If the programme was called 'Pedigree Dogs' or 'Behind the Scenes at the KC' you could reasonably expect BALANCED content. But it isn't. The name of the programme tells you it is an 'expose'. They are obviously going to concentrate on the BAD - not balance it out with the good.

An expose on restaurants will concentrate on kitchen staff who pick their nose or spit in your food - not the staff who adhere to H&S regs and are a credit to the industry.

Or a Builders from Hell programme - it is not going to show you any GOOD jobs a particular builder did - only those where there was justification for harsh criticism.

If I was to use an analogy to sum up the last show it would be sensationalist newspaper headlines that demonise certain dog breeds.

The programme could have been so much more, but failed by its own bias.

A well done for highlighting some of the problems (which is always a good thing), but a very big thumbs down on not pointing prospective owners in the direction of the very good and conscientious breeders that are out there.

A well done for highlighting the dangers of limited gene pools, but a very big thumbs down for leaving it there without explaining the dangers still posed (and sometimes increased) by indiscriminate out-crossing

so much more could have been shown in that programme without the need for selective editing to prove the producers own views without any balance

Brierly - wouldn't you EXPECT an 'expose' style programme to be like that though? I would. And most people do use their own common sense. Truth is if they don't make these programmes 'sensational' enough - they don't get the viewing figures.

The TV programmes that exposed what goes on in a lot of Care Homes throughout the UK did a lot of good in weeding out some of the worst ones. They didn't show model care homes where everything was hunky dory where you'd be happy to pack off a loved one to. Some of it was very sad, harrowing, even horrific viewing - but if I was thinking of having to use one - I'd still want to know the worst. If some good comes out of these 'secret camera' type programmes to address very bad practices - I'm for them.

its meant to be being aired the week before crufts, no doubt to try and knock the entries etc, or cause chaos for people going no doubt it will be as biased as last time, no doubt it will be as unbalanced dont know if im watching it yet, as it will only annoy me.

Exactomundo. [sarcasm]Well done BBC for your magnificent contribution to the welfare and breeding of healthy dogs by pointing prospective puppy buyers in the right direction.[/sarcasm] I'd laugh at the irony, but it's not funny. It was lazy, biased, one sided journalism with an agenda and I have no doubt this one will be the same. It was a great shame it was edited for sensationalism rather than balance.

When the last one was being made, they approached a few shar-pei breeders. Nobody would take part as someone in the breed had a friend 'on the inside' who warned them not to take part as it was going to be a hatchet job.

Oh no they don't. I spent a couple of weeks walking past people everywhere I went with a dog or without. In supermarket queues, in shops, when I walked past with my shar-pei. The general public who are a bit ignorant of dogs beyond maybe having one as a pet were talking about it and not even getting the breeds mentioned in the program right, let alone anything else. All it did was poison people against pedigree breeds and the dog showing fraternity in general. Humans in general like to make sweeping judgements about stuff they don't know about and it only takes them to see a 'documentary' or newspaper article for them to believe every word as gospel and skew the info that's gone in even more by subconsciously embellishing it with bad recall.

All Pedigreee Dogs Exposed succeeded in was making the general public believe all KC regisrered dogs and especially the ones in the showring were freakish, sickly cripples bred by Crella DeVille's spawn. And I actually think that was the aim from the get go or they would have balanced it out more by including breeders who go out of their way to breed for good health and good temperament along with conformation.

A few commenters are accusing the programme of demonising/vilifying certain dogs, breeds of dogs. I think that's a very strange way of looking at it, they care about the dogs themselves, its the bad breeders they are criticising!

You can look at a bloodhound, or a cav and say "that dog shouldn't have been bred that way, its suffering' and it doesn't mean you hate all cavs, or that you are anti-cav, its the opposite surely!

I have pedigree dogs, I have to have pedigree dogs because I'm allergic to dogs that shed, so I have a vested interest in wanting breeding of pedigrees to continue. However it would be really silly for me to take it personally if someone pointed out that bichons are now prone to skin issues or that poodles are prone to Addison's disease, they are!

The puppy farm thing is a red herring. Puppy farms were doing a booming business before this programme and continue to do so, they just started crossing a few of their breeds. Puppy farmers need to be stopped, but that's a separate issue completely and to try and hold the producers of this programme responsible for it is just ridiculous.

Can you share with us this scenario?

I thought the first programme needed making and it single-handedly pushed for changes to be made by the KC and made the public more aware of health issues and extremes in pedigree dogs, and hopefully made Joe Public more discerning when choosing a new pup.

In the second programme I would like to see updates on the changes that have been made, as well as showing other changes that still need to be made.

Absolutely! And as rational human beings, surely most who viewed the first programme would realise that not ALL breeders of pedigree dogs, and not the WHOLE show dog fraternity are the same - just as not ALL builders are cowboys etc etc.

In my experience on non doggy forums and what I have heard and discussed with people in the outide world, sadly that does not seem to be the case. To the point I've almost given up bothering discussing it at all.