Omigod it's another one

I was listening to CBC Radio this morning where three reporters were talking about how, due to newspapers downsizing or completely closing down, journalists are having to find work elsewhere and many are turning to PR companies. News purveyors and PR firms both deal with getting the message out and journalists are particularly good at that, hence the easy transitions betwen the two fields. The obvious difference, though, is that while news tries to reveal the truth, PR feeds you spin. News requires diligent fact checking while PR requires creativity. News focuses in on a topic; PR is sometimes used to distract attention away from a target. But while the differences are obvious in the definitions, it's sometimes harder to discern when confronted with it.

For example, there's today's Sun editorial by Peter Worthington entitled Independent inquiry needed at THS and OSPCA - another in a long line of editorials by Worthington in support of Tim Trow's leadership at the Toronto Humane Society.

The title itself lends an air of balanced respectability to the words which follow but the words themselves are anything but balanced. Nowhere in the text is it even suggested that the THS needs investigating but rather that its leadership is simply the victim of a bunch of media bullies. The editorial basically points fingers in all directions except at Tim Trow which it commends for saving five puppies from Nunavut.

The editorial brings up the six individuals who recently had their membership applications rejected by the THS brass. It parrots Trow's words, saying "six individuals were rejected, all of whom were disgruntled former employees". That's very interesting because from what I'm told, that statement is untrue. Two of those six, never worked for the THS and another was a volunteer. Of course acknowledging that the THS denied membership to certain unwanted people in the public at large doesn't sound as good as denying membership to "disgruntled employees".

As if to further explain the membership denial, there's this: "I don't see why we should take in people who dislike us and want to disrupt our goal of helping animals," says Trow, which puts a much more positive spin on the fact that people dislike the THS management not because THS' goal is to help animals but because people feel the THS is currently failing in its mandate.

Trow's attitude is reminiscent of ex-Prez Bush' with-us-or-against-us bunker mentality and goes a long way to explain why the THS is in the trouble it's in.

Continuing on: After an editorial in the Toronto Star suggested barring certain people from membership was anti-democratic, Trow reversed the decision and admitted the six. True, and if The Star hadn't published that editorial, you can bet yer ass that those six would still be barred from the THS. So The Star did its job. Good.

If they raise a ruckus at the annual meeting, he hopes other members will rebut or refute critical allegations. What isn't mentioned here is that even though there may be six dissenting voices allowed in at the AGM, Trow has disallowed any other new members from joining and speaking out. I guess he figures he can handle six people given all the proxy votes he's expecting to hold in his hands come election night.

Trow can be excused if he feels some paranoia. Sure, if he's the type of guy that can't tolerate criticism, then, yeah, he should be paranoid because there's a helluva lot of criticism about his management.

Why would the Globe focus on the THS blocking new memberships on the eve of a vote, when the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (OSPCA) doesn't allow any of its general membership to vote for directors? This is just a lame attempt at deflecting criticism away from the THS. The Globe piece was about the Toronto Humane Society and not about the OSPCA. I mean I could fault the Globe for not bringing up the lack of a transparent democracy in Iran but that's not what their story was about. No one is saying the OSPCA is perfect but their faults don't make the problems at the THS any less appalling.

I could go on dissecting this Sun editorial but it's getting tedious. It's like complaining about bad weather.

I will say this, though, about those five Nunavut puppies. The situation up north for dogs is deplorable with too many dogs left outside to freeze to death, starve or be shot. From the looks of things, the transport and rehoming of those pups, and others, is the result of a partnership between the THS and the Iqualuit Humane Society. That's a worthwhile THS project and alongside that effort, the THS shouldn't just use those puppies as some sort of media distraction (note to Worthington: lots of local rescues bring in unwanted dogs from far away places to rehome here. Why don't you ever write in support of them?). THS should use those puppy adoptions as a way to educate us southerners about the plight of northern dogs, maybe generate some funding for them, maybe effect some positive change. That would be doing the right thing.

The best way, though not the easiest way, to counter criticism is by doing the right thing. The Toronto Humane Society is for helping animals. The Toronto Humane Society needs to take care of its animals. It is not a playground for power politics or bloated egos. Do the right thing, Mr. Trow, and facing down criticism won't be a problem. Keep on going the way you're going and no amount of spin is going to silence those who will see you replaced.