Ellen DeGeneres' Misuse of the Media and a Challenge to Right that Wrong

For the past two days I've been immersed in conversations with several principals in the Ellen DeGeneres-Mutts & Moms-Iggy the Pup fiasco. And fiasco it is. I've spoken with Ellen's publicist, Ellen's dog trainer, the Vice President of Publicity for Telepictures (which produces Ellen's show), the attorney for Marina Baktis and Vanessa Chekroun (owners of Mutts & Moms in Pasadena, CA), and several respected animal rescue experts in the Los Angeles area - many who have worked with Mutts & Moms.

For readers who are unaware of the Ellen DeGeneres/Mutts & Moms fiasco, here is a video synopsis.

This past Monday, on her popular daytime talk show, Ellen DeGeneres dissolved into tears as she recounted her experience of adopting a puppy (Iggy) from a pet adoption agency (Mutts & Moms in Pasadena, CA - which to her credit, DeGeneres didn't name). After two weeks, Ellen and her partner, Portia de Rossi, decided Iggy was incompatible with their household and gave Iggy to Ellen's hairdresser (Cheryl Marks) and the hairdresser's eleven and twelve year old daughters. But the legal contract Ellen signed with Mutts & Moms forbade Ellen from giving Iggy away, and required Iggy to be returned to the Agency should Ellen decide not to keep him. By giving 7 lb. Iggy to her hairdresser and not returning him to Mutts & Moms as stipulated, Ellen broke her contract. As a result, Mutts & Moms went to the hairdresser's home, where, in the presence of the police, they confiscated Iggy, returned him to their agency, and found him another home.

Germane to this synopsis is the resultant vitriol that drove the HUMANS involved to such an impasse that rational negotiation on Iggy's behalf became impossible. Mutts & Moms failed to give the hairdresser's family its fullest consideration as legitimate adopters, and used its legal leverage to remove Iggy from a home where he was wanted. DeGeneres used the full extent of her celebrity to ignite a fan-based frenzy that resulted in death threats to the impoverished owners of Mutts & Moms. In addition, Baktis and Chekroun have likely lost their animal rescue business and small store. An online petition to Free Iggy has been launched by Ellen's supporters, while an earlier online petition, which asked petitioners not to adopt from animal rescue organizations until Iggy is returned, has rightfully been taken down.

Still the saddest repercussion of all is the potential for tens of thousands of dogs and cats to go unadopted, and to be euthanized, due to the anger engendered toward rescue groups as a result of this debacle.

Below are are few clarifications of inaccuracies reported by the media on this story:

1. Iggy did not live with DeGeneres and De Rossi for the full two weeks before he was given to hairdresser Cheryl Marks. Iggy was left in the care of Los Angeles dog trainer, Zach Grey, who reunited Iggy with DeGeneres and De Rossi after 9 days of individual and group training - at which time Degeneres and De Rossi concluded that they didn't want a young puppy - UNDERSCORING THE NEED FOR THE CONTRACTUAL REQUIREMENT TO RETURN ANIMALS TO THEIR AGENCIES IF THE ANIMAL IS UNWANTED. The fact is, DeGeneres and De Rossi did what thousands of adopters do. They wanted a puppy, but realizing the amount of work a puppy takes, they couldn't make that commitment. Can one honestly fault Mutts & Moms for enforcing a provision that protects rejected animals? If Mutts & Moms were to PUBLICLY disregard this requirement, it would pave the way for anyone to overrule this safeguard and recklessly dispose of an animal.

2. Contrary to the negativity generated toward Mutts & Moms by the powerful DeGeneres camp and biased media pundits, the animal rescue experts with whom I've spoken were complimentary toward the organization. Ricky Whitman, Vice President of Community Resources for the Pasadena Humane Society (PHS), told me she was not clearly represented in the press when quoted as saying "her group would've handled this [Iggy situation] very differently."
http://www.pasadenastarnews.com/news/ci_7198523

What Whitman actually meant is that since PHS has contracts to provide animal control services to different cities, they would have been required to remove Iggy in the presence of animal control officers and under much more stringent conditions - hence "differently." Whitman lauded the owners of Mutts & Moms for their rescue accomplishments, stating, "We have worked closely and well with Mutts & Moms in the past. We have honored them for their work." Whitman recounted the story of a pit bull puppy who'd been raised in a small bunny hutch. According to Whitman, Mutts & Moms was the only organization willing to accept the difficult task of rehabilitating this unfortunate animal - an accomplishment Whitman praised highly.

