How the media sensationalizes dog bites! Great Artcile!

[misticaleclipse]

This is a story about how a girl got bit and how the media
made it seem like the dog was evil, but they uncovered additional
facts which really put that into question.

http://www.k9magazine.com/viewarticle.php?sid=15&aid=1360&vid=0&npage=

[casablanca1]

Do these fearless doggy advocates ever champion the cause of biting Cocker Spaniels, or are they only interested in making the world safe for enormous breeds? Because I'm getting a little bored with the endless "the child was trespassing/the other dog was prey/the elderly stroke victim clearly instigated the attack" mentality of these stories of so-called breed bias.

[misticaleclipse]

Do these fearless doggy advocates ever champion the cause of biting Cocker Spaniels, or are they only interested in making the world safe for enormous breeds? Because I'm getting a little bored with the endless "the child was trespassing/the other dog was prey/the elderly stroke victim clearly instigated the attack" mentality of these stories of so-called breed bias.

I agree there should be laws for any dangerous animals, even if they are a small dog; however, the media is focusing on the larger dog stories biting people, which is why they are fighting the media about that issue. You cannot fight media if they are not writing any articles about a cocker spaniel biting someone.

For the record I have a shih tzu, and though he could definatly do damage to someone if he wanted to, its like comparing apples and oranges to the damage a shih tzu can do and the damage a rotweiler can do, which is why the media focuses on the bigger dogs.

[Gempress]

As a member of the "evil sensationalizing media", I feel I should respond to this. First of all, this K-9 Magazine story is obviously slanted. Consider the source; a magazine for dog lovers. 'Nuff said. Talk about irony; a slanted article complaining about bias. :rolleyes: Now, let me clarify about the newspaper article this magazine is griping about.

These articles are not written by dog specialists. They are written by journalists, who may or may not know anything about dogs at all. The articles are written on a limited deadline; depending on when the incident occured, there may have been only an hour or two available to produce a story.

Here is how an article like that would be written:
-First, the journalist would contact the hospital and police department public relations officer. The journalist would confirm the attack, then review the police department's statement.
For those who have never seen a police department release, they are very straightforward. It would say something like, "At XXXX p.m., Jane Doe was attacked by the bullmastiff owned by John Doe." It would then describe the injuries Jane Doe suffered, along with details on the attack and how the authorities responded. This is where the journalist would get words like "provoked/unprovoked", and "girls face ripped open." And I don't understand how writing that a face was ripped open is unfair in the first place. Especially if that's what really happened. But I digress.

-If possible, the journalist would try to get a statement from the PR officer. This would be followed by statement/quotes from those who may have witnessed the attack, or know the the family or the dog well.

THIS IS IMPORTANT. These quotes are where the opinionated statements come from. Say Mrs. Jones next door said "That dog was just vicious." The journalist will write "Mrs. Jones, a neighbor, said, 'That dog was just vicious.'" This is the part that bites so many journalists in the proverbial @$$. ***The journalist did not say the dog was vicious. Mrs. Jones did.*** I cannot tell you how many times we have been accused of telling "horrible lies about people" and "making up things". When in reality, journalists are just quoting what they have been told.

Think of how many members of the general public really and truly understand dogs. Not as many as we'd like; we gripe about them on this forum on a daily basis. We get our quotes from the general public. Basically, it boils down to this. Journalists do not know everything. They are not first-hand on the scene of every news event. They depend on sources, eyewitnesses, and official reports and documents.

I wish that K-9 Magazine has posted exactly what articles were written by the local media on this dog attack. Did the newspaper truly call the dog attack vicious or unprovoked? Or did a member of the police department at the scene say that the attack was "vicious" or "unprovoked" in a quote? There is a huge difference between the two.

[misticaleclipse]

As a member of the "evil sensationalizing media", I feel I should respond to this. First of all, this K-9 Magazine story is obviously slanted. Consider the source; a magazine for dog lovers. 'Nuff said. Talk about irony; a slanted article complaining about bias. :rolleyes: Now, let me clarify about the newspaper article this magazine is griping about.

