A number of references have been made in the Dallas Morning News recently about our animal shelter. I've captured and preserved the major ones here.
 
It's true that our animal shelter is challenged for a number of reasons. It is smaller than that of several other cities our size. That fact leads to some other less pleasant situations. An animal brought to our shelter does not have an indefinite stay. It is found or adopted … or it is put-down. Everyone would love to see every animal have a home. Everyone would love to see owners be responsible for their pets. We would like to see animals be spayed or neutered so litters of unwanted animals would not be dumped on the streets, running feral, until they are delivered to the shelter. Many are too sick or have behaviors that make them unadoptable.
 
It is also true that our animal shelter employees agonize when an animal has to be euthanized, contrary to the unbelievably insensitive claims some have made. It is also true that the two methods of euthanasia used by the shelter are fully recognized as humane by the American Veterinary Medical Association. It also appears that there have been a few occasions over the years when an animal was euthanized either too soon after arrival or not by the recommended method for their particular condition.
 
At the same time, the Dallas Morning News has progressed from a straight-forward story giving the facts to now offering opinions that have no basis in fact. Hence yesterday's editorial claim that "At Garland shelter, an animal's life is nasty, brutish and short." When I've visited the shelter, it has not been "nasty." Cages are cleaned regularly; they're spacious. (See the DMN's own photo!) All animals are treated well. Citizens roam the facilities looking for adoptees or lost pets, registering animals, getting shots, using other services. The public eye is constantly present.

Graphic credit: Exhibit 5A

 
But not the eyes of the DMN editorial board sitting in their ivory towers. It is unfortunate that any animal must be euthanized but the DMN extrapolates the questionable death of a very few over a number years to the generalization of like conditions for all. They boil the whole process down to cost savings yet for the stories offered, there is no indication that any DMN reporter actually visited the shelter. Their photographer did visit. We have that record. And nothing in those photos show anything to substantiate their accusations.
 
It's funny but I recently received a call from American Express to let me know that someone might be trying to make an inappropriate charge. They wanted to let me know that the Dallas Morning News was attempting to process a charge of over $300, was I being robbed? Yes, that is the cost of an annual subscription so I can do the daily Sudoku and have the editors tell me they won't take time to visit our shelter before spouting conjecture. I'm still debating an answer to Amex as to whether I'm being robbed.
 
Newspapers across the country are suffering declining readership. Americans that read the newspapers still don't have an appreciation for the journalistic integrity that used to be a beacon to the world. Other countries had state-controlled news or blatant tabloid journalism not much different than the Enquirer and others. (The Enquirer is now scooping the standard media that refuses to consider if a presidential and vice presidential candidate might be having an illicit affair.) Residents in those countries knew to take their "news" skeptically. We're just now learning that lesson.
 
The Dallas Morning News, like those other newspapers, keeps shrinking and has seen its circulation drop and drop, which causes advertisers to find better value for their tight marketing budgets. There are some in the organization that I know would like to see the paper return to those days of journalistic integrity. Yet obviously there are those that think being a tabloid, saying whatever it takes to get attention and maybe one more day of sales, is the better business model.
 
There are a lot more factors affecting newspapers today than just journalistic integrity. The internet and the ways people get their news is shifting. If papers would stand on journalistic integrity, I can't guarantee that they won't continue to slide because of those other factors. But I have no doubt that without integrity, they will slide faster. There are too many newspapers proving it.
 
The New York Times, sliding deeper into the red by hundreds of millions, refused to cover the voter fraud, embezzlement, and questionable financing occurring at ACORN. When other news channels were showing visual proof of the corruption in the organization, they were quite. When Congress and governmental agencies were cutting ties to ACORN, they were quite. Finally, yesterday, the paper roughly acknowledged its slackness (even in its shortcomings, still enlightening reading). I say "roughly" because their defense is that they weren't covering the news, that they didn't know anything about ACORN, and that it wasn't due to any bias. (Translate that to plain English and it reads even worse.) Internal emails unquestionably reveal the bias.
 
Newspapers across the country have been closing (Rocky Mountain News, Denver; Seattle Post-Intelligencer, Seattle; and many smaller ones).
 
Even though we are the tenth largest city in the state, we have long had minimal news coverage locally. Our good deeds have gone unreported. We had a respite with the all-too-short revival of the Garland News and I've personally celebrated the return of Ray Leszcynski to local news. With Karel Holloway on school news and their DMN Garland Blog, we're doing better right now. I'm thankful for the news coverage that we do get and I think Ray and Karel are doing an excellent job.
 
Now, I'd like to thank the editorial writers and staff in Dallas to do theirs! I'm not wishing for the DMN to follow the exits of its sister businesses across the country. I'd like to counsel them that journalistic integrity won't guarantee them that the hard financial times will stop but it would keep them in business longer. While I'm focused on one item that resonates locally, the reason for this post actually extends to several recent observations at the news organization that generate concern. If newspapers are to go the way of the dinosaurs, wouldn't you want to exit with integrity?
 
ACORN is now reeling because it did not have internal controls and a corporate atmosphere that disdained corruption and unlawfulness. At the top, the Morning News appears to suffer from the same lack of journalistic standards. I do hope they prove otherwise over time.
 
On behalf of the everyone in the city, I invite the Dallas Morning News to actually visit our animal shelter and to become informed on the issues they claim to be reporting. There is a whole lot more to this story than they've reported, and some that would have a Times-like ombudsman doing some house cleaning. There are some very juicy parts that are not only true but would sell newspapers. If they want the whole story, they'll have to do some work and get out from behind that desk. No need to call ahead; we'll hear the slow footfalls.