Can't say I disagree with you, 'cause I don't. I get a bit ruffled with the assumption that every moron caught engaging in bestiality is a zoophile being persecuted to start with. Though I have to admit a bitch in ecstasy will occasionally whimper, if it's so loud and constant that it attracts the attention of yer roommate it's not whimpering but yelping, and there's a problem IMO. Definitely an article full of "red flags"...

Well, although I share your scepticism towards neutral media coverage of such cases, this automated "the media lies!" response is fucking close to the "alt right" narrative. I doubt that leaving out such unpleasant details and assumptions (whimpering dog, hole in bedroom door) would result in a huge wave of sympathy from society. There´s NO NEED to influence the already completely negative perception of zoophilia in public, so making up stuff would be rather useless as public perception of zoophilia already is at rock bottom.

In the age of online journalism, most articles about cases involving such incidents like the one above totally stick to the official police reports. Sometimes, even word for word. What do you expect the journaists to do? Travelling to the suspect, interviewing him? Well, most online jounalists are free agents and don´t have large funds to cover costs for investigations. Quite logical that most articles about animal abuse are mere copies of the official police report, right? Journalists have to work with what´s there, especially online journalists without funds to do research on their own.

Sorry, mate, but your scepticism is a little bit over the top. We all have to realise that there are lots of negative examples out there and journalists aren´t the ones to blame for that or for covering the story with an article that´s not exactly favorable for us zoophiles.

By the way: I followed the coverage of a lot of bestiality cases, read any article and even managed to talk to the suspect himself in a few cases. All I can say is that in most cases, the horrible details you assume have been made up by journalists actually proved to be right after a few months of investigation. Like in the Espenau case, it´s the zoophiles who are assuming things without anything to back up the assumptions. The automatic exonerating reflex (" This is all made up and the "zoophile" is the true victim!") is detrimental for our cause because it generates a picture that exactly resembles all the negative prejudices towards zoophiles. Be it the "secret animal fucker cult" that will protect any animal abuser or the clandestine sadism that zoophilia truly is, this senseless defense of anyone emerging in the media is cancer. Just use Occam´s razor...how plausible is it that journalists get away with lying their asses off everytime a "zoo" is busted and makes it to the news? How plausible that an actual bad person was caught?

Just a quick example: Doug Spink, the one allegedly running an animal brothel, the coke smuggler, was portrayed as an animal abusing monster in the media. And like you, many zoos jumped in for his defense against a "biased" and "unjust" media campaign. Soon after his arrest, more and more details trickled down the pipe, showing that many of the allegations aren´t made out of thin air. The more details emerged, the more quiet the defenders got....until they finally realised that Spink actually is a bad person and the articles weren´t full blown lies, but pretty accurate. I´d wish for our entire community to end this stupid defense automatism whenever someone makes headlines by fucking an animal. Chances are incredibly high you´re defending a person that turns out to be rather undefendable after some time....but the support for this guy prior to unveiling more details about him will resonate in the "normal " society. "Hey, Herb, see? I was right about those animal fuckers, they´ll jump in to defend even the worst animal abuser." Just read what Oliver Burdinski wrote about the Espenau case and you´ll quickly learn that lies and pointless assumptions aren´t the privilege of the "lying media".

I have to agree with /u/30-30 again. While this man could be innocent and genuinely was in love with his dog he could also be a sick man. Simply calling every story about human/animal sex contact a case of "The zoo is the victim damn the media!" isn't going to do is any favors. Because then when the evidence comes out showing that our martyr is indeed what the media calls him, a rapist, then we're once again the sick fucks who rape animals.

I've seen dogs whimper who were clearly loving what they were doing. Sometimes they just get that excited.

Though not all people who have sex with animals are the same — some behave in a good manner while others do not — the media does not make that distinction and, as you said, use words like "vile" to describe all sex with animals (which is a bias). No matter how good or bad the situation being described is, it seems the media will always take the anti-zoo approach.

It could also be that our "zoo hero" is an aggressive bastard and no one dared to turn him in in fear of being beaten up until looking the other way ceased to be an option anymore.

I absolutely love how you usually accuse the media of lying , but totally trust any random article if it paints a more favorable picture. So, you´re only distrusting the media when things are reported you don´t agree with, right? That´s not scepticism, Axyz, that´s selective perception and being blind for facts that don´t fit your reality tunnel.

You also demand that the reporter has to be an expert in dogs´sexual behaviour...but tell me, why are you, a guy with no own practical experience, feeling more of an expert? Because you read lots of pro "zoo" articles and how-tos?

What also is funny: when an article explicitly describes the animal´s injury, you also go full frontal against those articles. Can´t you just realise that you´re biased and want to see the "persecuted minority" being treated "unjustly" in every fuckin´ single article about an animal sex bust? You´re not neutral yourself , but demand that from anyone else writing about another case of a caught bloke. I guess that´s called bigotry, right?

At least, you summed it up with your last paragraph...yeah, we don´t know anything about this case except what the news agencies publish. Why not trying to contact the "poor zoo victim unjustly jailed" instead of spilling conspiracy theories and complaining about the biased media? That´s what I did before Enumclaw and Mr Spink happened, trying to contact the perpetrators, family and friends whenever it was possible. Why not getting in touch, gathering first hand knowledge rather than cowering down in the cosy "we´re all persecuted" hole you dug yourself? Just my two cents...