Somewhere between my former life as an editor and journalist and my life as a writer, the newly corporatized American media have evolved, in many, mostly awful ways. One of the worst was their discovery that if they published and aired alarming and argumentative stories – “Fire on Main Street. Photos as Eleven!”, people are more apt to watch than if they just produced or published informative stories. If we get the dogs we need, then perhaps we get the media we deserve, and shame on us.

Editors used to decide what they thought was significant, but the corporate entities that run media now are more interested in numbers and profits.  Numbers and ratings matter, and profits, not truth or coherence.

So the media have become our culture’s foremost transmitters of hysteria, conflict and alarm. You can see this in the animal world, whenever a dog bites somebody, or in stories like USA Today ran recently warning dog owners to refuse to disclose the price of their dogs to strangers, lest lurking dog thieves at dog parks will spirit their animal away. Today’s contribution comes from the New York Times, in a story titled “Animal Lovers, Beware of Ownership Costs.” The story warns that in a “struggling” economy (a/k/a “in this economy”) pets may cost far more than people expect.

As an example for Americans, the author cited one Manhattan couple that spends $15,000 a year on Skye, their Black Labrador, including dog walkers and a special camp for him when they are away. Now there’s an example we can all relate to.

Gee, don’t all of us spend that kind of money on our pets? I hope to hide this piece from Tracy, our pet and housesitter. She’s making peanuts compared to the people who watch over Skye. I hadn’t quite thought of sleep-away camp for the gang. I used to think I spoil my dogs, but now, I see, I’m an abuser.

The Times questions the estimates by the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals projecting the annual cost for a large dog in America at $875 a year for food, medical expenses, toys and a few related expenses, and $560 for first-year setup costs. The ASPCA estimate for a cat is $670 a year with first-year expenses of $365, for a total of $1,035.

I think it’s hard to generalize.  I think those figures are close to what I spend, not including veterinary emergencies, which occur fairly regularly. I haven’t gone through all the bills, but I think I spent about $1,000 a year on each of my dogs, including food, treats and veterinary care.I would say that’s pretty cheap a price to pay for the things these animals have brought me.

This alarm, like many,  seems especially thoughtless to me. When the recession hit, the media was filled with hysterical reports of animals being abandoned by people who couldn’t afford to care for them. But pet industry statistics actually show that the number of dogs and cats in America has increased in the last several years, and that is not surprising to me. In “struggling” times, people seem to turn more to dogs and cats for support, unconditional love, and companionship. Dogs make us feel good. The news makes us feel crummy. Maybe we are spending too much on media?

The pet industry did not suffer in the recession, and rather than see the acquisition of pets as alarming in difficult times, it seems they actually do much better work in comforting or supporting people than corporations or politicians do, or even most religious institutions.

It is surely a rational thing to consider the cost of a dog or cat before you get one. How, I wonder, would you calculate the costs of not having a dog or cat in our hyper-stressed, mechanical, divided, techno-driven and money obsessed world?

Maybe we could just greet the news media every day when we come home?