3. The DeGeneres camp's contention that Mutts & Moms went to the media FIRST does not square with the timeline of events. On the evening Mutts & Moms confiscated Iggy from the hairdresser's house, TMZ (also a Telepictures product) had been called to video the visit. According to Keith A. Fink, attorney for Mutts & Moms, it was the DeGeneres camp who contacted TMZ - NOT the media shy, show-biz naive owners of Mutts & Moms. Indeed, my own experience with the owners of Mutts & Moms bears witness to their abject fear of media, since their own attorney was unable to goad them into speaking with me or with the other media attempting to make contact.

4. The "Moms" in the name Mutts & Moms doesn't identify Marina and Vanessa as "moms" who rescue animals. The "Moms" in Mutts & Moms denotes the organization's inspired mission to adopt mother dogs from shelters once they have given birth and nursed their puppies - an arduous undertaking, since mother dogs are often euthanized after nursing their litter.

In the final analysis, this Ellen DeGeneres-Mutts & Moms-Iggy saga is a private issue between private individuals that landed on the national stage. If Ellen intended to use her show as the platform to manipulate this matter, she has made a dangerous error in judgement. She has crossed the regrettable line from comedy pulpit to bully pulpit and used her mega platform to attack "the little guy" - or in this case - "the little gals." And it's caused significant harm.

Yesterday on the phone, Laura Mandel, Vice President of Publicity for Telepictures, described Ellen as "a real person with real emotion." On this there is no doubt. But Ellen is also an incredibly powerful woman able to influence legions of fans. Beyond her cameras are millions of viewers she knows nothing about, capable of acts she can't control. They worship Ellen and protect her with a vengeance - and right now their vengeance is centered on two frightened rescuers who don't deserve their wrath. I've read some fan comments. Their hatred for Marina and Vanessa is shocking.

In the entertainment business, there is the long-standing concept of "a pro." "A pro" is an entertainer who, regardless of personal travails, faces the audience and does the job. In my opinion, Ellen is teetering between a "pro" and a woman who's unclear about her "job." She's abused her power by publicly challenging those less powerful. Rosie O'Donnell took on the President. Rosie also took on Trump. Others take on corporations, like Exxon and the airlines. But Ellen has challenged two defenseless woman with no resources - no fame, no fortune, no accolades and no ovations. Only attorney Keith Fink has come forth to champion their cause.

Across the nation, because of this fiasco, animal rescue organizations have taken an enormous hit - for which helpless animals will bear the brunt. To help revitalize this noble profession, I'm calling on Ellen DeGeneres to step up and intercede. I'm asking her to use her brilliance, her compassion, and her enormous reach to convene a panel of rescue professionals on her own show as quickly as possible to discuss what these organizations do and how they do it. There are lessons that need to be learned and rules that must be understood. My hope (though far-fetched) is that if Ellen does choose to do this, Mutts & Moms will participate - without the caviat that Iggy be returned to Cheryl and her daughters. There's an important lesson for Cheryl's daughters in all of this that has somehow been forgotten. The fact is, a contractual rule was broken. Sometimes the greater lesson is understanding the need to honor the rule - rather than the need to circumvent it.

On a personal note: For those who believe I'm holding Ellen to an unfair standard by suggesting she shield her personal issues from her viewers, I'll answer with this. One of the greatest gifts I've been given in my lifetme is the opportunity to teach. Every day I face rooms filled to capacity with adult students who care a great deal about me. I've faced them when I'm happy and I've faced them when I'm sad. I've faced them after losing family members, losing beloved animals, losing relationships, undergoing surgery, and more. But I neither share nor show my burdens. It is not my student's job to bear them. Nor is it Ellen's viewers' job to bear hers. We are simply there to serve.

Comments

[PetMono]

350 words =

Ellen Degenres brought "rescue" and "shelter" to the media. A good thing because when people talk, issues are better understood. It's been a week.

Public reaction
The public response was swift, polarized, and far reaching. There were few surprise reactions with the exception of Craig's List pet forum. Because this pet forum is an experienced, emotional, pro-adoption group, we expected the forum to attack the shelter for taking dogs away from a home. CL sentiment was that Ellen should have read the contract, not take this public. The shelter got death threats.

