Would you want to read a magazine that contained only information that you already knew and agreed with? Would it be worth the price of the subscription? For me, the answer is no and, yes, I really do subscribe to and buy a number of magazines that publish articles or display an editorial slant with which I frequently strongly differ. (For that matter, the editorials in my own hometown newspaper frequently make me mad enough to spit!) But some people, it seems, have no tolerance for exposure to information or opinions with which they disagree.
Ive been thinking about this since the publication of our last issue, which contained an article about a controversial topic: cosmetic surgery for dogs.
Im being purposely provocative for using the phrase cosmetic surgery as a catchall phrase for the topics discussed in the article: tail docking, ear cropping, and dewclaw removal. (The author of the article, Shannon Wilkinson, was also deliberately provocative by referring to these practices as amputations. At the risk of starting a dictionary war, let me say that we understand that some define that word as the removal of a limb or portion of a limb, but others define it as the removal of part or all of a body part that is enclosed in skin. So its use was accurate, if startling.)
The word amputation is dramatic; people usually think of amputations as being un-planned and shocking, which, of course, crop-ping and docking surgeries are generally not. But the purpose of its use in our article was not to pass judgement on those who dock or crop; we did not once describe the practices as cruel or anything equally inflammatory. We did, however, want to get our readers atten-tion, to cause them to look at some common dog-care practices in a new light, and perhaps get them to reconsider the importance of those practices, or at a minimum, weigh them against their potential some would call them alleged adverse effects.
So, while I admit I knew the topic was controversial, and it was our stated goal to be thought-provoking, I was (as I always am in these situations) surprised when I received several calls and letters from people who wanted to cancel their subscriptions to WDJ to express their dissent with the article.
We have never purported to hold an exclusive contract on whats right. But our stated goal expressed in the mission statement that appears below is to offer useful, dog-friendly information that helps owners help their dogs. Our unstated mission (one that should be apparent due to our intentional lack of advertising) is to provide reliable information on topics you cant find in mainstream publications, where, in consideration of conventional, commercial interests (which contribute the vast majority of advertising dollars), hardly anything appears that runs counter to conventional practice.
Anyway, Im happy to report that at least a few people saw fit to extend, rather than cut off, a conversation with us about cosmetic surgeries. Some of their letters will appear in the next issue.