Being concerned about this doesn't mean thinking that it's more important than the suffering of children, which of course it isn't. But why the assumption that because someone's angry about the deliberate mistreatment-for-show (however far it went) of a dog, that their priorities are screwed? That's quite a judgmental leap, and (in my case anyway) it's false. A greater wrong does not mean that the lesser wrong is nullified.

As for fluffy and dewy-eyed, did you SEE those pictures? Whatever about the artist's creative purpose and his ambiguity, we still only have his word for it that it all happened as he said it did. That on its own does not convince me. Whether this issue should be ignored because there are worse things to worry about, which there always are, is another subject.