The skinny
Most inevitable inaccuracies are identified in this post.

Rearview mirror
A fight between a star and an animal rescue group. The two sides on whether the animal be returned to shelter: The American Humane Association "recommends" a more open adoption process that does not require the animal be returned to shelter. Mom's & Mutts are standing fast.

On the Internet
Because of Ellen's story, adopting animals is on PM's mind. Some things PM discovered when we searched "rescue, shelter, adoption."

A search for "top pet rescues" brings up 20 different dogs. Horses, cats, birds are the runner-ups.

An adoption search in Chicago metro using "Walmart/pets" and "petfinder.com" brings up 750 dogs and 1,350 cats. Maybe big generic numbers, on display everywhere, are sometimes lost on me. Let people know what's happening in your zip code!
People vs pets
This media event also provoked many comments saying it's a shame that pets get more attention than kids when it comes to rescue and adoption. Maybe not. Do a similar search less "pets" and we find an assortment of breaking news, blogs. The reality: Write a story and they will come.

Animal population facts
If anyone wants to pick up where PM left off and look in their local area regarding pet adoption, let PM know and pass on the results.

Full story with links and details http://www.petmonologues.com/pet022207/2007/ellen-rescue-one-week-later/465/

[slobone]

All M&M had to say to Ellen's hairdresser is, "As a matter of policy, we're returning this dog to the shelter for the time being. But if you fill out an application, and it's approved, we don't see any reason why you can't adopt the dog." Isn't that just common sense?

[Vurz]

Whatever respect I had for Ms. Degeneres is gone, thanks to this episode. While I am sure that her intentions are 'good', she should remember which road is paved with good intentions.

First, she adopted a puppy, even though 8 previous dogs (in just a couple years) had been 'regifted'.
Were the cats the 'regifting' reason before? If so, why would she think any of that had changed? Then she broke the contract she had made with the agency she adopted the dog from.

We won't even mention that she gave the puppy away knowing full well she had signed a legal contract stating she could not give the puppy away.
She should not adopt any more dogs. She doesn't have the maturity needed to take care of them.

[rabb046]

"For the past two days I've been immersed in conversations with several principals in the Ellen DeGeneres-Mutts & Moms-Iggy the Pup fiasco."

And you've done this because....?

[LindaMilazzo]

To answer your question rabb046...

- I did this because I believe facts are necessary.

- I did this because, as stated in the title, I saw an act of media misuse that afforded one party (Ellen DeGeneres) a huge advantage over the other (Mutts & Moms).

- I did this because Ellen has exploited her position by using the "reach" of her network TV show to take down those with no power and no resources. It's the affect of our bullying society... from those in the White House to those in media - misusing the power of their positions. Some smoke cigars and sit before solid gold microphones. Some sit in "no spin zones." And unfortunately now, some sit on couches on daytime TV.

- I did this because horrible threats of violence (which I have read) have been launched against the owners of Mutts & Moms - the result of the misuse of media.

- I did this because children, animals and animal advocates, have been needlessly damaged and exploited by making a private matter public.

- I did this to challenge Ellen DeGeneres to use the power of her position to right an unnecessary wrong.

This is an article on the misuse of media. It is supported by fact.

[AquarianEye]

If only we could care this much about the state of affairs of our country, the world, the earth. If only there could be this kind of media coverage and citizen outrage every time GeorgeCo lies or every time Congress gives away a few more billion dollars. If only........imagine......if only.....

[film381]

Come on people ! Degeneres is exactly what she did... she has caused all kinds of concern and trouble just because she didn't get her way! Look at what her words said... she was only concerned about the kids and having her way... nothing... NOTHING was said about the good for "Iggy"... Where does this confused, neuotic "STAR" get off thinking she is more qualified how to care for animals than those what work with the animals every day???? Notice also that those that were cruel and mean and THREATENING to Mutts and Moms said NOTHING about the car of the dog but only that degeneres should GET HER WAY!!!
Now wonder our country is going to hell in a hand basket and VERY RAPIDLY now!!!!

[Spookcatcher]

This was an obviuos attempt by Degeneres to go around the rules, get her way, and get these kids the dog that they wanted/she wanted to give them. Just another example of someone in the limelight getting caught thinking they can do whatever they want and then make believe they were a victim when they get caught. I think this qualifies her to run for office now.

