Critic of relinquished puppy tale wants to know: why is this a Whistleblower story?
Posted on July 16th, 2009 – 12:10 PMBy Lora Pabst
Reader opinions are boiling over in the comments section of my story about Pat Bergstrom’s puppy, which she “relinquished” to her vet when she couldn’t afford the cost of care. A reader named Kenneth sent this e-mail in response.
“I don’t get it, what are the ‘whistleblower’ or ‘investigation’ aspects of this story?” he wrote.
It’s a question I hear often. Most Whistleblower tips come from people who feel they have experienced an injustice and don’t know where to turn to get results. In deciding whether to pursue a story, I look for several key elements, including whether the individual’s problem might address a broader issue. I recognize that the stories that are pitched by the tipster will always have another side and we make every effort to get all the sides of the story.
Sometimes, the situation turns into a “he said, she said” where it is difficult to determine who is telling the truth. That is why we always ask Whistleblower tipsters for the paper trail that backs up what they are saying. Even then, it might not be clear who’s at fault. That doesn’t mean that the situation isn’t a story. Every situation that Whistleblower describes has gray areas. I try to give readers enough information to draw their own conclusions. Judging by the wild variety of reactions, you certainly do.
In Bergstrom’s case, I realized that even though she and the animal hospital owner, Dr. Adam Hurlbut, had different recollections of what happened in that clinic, their argument was one that other readers might find themselves in given the growing practice of pet owners “relinquishing” their animals to vets. Our decision to go with the story was bolstered when leaders of the Minnesota Board of Veterinary Medicine and the Minnesota Veterinary Medical Association agreed that these relinquishments are happening more and more often.
Just so you know, what makes a Whistleblower story is also a matter of debate inside the newsroom. When the story was published in the newspaper, it didn’t feature the Whistleblower tag, but it did online.
I welcome your thoughts on what should and shouldn’t be a Whistleblower story.
35 Responses to “Critic of relinquished puppy tale wants to know: why is this a Whistleblower story?”
« Previous comment page« » Next comment page »
« Previous comment page« » Next comment page »
Leave a Reply
Your destination for righting wrongs, uncovering injustices big and small and holding people, companies and government accountable.
Become a whistleblower
The Star Tribune's journalists need your help blowing the whistle in Minnesota. Contact us at whistleblower@startribune.com.
More ways to get in touch
Are you on Facebook? Friend Whistleblower.
Do you use Twitter? Follow Whistleblower.
James Eli Shiffer started the Whistleblower blog and column in 2008. A reporter and editor for 20 years, Shiffer is fascinated with the stories of regular people and believes in the power of journalism to make their lives better.
Subscribe to Whistleblower
Learn more about RSS
Complain here!
Other bloggers and columnists who can help
The Star Tribune investigates
Categories
- Advertising claims (3)
- Aging infrastructure (4)
- Businesses in hot water (80)
- Buyer beware (68)
- Civil liberties (23)
- Complaint sagas (68)
- Corporate welfare (1)
- Corruption (5)
- Dangerous products (36)
- Disposable cities (6)
- Election Day (22)
- Free speech (4)
- Government spends your money (54)
- Home improvement (9)
- How to blow the whistle (29)
- Loopholes (1)
- Neighborhood nuisances (25)
- Polling problems (27)
- Problems on the job (4)
- Property problems (40)
- Public records (57)
- Recount (9)
- Scams (20)
- Seniors (18)
- The rich get richer (1)
- Uncategorized (2)
- Whistleblowers (10)
July 16th, 2009 at 4:21 pm
As someone who volunteers extensively in animal welfare, I have been involved heavily in puppy mill extractions. In every case I have worked with, veterinarians have been very generous in their outpouring of help. In this “whistleblower” case, the writer fails to prove that this particular case would have met the standards of a whistleblower case, and instead it comes across as a damaging unproven claim against a veterinarian, who supposedly, according to the dog owner, made false claims. This was in no way a whistleblower case, not after just a little “investigation” was done. This article actually could sway someone to not visiting the vet involved, and as such leaves your writer open to libel charges, in my estimation.
July 16th, 2009 at 5:26 pm
Bad Journalism! How could you leave out a critical fact?
The readers should have been told how much the ‘final’
bill was that this person refused to pay. If it was $100
more, that would be way different than if it was $1000
more. Without this info, readers can’t make up their
minds if this is some rip-off or not. If this omission
was deliberate to make the story better (if it really
was only a $100 more), shame on you. If was inadvertent,
shame on you too.
July 16th, 2009 at 5:37 pm
There is blame to go all around in this case. Don’t blame only the Strib or the reporter or the vet or the pet owner. The story left some questions unanswered, such as how much the bill was. If the woman was a breeder. The woman was made to look ungrateful to the vet who saved the puppy’s life. And the vet was made to look unsympathetic and withholding information that would have made the woman more informed and able to make a better decision.
July 16th, 2009 at 5:43 pm
Pet Owner - I did not omit the cost of the final bill from the article. The animal hospital did not provide Pat Bergstrom with a total cost. The office manager asked her how she would repay them for the veterinary care the puppy had received if it were going to be returned to her, but they did not calculate that amount for her.
July 16th, 2009 at 5:48 pm
I’m calling BS on this “story.” If you really only wanted to call attention to the growing problem of pet relinquishment then you should be able to find a better example than someone who relinquished an animal they didn’t plan on keeping anyway.
July 16th, 2009 at 6:35 pm
My wife works at a Vet Clinic and she says they have a
name for this technique. It’s called “attempting to get
veterinary service for free…” or “doggy and dash…”
July 16th, 2009 at 6:43 pm
I don’t understand what her complaint is?? She made
the decision on her own and then is upset because of
it? I’m confused.
Star Tribune should pull the article. Why is this
on the front?
July 16th, 2009 at 6:55 pm
Here’s an idea, Mr. Shiffer, please get involved in the investigation of puppy mills. With your readership and this column, perhaps you could really effect some change in how MN handles inappropriate animal ownership. Look in to the sad “laws” that Mn has and you will really be shocked.
July 16th, 2009 at 8:15 pm
Lora Pabst wrote: “Pet Owner - I did not omit the cost of the final bill from the article. The animal hospital did not provide Pat Bergstrom with a total cost. The office manager asked her how she would repay them for the veterinary care the puppy had received if it were going to be returned to her, but they did not calculate that amount for her.”
Pet Owner responds: Well, that is not true. Nowhere
in your story is there mention of the amount owed to get
her dog back. You clearly DID omit the cost. And even
Journalism 101 teaches you not to rely on one party alone
for your ‘facts’. You should have called the clinic yourself
as a reporter to get the amount of the final bill. This
stretches all credibility that neither you nor the dog owner
could find out the cost. That would be like taking your
car in for repairs, then arguing about getting the car
back without knowing the cost of repairs. Sorry, no one is
buying your excuse. You should have called and got that
info yourself. Your story suffered greatly because of this
major omission.
July 16th, 2009 at 8:43 pm
Wow, I make one blockbuster critical post, and minutes later
the Whistleblower section myseriously disappears from the
online frontpage. Coincidence?? You be the judge!