<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0">
<channel>
<title>Gothamist: Baby Media Lion Boomerang</title>
<link>http://www.gothamist.com/2003/10/14/baby_media_lion_boomerang.php</link>
<description>All comments for Baby Media Lion Boomerang</description>
<language>en-us</language>
<copyright>2007 nyc_daveh</copyright>
<lastBuildDate>Tue, 05 Jun 2007 18:32:49 -0500</lastBuildDate>
<docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs>
<managingEditor>daveh@gothamist.com</managingEditor>
<webMaster>daveh@gothamist.com</webMaster>
<ttl>60</ttl>
<item>
<title>Ben</title>
<link>http://www.gothamist.com/2003/10/14/baby_media_lion_boomerang.php#comment-10700</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.gothamist.com/2003/10/14/baby_media_lion_boomerang.php#comment-10700</guid>
<category>Comments</category>
<pubDate>Wed, 15 Oct 2003 10:52:28 -0500</pubDate>
<description>&lt;p&gt;Check out this letter to the NY Post from the American Sanctuary Association (ASA), which casts a MUCH different light on the cub story than does the NY Daily News stories.

ASA is the organization that worked with the reporter prior to the action taken, and they state the story has &quot;become completely distorted by other media and individuals with their own private agenda&quot;.

Specifically, they say:

&quot;If the cub is sick, it is because of the way he was kept by the breeder. The reporter had the animal far too little time to make him sick. At no time did The Post reporter act in a way that could be considered to be clandestine or irresponsible toward this little cub.&quot;

People have been quick to trash the NY Post without knowing the full story. 

For the rest of their letter, see http://www.nypost.com/postopinion/letters/8092.htm&lt;/p&gt;</description>
</item><item>
<title>Karru</title>
<link>http://www.gothamist.com/2003/10/14/baby_media_lion_boomerang.php#comment-10699</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.gothamist.com/2003/10/14/baby_media_lion_boomerang.php#comment-10699</guid>
<category>Comments</category>
<pubDate>Tue, 14 Oct 2003 13:56:21 -0500</pubDate>
<description>&lt;p&gt;I really doesn&apos;t sound like the Post thought this one through beyond getting a few extra news stand sales from the cute baby lion photo that I&apos;m sure they would have smacked on the cover.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
</item><item>
<title>Jen</title>
<link>http://www.gothamist.com/2003/10/14/baby_media_lion_boomerang.php#comment-10698</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.gothamist.com/2003/10/14/baby_media_lion_boomerang.php#comment-10698</guid>
<category>Comments</category>
<pubDate>Tue, 14 Oct 2003 13:36:29 -0500</pubDate>
<description>&lt;p&gt;Yes, that one picture of Boomerang is super adorable.  He is also the combination of a few favorite Gothamist things: Baby animals, NY newspapers, and various beefs (figurative).&lt;/p&gt;</description>
</item><item>
<title>eli</title>
<link>http://www.gothamist.com/2003/10/14/baby_media_lion_boomerang.php#comment-10697</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.gothamist.com/2003/10/14/baby_media_lion_boomerang.php#comment-10697</guid>
<category>Comments</category>
<pubDate>Tue, 14 Oct 2003 13:28:21 -0500</pubDate>
<description>&lt;p&gt;More like , &quot;Baby Lion Media Boom&quot; on Gothamist. Not that there&apos;s anything wrong with that. One can be just as infatuated with cute baby lions as with cute baby pandas, as long as they aren&apos;t in the same room together.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>