These articles are not written by dog specialists. They are written by journalists, who may or may not know anything about dogs at all. The articles are written on a limited deadline; depending on when the incident occured, there may have been only an hour or two available to produce a story.

Here is how an article like that would be written:
-First, the journalist would contact the hospital and police department public relations officer. The journalist would confirm the attack, then review the police department's statement.
For those who have never seen a police department release, they are very straightforward. It would say something like, "At XXXX p.m., Jane Doe was attacked by the bullmastiff owned by John Doe." It would then describe the injuries Jane Doe suffered, along with details on the attack and how the authorities responded. This is where the journalist would get words like "provoked/unprovoked", and "girls face ripped open." And I don't understand how writing that a face was ripped open is unfair in the first place. Especially if that's what really happened. But I digress.

-If possible, the journalist would try to get a statement from the PR officer. This would be followed by statement/quotes from those who may have witnessed the attack, or know the the family or the dog well.

THIS IS IMPORTANT. These quotes are where the opinionated statements come from. Say Mrs. Jones next door said "That dog was just vicious." The journalist will write "Mrs. Jones, a neighbor, said, 'That dog was just vicious.'" This is the part that bites so many journalists in the proverbial @$$. ***The journalist did not say the dog was vicious. Mrs. Jones did.*** I cannot tell you how many times we have been accused of telling "horrible lies about people" and "making up things". When in reality, journalists are just quoting what they have been told.

Think of how many members of the general public really and truly understand dogs. Not as many as we'd like; we gripe about them on this forum on a daily basis. We get our quotes from the general public. Basically, it boils down to this. Journalists do not know everything. They are not first-hand on the scene of every news event. They depend on sources, eyewitnesses, and official reports and documents.

I wish that K-9 Magazine has posted exactly what articles were written by the local media on this dog attack. Did the newspaper truly call the dog attack vicious or unprovoked? Or did a member of the police department at the scene say that the attack was "vicious" or "unprovoked" in a quote? There is a huge difference between the two.

I'm sorry if you thought I was referring to all media representatives being evil. I said that the media made the dog look evil, not that all media representatives where evil.

When you quote someone I understand you are quoting what they said; however, the fact that you quote it makes the public believe that you agree with what the person you quoted said.

I understand it is a journalist’s job to get a story that will attract attention; however, leaving out details important that the family had been warned about the dog, and the child was not being supervised, and that the child went into the dog owners yard, is not an objective view of a story. If the police report does not indicate this information I believe its the journalists job to do some research on the issue before making the dog seem completely at fault.

If we replace this scenario with two kids and say "The girl got hit by a bat by the other girl and had to have surgery and almost lost an eye due to the vicious attack", this does not appear to be a complete story, but if we dug a little further we might have fond out that the girl who hit with the bat was in her yard and the other girl attacked her and she was defending herself.

The same is true with the dog. If the dog was defending itself and the owners where warned not go into the yard of the dog, then the media should not slant the story to appear that it was all the dogs fault. This is why we have so many people hating pit bulls because people believe this one sided story and its just wrong.

I don't think someone not knowing about dogs or having a deadline excuses when they slant an article to appear that the dog is always at fault. I have a job to do every day as well with a deadline and I do it well, so I don't feel anyone else should not do the same.

I agree that this is a dog lovers magazine so there is a bias there as well, but they do bring up a good point about dog biting articles missing a lot of facts because the journalists either don't bother to research them or don't like that angle to there story so they don't put that in the article.

[casablanca1]

If we replace this scenario with two kids and say "The girl got hit by a bat by the other girl and had to have surgery and almost lost an eye due to the vicious attack", this does not appear to be a complete story, but if we dug a little further we might have fond out that the girl who hit with the bat was in her yard and the other girl attacked her and she was defending herself. The same is true with the dog. If the dog was defending itself and the owners where warned not go into the yard of the dog, then the media should not slant the story to appear that it was all the dogs fault.

I usually adore blaming parents, but I don't quite see how either the child or the child's parents were at fault here. Kids wander. That's why there are fences around swimming pools, railroad yards, drainage ditches, etc. If you choose to house a large, potentially dangerous animal on your property, you're supposed to take steps to protect the animal and society from coming into unsupervised contact.

