Recently, one of my friends wrote a story about a flat in Singapore that had a cat problem. By cat problem, I mean that the block was virtually overrun by cats due to the actions of an irresponsible flat owner that kept 9 cats and did not keep them in check, allowing them to urinate and defecate all over the block.
The Cat Welfare Society took offense with the way the article was written, claiming that it put cats in a bad light, and in their own words, "misquoted and played down the fact that it was the irresponsible behaviour of the owners that caused this."
After that, they went on to take issue with the fact that "interns" wrote the article, and launched attacks on our credibility and character, before going on to paint the editors and the New Paper with the same brush.
Before I get started on exactly how offended I am by their attacks on our characters, let me detail how exactly they intend to deal with us. They intend to write into the TNP email and "blast" us for our irresponsible reporting.
This is illogical on many counts. First of all, there obviously is a problem, or else there wouldn't be so many residents complaining, and the AVA would not have taken the drastic action of removing all 9 cats. Trying to deny that there is any problem whatsoever just because you love cats only further convinces the neutral observer just how blind you people actually are.
Secondly, it is against the law to keep cats in flats, whether your cats are a nuisance or not, so their gripes are a non-issue. Just because you love cats doesn't mean it becomes any more legal to keep them in your flat. Don't get me started on irresponsible cat owners.
Thirdly, we were accused of painting the cats in a bad light, which was deemed wrong because cats cannot defend themselves. They claimed that we had taken sides in writing the article, when they are the ones who are reading our article through their bigoted glasses. They insinuate that it is very clear to readers what we are suggesting, that cats and solely cats are the reason for the problem, and only their removal would solve it, when nowhere in the article did we state that explicitly.
An insinuation is very hard to prove. You can claim that I am insinuating something, but in most cases, it is a case of your word against mine. Who are you to decide what other people are thinking when they read something? Are you them?
Let me describe through the use of an example of what they are actually trying to say by making those allegations against us.
A girl gets raped by a man. The man's friends and family band together, and say that the girl was raped because she just happened to be around, not because the man had a problem, and the people who should have been keeping him in check, namely his parents, failed in their duty.
Would such an incident outrage you? Now, replace the parties involved with the flat's residents, the cats and their owners, and you pretty much get an idea of why their reactions are illogical. They may say that the cats didn't know better, but the cat owners did, and they didn't do anything about it. And, they were keeping cats illegally where they shouldn't have been any at all.
The only way perhaps to convince such people that there is no problem would be to stuff their mouths with cat shit so that the problem of cat refuse disappears.
Sometimes, people forget just how selfish they actually are. We live in a society, which means everyone accommodates each other, to a reasonable level. I have no problem with cats, as long as they do not make life difficult. In this case, they didn't just make life difficult, they made it hell.
In addition, I think that many people forget these days that by publishing potentially defamatory comments on a medium that is accessible to many people, one is opening oneself up to lawsuits. Just because it is easy to post slanderous comments does not mean that one should be any less responsible in getting the facts right before making allegations.
I would sue these people, but I do not want them paying me in cats, because they probably have little else.
I may be an intern, but I check all my articles thoroughly for accuracy before I write them. I may write for what people consider a tabloid, but I do not sensationalise my stories. And above all, I certainly believe that I can write or argue my case in a logical manner much better than people fueled by selfish agendas, because impartiality makes a case for itself in disputes when compromises are sought.
We do our jobs just fine, and I will continue to believe so.