[WilliePilgrim]

So a contract over a dog takes precedence over the dog's actual contidion? So, it seemslike she should have just told 'em that the dog decided to move. What? How can a dog decide? The same way a dog can have a posse of allegedly intelligent humans walking after it and picking up its shit...
All humor aside. I think that in order to live in a modern city with a dog, the owner should get that dog id'd with a tattoo or a chip. If it shows up pregnant at a local pound, the owner will pay and take responsibility...that should do wonders for the rate at which owners spay. Pay or spay?

[donw]

This was about a powerful woman not getting her way. She wasn't crying for the sake of the dog but for herself not getting her way. There is no other reason for her to behave like that. She should apologize to all for the misuse of her position. I hope M&M pursues a legal remedy. Power doesn't corrupt just politicians.

[molsongrrrl]

I recently went with a friend so she could adopt a cat. She had to sign a contract and one of the clauses was that if she couldn't keep the cat or continue to care for her ... the cat would be returned to the shelter.

Ellen broke a contract - this clause is in place to prevent animals being given away to potentially bad owners etc. While I think the shelter in this case could have certainly taken the time to investigate the hairdressers family instead of removing the dog - Ellen shouldn't have been using her show as a way to beat these folks up.

She is using her celebrity in the worst possible way and now the shelter is receiving death threats?!? How insane is that? Further, this isn't the first time Ellen has taken in a pet and then given it away - so what does that really say about her?

If my friend had not been able to take care of the cat she got and had given it to me - the shelter would have come to take it away once the owners found out. The only difference would be - my friend doesn't have a tv show to use as her pulpit.

Ellen created this entire situation by breaking the contract and then using her tv show.

[Kremfresch]

You are a teacher, you were hired to teach.
Ellen was not hired to be an interviewer, she has her show because she is Ellen, an engaging host whose personal life is frequent show material. There is a big difference. When a celebrity has a show with THEIR OWN name on it the show can be about them, or whatever they want it to be about. She handled this wrong, and has apologised for handling it wrong.
The simple fact in the end is that a qualified family that wanted to give this dog a good home had the dog taken from them OUT OF SPITE. The contract could have been acknowledged, apologies exchanged, and the family fast tracked, but the Mutts and Moms people decided that they were going to teach Ellen a lesson and show her who was really in charge. Now everybody loses.

[ConcernedAboutRFuture]

LINDA,

I'm not quite sure what you have against Ellen, but clearly you DO. Ellen is a kind sensitive person who does so much for so many people.

Can you please explain to me why M&M IMMEDIATELY gave the dog to another home without even giving the little girl a chance to adopt him FIRST after this whole misunderstanding? Please, I'm curious to hear this explanation?

Perhaps M&M are the ones who wanted the publicity....and whadda you know, they got it.

They are known as the biggest bitches in the dog world... and you for some odd reason, support them.

[SpencerCat]

The simple explanation is: Ellen signed a CONTRACT. She had to give the dog back to the shelter if she wasn't going to keep it. The shelter does not give dogs to families with children. Hence, the hairdresser's little girl is out of luck.

Ellen is so kind that she went on TV and called the wrath of her fans down on M&M who were only following their rules. Ellen's folks called the media, not M&M.

I always liked Ellen, but she needs to grow up and follow the rules. A contract is a contract. It means what it says. M&M does not give puppies to families with small children. Period. End of story. Why should M&M change their procedures just because a celebrity with a daily TV show wants them to?

If I were the folks at that shelter, I would sue the pants off Ellen for the harm she's caused because SHE DIDN'T HER WAY. WAAAHHHH!!!

[Wanjiru]

LINDA:"Can you please explain to me why M&M IMMEDIATELY gave the dog to another home without even giving the little girl a chance to adopt him FIRST .."
-------------------------------------

....simple answer, under the policies of M&M, the little girl DID NOT QUALIFY to adopt the dog! M&M policies stipulate a certain age cut-off for children of families that want to adopt smaller dogs...

...organizations have rules and policies which guide them, and which must apply to ALL, not just us regular folks, but also celebrities and friends and hair-dressers of celebrities!

...in this instance, Ellen attempted to use her celebrity muscle against M&M, an utter and complete abuse of her celebrity, not to mention an abuse of the national airwaves...

