'd pop up - and not before!

Margot

There is also the way people are allowed to answer questions when Ronnie Irving answered that question he was attending a dog show at the houses of parliment not giving an interview. Throughout the whole program the so called experts were allowed to give full uninterrupted answers with a dark background where  there were no distractions  and answers appeared to have been fully prepared. The breeders exhibitors and KC representatives where filmed at shows,  mainly standing, without the benefit of a none destracting background and where interrupted during their answers infact made to feel most uncomfortable and when you are not used to dealing with the media in the first place definitly put at a disadvantage.

Lets face it the KC were not allowed a preview of the previous show whilst researchers were and of course their/our accusers yet they were expected to defend the unknown on many media interviews regardless of format. That sort of behaviour smacks of hypocrasy and a tad fear of valid arguements that could and would have been put forward had they been afforded the same rights and dignity of the accusers.

If you read Mark Evans RSPCA interviews/responses in both dog papers its very obvious the guy had the questions before hand if not a paper interview rather than face to face, all his responses were very slick and moved along without answers in some cases in the same way a politician is trained to do.

My biggest fear is Ms Harrison claiming rights to any improvements that have happend in the last 10 yrs as being due to her program and who amongst members of Joe public would not believe her after all she kept the good out of her original program for a reason ---- profit maybe?

If she had kept the good in the programme it would have been a very different programme with a very different effect ;)  and that would never do :(

If she had really wanted to do some good for dogs she would have included the health and condition of many puppies and dogs bred purely for profit by non-showing breeders ;)