Newsweek gives one-sided view of wild horses and slaughter

Write What You're Told Poster
Sue Wallis has the answer for alleged 'nuisance' wild and domestic horses, namely slaughter, in a Newsweek article that appears to have been penned by her.

Sue Wallis Guest Spots in Weekly News Magazine

Written by JADED MARE

An online Newsweek article entitled “Wyoming Ponders Slaughtering Horses” written by McKay Coppins gives a one-sided view of wild horses and slaughter that should have been ascribed, not to Coppins, but to Sue Wallis (unless, of course, McKay Coppins is Wallis’s nom de plume), or at the very least, appeared as an Op-Ed piece instead of a factual, news report.

This is yet another example of how American media outlets do absolutely no research, but simply copies and pastes propaganda spewed from anyone and everyone without any verification whatsoever of the facts. Shame on Coppins. Shame on Newsweek. Shame on the American media.

The opening paragraph reads:

The wild horse is a symbol of the frontier way of life. But in recent years it’s been recast in a less noble role—as a public nuisance. The Bureau of Land Management has tried culling herds through roundups, auctions, and federal corrals.

No so bad so far, as the BLM has certainly done this, but read the remainder of it:

But the feral ranks have nearly tripled, to 69,000 since 1971, and more than half of those horses are roaming free in 10 Western states. Factor in the thousands of horses turned loose during the recession, and the result, the government contends, is a population that’s overwhelmed its habitat.

With America’s wild horses and burros on the brink of extinction because of needless, cruel and herd-destroying roundups, the last thing they need is this kind of journalistic slop.

Sue Wallis, naturally, has the answer for all of these alleged “nuisance” wild and domestic horses, namely slaughter.

Wyoming thinks it has a solution. In 2007 Congress blocked the inspection of horse meat, which effectively ended interstate sales and closed the last U.S. abattoir. But selling horse meat intrastate remains legal, and state Rep. Sue Wallis wants to use that fact to license Wyoming’s first slaughterhouse to help owners who can’t afford to care for their animals.

Getting back to our wild horses, Wallis says:

” . . . for a horse on overgrazed land, slaughter beats starvation.”

The BLM must love her.

It seems clear that they do not teach the difference between what constitutes a news article and what constitutes an editorial in U.S. Journalism classes. Editors and publishers appear to have forgotten, if they ever knew. Then there is the obvious absence of fact checking. This type of reporting, in our opinion, is more appropriate to Communism 101 than Journalism 101.

There are no comments to “Wyoming Ponders Horse Slaughter” as of this posting. If you wish to give the horses’ side of the story, please go to >>

12 thoughts on “Newsweek gives one-sided view of wild horses and slaughter”

  1. I wonder where Monty Roberts stands on the Wild Mustang Issue , he is the Father of all the Wild Mustangs ??? I have not read anywhere where he is for them???? I have written him several times with no answer yet????


  2. I was not aware he said anything, it doesnt matter I also am not forgiving , damage i feel was done !!!! Unless he writes a full retraction, Newsweek loses me !!!!! Not thats a big deal but I have no tolerance any more for writing about the Wild Mustangs unless it is something to help them, to save their very precious lives, the truth is they are suffer for no reason except the greed of the BLM…. selfless idiots in my book………….


  3. I have voiced my opinion at Newsweek already !!! And also canceled my subscription, I will not deal with their Disgusting attempts with a one sided journalism at its worst !!!! I demanded a retraction of their un researched Journalism…………….. !!!


    1. John Holland gave an in-depth comment and was very diplomatic in saying that the writer was mislead. How kind he is. I, however, am not so kind, and do not see “being mislead” as much, if any, of an excuse for not bothering to at least check the internet to see what else is being said on the issue. That goes for people who have come across this blog where these issues are covered non-stop and say they don’t understand what we are talking about.


    1. Legend and nedla

      First of all, 2 paragraphs doesn’t constitute much of anything let alone a reason to crap on horse advocates. Sorry that the “Nationalist”is so vapid in its content.

      This article, as it is shown in the link, barely touches on what is behind the issue of horse slaughter. That said, it is you who need to educate yourselves in this matter regardless of whether there are or are not untruths. The truth is Slaughterhouse Sue is a charlatan in the world of horse slaughter.

      The people that comment on this are horse advocates and want to see the slaughter stop because of the very reasons you obviously are totally unaware of or if you are aware of simply do not understand the compassion people have for these animals or care to. Do you not have anything you love so much you would fight for? I assume you do and you would react in the same way about that issue. If you have no passion, you lead a sorry life. Moreover, do you have nothing better to do than criticize? Is that your passion because it doesn’t agree with your viewpoint? If so, you are sadly very shallow.

      Sorry but I side on the negative comments and “untruths” about the article that so infuriates your so-called passion. Passion for what I ask? Criticism should always be constructive. That’s what differentiates a good person from a bad one.


  4. But, wait, this blog post doesn’t point out a single factual inaccuracy with the Newsweek article. And it sort of amuses me that you spend so much time criticizing the author for not doing his research, when you clearly didn’t do any either. The article in question didn’t just run online, for one thing. It ran in the print edition on the “Nationalist” page, where op-eds are frequently printed.


  5. Just went to Newsweek and posted a comment…it is disturbing to think the people we rely on for news, for reporting, for journalism…have sunk to the level of fox news and are labelling opinion as news…with a total lack of respect for the facts. There is so much information out there…checking the facts should not be too hard for any reporter. My husband was a journalist for many years and would never allow drivel like this to be attached to his name..he had integrity and always checked his facts and researched his subject..and never allowed opinion to stand in for reporting. I wish more were like him.


  6. No comments are accepted on the Newsweek article. They obviously don’t want to hear from the other side.
    I can’t believe they wrote an article on this raving lunatic’s bloodthristy dreams, and didn’t even bother to add that she wants to feed the prisoners horse meat as well.
    That might have been too much for Newsweek to bother publishing.


    1. Um, actually there are 25 comments on the Newsweek article and it’s still open for comments. Maybe you’re just blinded by your somewhat pathetic outrage?


  7. This is the biggest lie of all the articles I have read. How can a reputable magazine like Newsweek print such outright lies? I will be on thier web site in a heartbeat to let them know what garbage they are printing and will cancel my subscription forthwith. Everyone else should do the same and let all your friends know as well. Boycott Newsweek – that will make one less lying media on the newstands. What a crock!


  8. NEWSWEEK must be desperate for news and information if they printed this on their website as this ‘article’ contained neither news nor information. I’d hate to see this show up in print as it contains not much in the way of facts, either.
    Maybe it’s a misplaced op-ed, a computer-generated glitch that scooted in under the radar; it’s hard to believe it would actually pass muster as printable NEWSWEEK fodder.
    Maybe I’m being too harsh. But if this is what NEWSWEEK is passing off as ‘journalism’, it certainly bodes ill for the magazine’s future, doesn’t it?


Leave a Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s