What a classic example of the worst of sensational journalism. The goal I am sure at the outset was to compose a dramatic exposé. Numerous unnamed negative sources - while it appears to be obvious from comments attached to this post that there are many, willing to be identified, volunteers who share a greatly positive perspective of Siglinda's efforts. Apparently there was little effort to include these people -- maybe balance was not an objective. A friend of mine, who is an enthusiastic supporter, was quoted in the article in a cherry picked, out of context, fashion to imply negativity. Either the author was too lazy or dismissive of opposing views that might not support her sensational conclusions.
How does any compassionate human being who has been exposed to the Goat House Refuge and its objectives embark on an effort to discredit Siglinda rather than to help to advertise her need for assistance in accomplishing her admirable objectives? I am sure that Siglinda herself would readily admit to the daily struggles at the Goat House. Much of her time is spent trying to identify additional funding for her unique avocation. This article is in no way helpful.
Make sure you're signed up so we can inbox you the latest.
Login to choose your subscriptions!
Indy Week • 201 W. Main St., Suite 101, Durham, NC 27701 • phone 919-286-1972 • fax 919-286-4274
RSS Feeds | Powered by Foundation