Saturday 5th August 2000
Dak the Hamster reports on an accusation against the Rodent Weekly


Most readers will probably recall the article I wrote when I arrived at the annual hamster convention in Washington DC when I had little time to commit something to writing before the deadline expired for inclusion in the week's new edition. It was all hastily put together before I emailed it to my editor in time for it to be released on 24-6 and I used a photograph that had been scanned into my laptop by a colleague-in-fur who's a notable photographer.

However, this week we received an accusation from the human press that the photograph had been doctored and that one of the hamsters spotted in the front rows of the meeting was actually long dead by the time the photograph was taken (and buried, I hasten to add. They didn't accuse us of stuffing him) and, even worse, that we had deliberately fabricated a picture by sticking pictures of random hamsters onto a crowd scene and then pretending that it belonged to the current year's convention.

I have included a copy of that photograph with this article and have ringed the hamster in question.

But would we at the RW actually doctor a photograph and then present it to the reader as if it were a true representation of what was taking place? And, if the answer is yes to that, could anyone really believe that Sir Fuzzy Logic had actually made it to Africa and that the photographs we published back in May were also not faked, to give but one example?

The accusation cuts at the very heart of press integrity and honesty - well, okay, that's a little strong. The press have long since undermined their own position on that one. But what I really mean is that hamsters, by being accused of such behaviour, are demonised and shadows are cast upon the Presidential Campaign.

So, did we indeed doctor the photograph? No, most certainly we didn't.

Then is that hamster none other than the late Fluffball of Vancouver? Yes, it most certainly is!

What our human accusers seem to have forgotten is that we nowhere stated that the photograph represented the current year's meetings and I make no secret of the fact that this was taken last year and that, because of time, we had to use a photograph that was a copy of the one we used last year in a separate article.

But that we would cut out pictures of hamsters and stick them onto crowd scenes to make it look as if the Convention was popular? No way - we wouldn't do that at all.

However, if we have caused any upset to Fluffball's owners, we sincerely apologize and trust that a year's free subscription to our weekly magazine will be a sufficiently good way of extending our regrets.

But doctor photographs?

Sheesh! Next thing they'll be saying is that Ebony and I don't write these articles!

Dak the Hamster writes for the Rodent Weekly.
This article appears courtesy of that paper.



Visit the official Hamster Presidential web site

RODENT WEEKLY U.K. HOME PAGE