Silk purse from a sow's ear

I didn't really want to write about this whole pork debacle; given that I am an ethical vegetarian, I didn't want legitimate news-rage to get clouded by personal outrage. But a few days of reading Herald headlines on the issue - that is, video evidence of the vile treatment of pigs in a government-certified piggery near Levin (glamorous home of the Miss New Zealand pageant) - I thought I would have another look to see if I could gauge the Herald's position on the issue. If you can consider headlines to be a rough reflection of the newspapers editorial position, they make for interesting reading:

• "SAFE not naming pig farm targeted on TV"
• "Carter slams SAFE as Maf investigates piggery"
• "Maf inspection found nothing wrong with pig farm: owner"
• "'Pork would rise $2 a kg' if intensive farming stopped"
• "Piggery still under Maf review"
• "Maf says piggery not breaking any laws"
• "Piggery owner: activists stirred pigs up"

Actual story, as unemotive as I can make it: 'Animal welfare activists break into a government-inspected (in 2005) pig farm and capture footage of pigs in sow crates etc. The footage is then shown on national television, leading to a significant level of disgust on the part of the public. Maf investigates, but it turns out that these conditions are not actually in breach of the law.'

Story as interpreted by a Martian who only reads Herald headlines: 'Group of glory-hunting animal-fascists break into pig farm and stir up pigs to make honest farmer look bad. They then refuse to divulge the location of the farm, thus condemning the pigs to more torture. Their goal is to raise the price of pork for the Joneses, who are already struggling from the recession. Happy ending where the farm is not breaking any laws, which means that the pigs are not being mistreated.'

Number of headlines quoting people in the pork industry: 3
Number of headlines quoting SAFE: 0
Number of headlines 'slamming' SAFE: 1

Meanwhile, the normally sane Brian Rudman 'slams' the admittedly unsympathetic Mike King for his about-turn (from television pork-fancier to critic of intensive farming), as if that were the point of this issue:

No doubt King won't be the last, but please, he should accept that having sold his soul, he's on his own. And if there is a victim, it's not him, it's those of us who've been duped, or misled, or sucked in by the smiley messages he and other celebrities are paid to peddle.

Actually, Brian, it's probably still the pigs. And the "Your Views" on this issue contains gems such as this:

Edward (North Shore): The Western world has not been able to feed itself without intensive farming for the last 50 years.

The pigs live in a fairly warm environment compared to the cruelty of freezing on a "free range" farm. Their health is checked regularly. They don't have the stress of getting into fights, as on a "free range" farm.

Their quality of life and level of stress is lower in a controlled intensive environment. In a "free range" piggery, agressive pigs muscle out other pigs' food. In a controlled farm, we know they are properly fed.

The same NGO outfit who are promoting "free range" pigs are also telling African governments not to use drought resistant seeds, and saying 'you're better off poor and starving'. How cruel is that!

I wish I were in jail so that I didn't have to go out in the cold and could get fed every day.

I tell you, we have to stop nannying these pigs in their luxury crate-hotels, where they can lie.. erm, stand around all day not having to do a decent day's work! Send 'em to Egypt, I say.