I agree, too. However, I'm pretty familiar with the Wegman's case, and I don't know that this is one of those instances of just showing the worst things to get a reaction, although I'm sure the worst things in the case are getting the most attention, just because it's so hard for most people to believe that someone or some company could treat animals like that.
It's the same way you'll hear these awful stories of cat hoarders or individual cases of animal cruelty, but you won't see lots of stories about the folks who keep a beloved golden retriever and take him to the vet when he's sick, feed him when he's hungry, give him fresh water and take him for walks in the park. That's just not newsworthy to most people, unfortunately (says the former journalist). Having spoiled pet chickens may be a little more newsworthy, just because they're regarded as unusual "pet material."
There's a story here on the forum I read--it's pretty old, I think--a long saga a woman had with her neighbor when his dog broke into her yard, and her three chickens were able to injure the dog in self defense. The neighbor actually was furious with HER for "allowing" her chickens to hurt his dog, and regarded her three babies as nothing more than material for the stewpot.
I guess what I'm saying is just that I think it's important to have stories like that covered, whether it's cruelty on a small scale or a large one. I think you obviously have to use your judgment when it comes to looking at the facts, because some journalists/papers will cover things for the sake of sensationalism. But the Wegman's story, even when you listen to the corporate responses to this allegation (says the former corporate PR manager) does seem to be on the up and up.