The little red hen says thank you

I'm the kind of activist you really don't want to mess with. For instance, everyone has gone a teensy-tiny bit crazy after the election, and the social sites are no exception. But do you really think I want to read your gloating manic frenzy, MySpace friends, and Twitter friends?

Stuff like, "We did it, we won!" "Finally, we're on top!" "I'm proud to be an American!" Well, if it took you this long, you're a friggin loser. Buh-bye, FRIENDS. Delete, delete, delete!

So I hope this doesn't sound like crowing to say I'm humbly, quietly happy that Proposition 2 passed. And Michael, it's not just a chicken bill. Okay, it is a chicken bill, but it affects 19 million small lives a year.

My concern now is how the LA Times covered this. I did the usual research right before the election on my Griffith Park blog, and quoted from several articles in the Times. (Gah, what a mess their search engine is. I got over 5000 results searching for Prop 2, but the actual pieces are a handful of articles and opinions. )

I also read their post-election piece in the Business section, after the people had already voted 2 to 1 for it. Title: Prop 2 probably won't hike egg prices. [my bold]

For months farmers had contended that the measure would drive up egg prices or even put them out of business because of the high cost of retrofitting their farms with cage-free facilities.

But the measure's proponents and a respected state agriculture expert stressed Wednesday that such results were unlikely, especially in the short term.

Also, California imports a third of the shelled eggs it consumes from out-of-state producers, which are not subject to the new regulations.

So, no eggs from Mexico or China!

[and] after Arizona voters passed the initiative, no pork producers left the state.

This is quite a different story than the Times had before the election, strongly urging voters to vote No on 2! If they had these facts then, why not tell the public??

It's not only this article that did an about-face; I found an opinion by Patt Morrison, she of the hats, in favor of Prop 2. But there was something strange: right in the middle of her very emotionally charged piece, there was a disclaimer by the Times, saying they did not agree with her opinion, and to please read the Times own opinion piece AGAINST Prop 2!

Does anyone else think this is weird, not to mention inappropriate?! The point of an Opinion piece is to, um, state an opinion. Which is rather diluted when the Times sticks its big fat nose in the middle of it and says, don't listen to her, listen to us!!

I'm now totally suspicious of how the LA Times approached Proposition 2, and maybe other issues, too. I want to be able to trust the 3rd biggest paper in the country when it tells me things, especially when giving me its learned opinions on bills we are going to vote on. This is uneven reporting, to say the least.

Btw, I had a chance to talk with Gene Baur, the President of Farm Sanctuary today, which co-sponsored this bill. I will follow up with our conversation in my own park blog, but one thing surprised me: he grew up in The Oaks in Los Feliz! He worked in commercials before he wrote a book and started FS.

Is this not yet another local connection the Times could have made while writing about this issue? Since I know the Times reads this blog, no doubt there will be an article now. Let's see who gets the credit for this tidbit!

PS I'm still royally p!ssed that this doesn't go into effect until 2015. But I'm working on it.
Wonderful watercolor of the chicken by Carol Prentiss.