Laden...
| But the passion is on both sides of the issue
Letter from the Editor I found a significant disconnect over the past week between many of the people arguing for and against including obituaries for pets in the death notice pages we publish for people.
What sparked the discussion was a death notice for a rabbit named Pearl Grover published in the Feb. 26 death notices. (That's not Pearl in the photo.) We don’t publish pet death notices, and this one got through our filters. I began receiving angry emails about it, so I dropped what I was doing on a Saturday to write about how it happened and apologize. (You can read it at tinyurl.com/pearlgrover)
I want to share some of what I heard. These are some of the lines contained in a very long email from a Cleveland attorney:
That was the most sacrilegious despicable post allowed by your Paper… Shame on whoever posted the animal within those sacred boundaries. Shame on those who permitted this blasphemy… You have violated those memories as if you had entered a cemetery defacing the monuments within… This is the perfect example how we crumble as a society… You have debased what should be sacred thus lessening the bonds that hold us together.
This contained a similar sentiment:
It is my opinion that your obituary column has crossed a very dangerous line with today's inclusion of a pet. I realize that for many people losing a pet is like losing a family member. However, to elevate a pet to the level of a person by including them in the obituary is beyond my comprehension.
And this:
Plain Dealer has sunk to a new low today. The bunny rabbit picture and obituary is a cruel insult to anyone who has had a loved one pass away.
Then, there were the people who were upset that I had apologized for publishing Pearl Grover’s obituary. This was published on Facebook:
I’m so disheartened, sad, frustrated, and, yeah, kind of angry about this Letter from the Editor in the Cleveland Plain Dealer apologizing for running an obituary for a beloved pet bunny named Pearl… This was not a mistake. If anything, IMO, it was a very compassionate and progressive inclusion. I’m disappointed to learn it wasn’t intended as such.
This came via email:
I read your apology article in the Sunday Plain Dealer about the death notice for the rabbit, which appeared in yesterday's Plain Dealer. I am more offended about your apology. An animal is a living thing and if a person wishes to place and pay for a death notice for their pet, they should be allowed to do so. Your suggestion about having a separate death notice listing for pets is a good suggestion. I cannot believe people would have taken offense to this death notice about the rabbit. Do you also understand that society has become so bad, that pets/animals seem to treat people much better than actual human beings? I really believe an apology was not at all required in this situation.
This came via text:
To many, pets are family, not just a (insert animal.) As with human passing, closure may be needed and sometimes seeing it in print creates the reality of the death. It may seem funny or trite to some, but publication of an obituary, as part of cremation or burial service offered by veterinarians and the PD, in a separate section, I predict it would generate a positive response. We miss them all.
From email:
When I was young, and I am now 81, pets were not held in the same esteem as they are today. My father would not understand any person being called a dog oncologist let alone going to one. When our beloved golden doodle, Murphy, contracted cancer, we went to one. And, when Murphy died, we openly wept and we availed ourselves of the many options to us like cremation, plaster imprint of one of his paws etc. If there had been the option of an obit we probably would have run one. Perhaps, your mistake in allowing Pearl’s obit to run has opened up an avenue for readers to further memorize their pet and create a new revenue stream for you.
And one more:
I suspect many of your readers, like me, were surprised but pleasantly so when we saw Pearl Grover’s obituary in the death notices section. Many of us are frustrated by the lack of compassion shown by others at the loss of a pet. As a companion human yourself, you also know firsthand that our companion animals are truly members of our families. In some cases, sadly, people get far more unconditional love from animals than they do from the humans in their lives. All that being said, rather than lamenting running this notice as an error, I really do think your readers would welcome a section where pets could be memorialized. I think this is a very unique service that could be offered to your readers, and one that could make the Plain Dealer stand out nationally for compassion. Certainly the world could use more of that right now.
You can see in these responses a pretty sharp divide about this issue. And I should note that someone who had placed a death notice in the newspaper was so offended that it was juxtaposed with a rabbit that we gave him a refund.
My purpose in publishing these notes is to show how passionate people are on both sides of the issue. No matter how adamant people might be in their position – and the notes here show they are, indeed, adamant -- maybe seeing how strongly others feel might open the door to compromise.
Two points: One is to make clear why I apologized. As of now, we don’t publish pet obituaries. Pearl Grover’s was published because we dropped the ball. If we had deliberately created a policy for pet death notices, that would be different. This was a mistake, one that offended some people, and I owed you an apology for that mistake.
The second point is that with my apology, I floated the idea of creating a place on our platforms for pet obituaries, and the large majority of people who wrote cheered that idea. We’re now working out the details, such as where we should publish them. Can they be in the vicinity of human death notices, or do they need to be near classified advertising. How do we price them? How often should we publish them? Weekly? Monthly? Quarterly? What are the best compromises, given the passions involved here?
We’ll figure it out and make an announcement. I look forward to when we do. I’m certain I’ll want to read pet obituaries. I suspect they will be charming.
Thanks to everyone who shared their thoughts on this. Most of you were understanding and kind, but it is good for us to hear from people who were angry, too. It helps to understand the passions involved in an issue.
And thanks for reading.
Chris Quinn Editor and Vice President of Content
Download our Apps:
Having trouble viewing this email? View in your browser .
To ensure receipt of our emails, please add [email protected] to your address book or safe sender list. You received this email because you are a subscriber to cleveland.com newsletters. Privacy Policy 1801 Superior, Cleveland, OH 44114
|
Laden...
Laden...