...she caused serious problems and damage to M&M, people who rescue animals for a living and would therefore be in the BEST position to know what is best for the animals that they care for on a daily basis...

...I also lost whatever respect I ever had for Ellen as a result of this; this blatant bullying tactic and playing the victim, playing to the misplaced emotions of her fan-base...just because SHE DID NOT GET HER WAY!!!

...I hope M&M would pursue this unbelievable abuse wrought on THEIR LIVES AS WELL AS THEIR LIVELIHOOD, by this selfish and self-absorbed celebrity..I hope they sue her for millions of dollars worth of damage to their personal reputation as well as damage to the reputation of their business, not to mention the pain and suffering brought on by Ellen's fans' death threats and the like...

...last but not least, Ellen, should anything, ANYTHING, very unfortunately happen to these two poor women as far as their lives, their safety and trheir security go, YOU and YOU ONLY, ELLEN, BEAR THE FULL RESPONSIBILTY of that...and I hope that you would be able to live with that on your conscience for ther est of your life...


.

[TJS]

This post makes an important point beyond the debate about whether or not the dogs should have been taken back. If the situation had involved anyone other than a celebrity, it would have been resolved rationally. Ellen DeGeneres, with her TV program as a national platform, used a shotgun where a mere peashooter would have surficed. She needlessly brought the full weight of her celebrity against two women who obviously care about rescuing animals. Instead of quiety trying to resolve the issue in the best interest of everyone involved, Ellen's actions amounted to a public temper tantrum. The comparision to Rosie O'Donnell made a great point. Rosie may be loud mouthed and opinionated, but she is NOT a bully. She takes on targets bigger than herself, people who can clearly defend themselves. Ellen only streamrolls the little people.

[ConcernedAboutRFuture]

MomsANDMuts was SOOOO WRONG!!!

Ellen DID find a loving home for the dog after it was not getting along with the cats. I'm sure Ellen gave the dog away so the CATs wouldn't hurt it....NOT because they "couldn't commit"... give me a break!

Yeah, Ellen with her billions couldn't commit to watching a dog. She however, did find someone who would love the dog and appreciate it...but for that MomsMuts owner to show up with the COPS...and tear that dog from the little girls hands was WRONG!

Don't you think it was just plain cruel to give that dog away to another family before the little girl even had a chance to appeal and try to adopt the dog? Someone who would do that is the REAL BITCH!!!

[Nommo]

Does no one here understand what it means to sign a contract? If she adopted a puppy, what did she expect and is she not responsible for knowing what she is doing?
Do you have any idea why these shelters all have similar policies?

And you all claim to be dog lovers. With friends like this...

[CynicalDog]

Just because a little girl goes gaga over a puppy, doesn't mean the home is a good one. There's an awful lot more to it than that. And Ellen seems to give all her dogs away... I would never adopt out a dog to her.

[walkman666]

I agree with the writer. While this is not a 100% Ellen is wrong and Mutts & Moms is right thing (nor vice versa), I see Ellen as more like 70% wrong here. This is because she has far more wealth and resources, as the writer indicates, and used her celebrity and loyal fan base to her skewed advantage, with potential unknown and far worse consequences (a negative stereotype towards all rescue organizations nationwide, which will hurt the very animals Ellen so truly claims to love). At the end of the day, as another has suggested, this is about adults acting maturely, professionally and with good judgment. One person says that Ellen & Portia used "good judgment" in giving the dog to a good loving family. While that was likely a nice thing to do, and the family was likely loving, the poor judgment of pleading, with high emotion, on national TV her plight far outweighed her initially positive acts (adopting the dog, giving it to a loving family). There are many choices people have when acting, Ellen had choices in how to deal with Mutts & Moms. Mutts & Moms also had choices in how to enforce the contract. While they were legally entitled to reclaim the dog with law enforcement, these methods were probably not necessary. Ellen responded with even greater emotion, and this has apparently resulted in even greater, albeit uintended, negative consequences. Folks need to use tact and diplomacy. While Ellen may not mean it, her tactics were very extreme and far-reaching, even though potentially well-intended. Now a family business may go under, other rescue organizations will suffer, other animals may suffer, and Ellen's reputation may suffer. Who wins here? Judgment, judgment, judgment!