Every journalistic story starts out with an assumption.

We see something interesting happen, and we investigate to see if it is a trend. A big merger occurs and we wonder if there are broader implications are for the rest of the industry, so we check out what the analysts are saying. A disease outbreak occurs and we assume it might affect supplies to processors so we talk to the experts to find out.

So what happens when our assumptions are wrong; when the interesting thing is not a trend, the big merger does not impact others in the industry or the disease outbreak does not reduce supplies as we thought it might? Then we write a story explaining why those things did not happen or we don’t write the story at all.

This is not the case when an animal activist group goes into an animal agriculture facility looking for trouble and doesn’t find any; they make a video anyway.

The latest example came several weeks ago when new footage shot by Mercy for Animals at a live poultry facility didn’t have much going for it, other than the soulful, emotional music and the vitriol of the somber narrator.

“The undercover hatchery video I reviewed did not depict any animal mistreatment,” said Joy Mench, professor of animal science at University of California, who was part of a panel of animal welfare experts who reviewed the video.

But, heck, why let the facts get in the way of a good story? Mercy for Animals didn’t. Instead, they tacked on three-year-old footage that did show abuse, for which workers were fired and prosecuted. The company involved has since taken a number of actions to improve worker training and prevent abuse -- which is probably why the new video couldn't find any.

We all understand the attempt to relive the glory days of a big victory (we’d love to remind you daily of all the journalistic awards Meatingplace has won; it's 10 by the way), but it’s time to move on. The company involved has. Too bad the animal activist groups won’t.

When the story doesn’t pan out

Join for free* to continue reading.