Opinion: Journalism falls short on humane society ‘investigation’

Editor’s note: The Metro Wire has received numerous messages and phone calls expressing similar concerns, and our staff is working on a story relating to the matter.

To the Editor-

I’ve spent decades teaching students how to analyze information critically, and the recent article about the Humane Society of Portage County left me genuinely troubled.

Not because of what it revealed about the shelter, but because of what it revealed about the state of investigative reporting of the Stevens Point Gazette.

Let me be clear: animal welfare organizations absolutely deserve scrutiny. These institutions hold vulnerable lives in their hands, and the public has every right to demand transparency. But scrutiny without rigor isn’t journalism—it’s something else entirely.

The most glaring problem? The reporter appears to have interviewed only disgruntled former employees and volunteers. That’s like trying to understand a marriage by talking exclusively to people who went through bitter divorces. You’ll get a story, certainly, but you won’t get the truth.

Where were the current volunteers who show up week after week? Where were the board members who could explain policy decisions? Where were the veterinarians who work with the shelter? These voices weren’t just missing—they seem never to have been sought.

Then there’s the data problem. The article throws around statistics like “50% return rate for dogs” based on one person’s memory. I wouldn’t accept that kind of sourcing from a freshman student, let alone in published journalism. Shelters keep meticulous records. If these numbers matter—and they do—then verify them.

What really concerns me is how allegations were presented as established facts. Claims about NDAs, treatment protocols, and facility conditions read like findings from a completed investigation rather than accusations requiring verification. But where’s the documentation? Where are the photographs? Where are the independent witnesses?

I’ve seen this pattern before in academic work that fails peer review: serious claims made without serious evidence. The difference is that failed academic papers don’t get published. Failed journalism does, and real organizations suffer the consequences.

The executive director’s response was buried at the end, after pages of accusations. This isn’t just poor structure—it’s fundamentally unfair. Would you want to defend yourself against charges you’d never heard in detail? The brief response suggests management wasn’t given specifics to address, which violates basic journalistic ethics.

Context matters enormously in any analysis, yet it’s almost entirely absent here. The pandemic devastated volunteer programs everywhere. Liability concerns have forced policy changes across the nonprofit sector. Insurance requirements drive many operational decisions that might seem arbitrary to outsiders.

Without this context, readers can’t evaluate whether the HSPC’s challenges represent unique failures or common industry pressures. It’s like criticizing a restaurant for long wait times without mentioning they’re operating with half their usual staff.

I’m not defending the HSPC—I honestly don’t know enough about their operations to make that judgment. That’s precisely the point. Neither do readers of this article, despite its length and apparent thoroughness.

Real investigative journalism is hard work. It requires talking to people who disagree with each other. It demands documentation of serious claims. It means exploring alternative explanations for troubling patterns. It involves understanding the broader context that shapes institutional behavior.

Most importantly, it requires intellectual humility—the recognition that initial impressions might be wrong, that simple explanations for complex problems are usually incomplete, and that fair reporting serves everyone’s interests better than sensationalism.

The animal welfare community deserves better journalism, not because organizations like the HSPC are above criticism, but because meaningful accountability requires meaningful investigation. When we abandon journalistic standards, we don’t strengthen oversight—we undermine it.

Readers deserve to make informed judgments based on verified facts and balanced reporting. Organizations deserve to be evaluated fairly, with full context and opportunity to respond. And our community deserves journalism that serves the public interest rather than manufacturing controversy.

That’s what was missing from this investigation, and that’s what concerns me most.

Dr. Nancy S. Lind
Professor Emerita of Political Science
Stevens Point