Below are introductory paragraphs of an article about reviving horse slaughter written by Stephanie Simon for the Wall Street Journal.
The title is:
Rethinking Horse Slaughterhouses
Animal-Welfare Groups Are Joining Ranchers in a Push to Revive an Industry That Died in 2007
The article is well researched and fairly well-balanced, quoting from many sides of the issue. But it is the subtitle of the article that is disturbing. People will read the headline, then the subtitle. It is most likely the content of the subtitle they will take away with them.
The subtitle plants the seed that animal welfare people support horse slaughter too. People’s minds will therefore scan for supporting statements as they read through the article. Clever, manipulative journalism, whether the writer is aware of it or not. I take it she is, since she writes for the WSJ.
However, I am encouraged by the comments to the article. Overbreeding means surplus horses with no careers, no homes to go to. These are the horses that the participants at the Summit of the Horse plan to exploit for their meat.
The article begins:
Less than four years after the last equine slaughterhouses in the U.S. closed down, an unlikely coalition of ranchers, horse owners and animal-welfare groups is trying to bring them back.
The group, gathering in Las Vegas this week for a conference called Summit of the Horse, aims to map out a strategy for reviving an industry that slaughtered as many as 100,000 horses a year in the U.S. before it was effectively shut down by congressional action in 2007.
Advocates say the slaughterhouses could bring an economic boost to rural areas and give owners who no longer have the means or inclination to care for the horses an economical and humane way to dispose of them.
“We believe that humane processing is absolutely a moral and an ethical choice,” said Sue Wallis, a Wyoming state lawmaker who organized the event.
Ms. Wallis is working on bringing a slaughterhouse to her state, but said her coalition first must overcome what she called “the ‘ick’ factor.”
9 thoughts on “WSJ weighs in on horse slaughter in light of Summit”
The statement intimating advocates are now regretting the closure of slaughterhouses: I wonder which advocates expressed regret? ‘Cuz nobody I know regrets it.
There were misstatements and errors all over this article. No wonder we can’t get a damn thing done. No one ‘hears’ the facts.
Journalists have an extremely hard job, what they write must be to the point and researched for any contradictions of facts, they are presenting……………………….. They must carefully concider all aspects of what they are writing about , before presenting there articles………………………………
It is possible, but extremely rare.
HAVE YOU EVER LIVED AROUND ONE OF THE SLAUGHTER PLANTS PIGS, COWS, OR HORSES. THE ODOR IS TERRIBLE AND CAN BE SMELLED 80 TO 100 MILES AWAY. MOST OF THE STREAMS, RIVERS, ETC. BECOME POLLUTED WITH BLOOD, ETC. THE CALIBER OF THE PEOPLE WITHIN THE SURROUNDING TOWNS REALLY DROP. THESE RANCHERS AND OTHERS WHO WANT THIS TYPE OF ENVIRONMENT SHOULD BE COMPELED TO LIVE
IN THESE AREAS. THEY ONLY THINK OF THEMSELVES NOT THE PEOPLE, CHILDREN, ETC. HAVING TO LIVE IN THIS ENVIRONMENT.
I lived 2 blocks away from one of these Horror plants when i was a little girl, I made a promise to myself back then, I would do my best to stop this Horror…. The smell was putrid I could barely stand it////I prayed back then to take this and make it stop………..It also brings with it the most questionable people ……people who engage with the act of slaughter eventually become immune d to its horror, then is when another horror begins, they think nothing of committing heinous crimes toward there fellow man, it creates only bad things …… No human being should ever involve and subject themselves to Slaughter……
This is manipulative Journalism , anyone who understands this will throw this kind of manipulation totally away for anything but trash talk !!!!!! i just read the first paragraph and was insulted to think she doing this to me, Journalism is reporting the truth from all sides involved and letting the reader decide what is real…………… By giving only the facts ………. We all have Minds and no journalist is going to influence me with this kind of twisted fact writing……………….. These kind of Journal dont last because you can see right through them…………………… Sorry just my opinion…………………
This would not work with you, Arlene, because you are already well versed in all the arguments, both for and against. Someone looking at this issue for the first time will say, heck, even animal rights people, except for the extremists, think horse slaughter is okay. That is the problem I have with this article.
Yes , I also have the same problem with it, but we must believe the Majority of people will see right through this Trash…… I believe that they will or at the very least to prompt them to inquire and find the facts themselves…………….
Not to be pessimistic but I think that the subtitle and the implications will be very visible to those people who don’t follow the horrendous issue surrounding horse slaughter.
Those of us who spend a good portion of our waking hours thinking and breathing animal rights issues are not the ones we need to target in terms of unearthing what evil goes on .
It is the average citizen who does not have the same passion for horses or animals in the sense we have that we need to reach.
I believe that this article and its manipulative ways are obviously not intended for us but rather those who are uneducated about horse slaughter. Most of the people I know have no idea what goes on primarily because they do not support these causes. Not intentionally but simply because they move in different circles and have different priorities in life.
That said, I don’t think that the majority of people will see through this. And I agree with you Arlene – it is criminal.
What we need to do is educate those who are not in sync with the depth of our feelings. And that seems to me a monumental task.
In a perfect world everyone would have the same compassion as we do.
God bless all the people like you Arlene. We obviously need more of them.