I find the 'dog defending itself' scenario implausible in this story, because it's virtually unbelievable that the dog considered the child a threat. To me, a better analogy would be 'what if a child entered a neighbor's yard and encountered a man who attacked her' Would we be blaming the kid for trespass, or calling the attacker a vicious human?

This is why we have so many people hating pit bulls because people believe this one sided story and its just wrong.

That's a new land speed record for bringing pit bulls into a thread.

[Amstaffer]

Because I'm getting a little bored with the endless "the child was trespassing/the other dog was prey/the elderly stroke victim clearly instigated the attack" mentality of these stories of so-called breed bias.

I can't wait until our society starts to place fault with the person and quit trying to blame dogs. The guy fenced in his yard, what more is he to do? Muzzling a dog that is in its own back yard is silly. This is just like the guy who has a pool in his backyard with a fence and he still gets sued when the kid sneaks in and drowns.

This was a tragic event but the girl did a very dumb thing. I do feel that this dog should be listed as a dangerous dog and if it leaves the property should be muzzled.

[JennSLK]

Please explain how it s the dog owener's fault Casa?

He had a fenced yard wich the dog was clearly in. The child tresspassed onto his property with out his knowledge and when up and hugged a strange dog.

1)Clearly the mother needs parenting classes if she allows her child to wonder like that

2)She let the kid go into the yard with out permision

3)she as dumb enough not to teach her kid not to aproach strange dogs

[Zoom]

I think the fact that the girl was dumb enough to come up and hug a huge dog while it was *eating* should say something. Also, this is a very territorial type of breed--it was bred to apprehend tresspassers and poachers. Not the most stranger-friendly of breeds to begin with.

Yes, children do wander. I spent hours upon hours outdoors unsupervised in the summers when I was a kid, but I was also taught that it was not proper to just barge into someone else's yard or house, and that strange dogs should not be touched or hugged unless the owner was around and said it was ok. So the mother of the girl has some responsibility in not teaching her child how to act around strange dogs or how to respect other's property.

[casablanca1]

Of course. The dog was right, the owner was right, the little girl and her parents were wrong. Thank God they were punished for their wrongdoing. Little brat, why'd she go into someone's sacred private property and molest their doggywoggy, anyhow?

[JennSLK]

Of course. The dog was right, the owner was right, the little girl and her parents were wrong. Thank God they were punished for their wrongdoing. Little brat, why'd she go into someone's sacred private property and molest their doggywoggy, anyhow?

You dont allways have to be so sarcasic.

It's called PRIVATE property for a reason. People stay off of it unless invited. Of course the kid was wrong. She whent into someones yard and grabed their dog. a STRANG dog.

[misticaleclipse]

I can't wait until our society starts to place fault with the person and quit trying to blame dogs. The guy fenced in his yard, what more is he to do? Muzzling a dog that is in its own back yard is silly. This is just like the guy who has a pool in his backyard with a fence and he still gets sued when the kid sneaks in and drowns.

This was a tragic event but the girl did a very dumb thing. I do feel that this dog should be listed as a dangerous dog and if it leaves the property should be muzzled.

Thank you. I agree. I would never say it was okay for a dog to bit anyone, but this child was old enough to be taught not to tresspass on other peoples property and to respect animals.

I usually adore blaming parents, but I don't quite see how either the child or the child's parents were at fault here. Kids wander. That's why there are fences around swimming pools, railroad yards, drainage ditches, etc. If you choose to house a large, potentially dangerous animal on your property, you're supposed to take steps to protect the animal and society from coming into unsupervised contact.

I find the 'dog defending itself' scenario implausible in this story, because it's virtually unbelievable that the dog considered the child a threat. To me, a better analogy would be 'what if a child entered a neighbor's yard and encountered a man who attacked her' Would we be blaming the kid for trespass, or calling the attacker a vicious human?


As a child it was made very clear to me to respect other peoples property. I do not think you can watch children 24/7, but in this case if they had both taught there child how to respect another persons propery and how to approach a dog then this situation would not have happened.

I do agree with declaring it a dangerous dog and requiring it to be muzzled when out in public, but on there property in there fenced in back yard its stupid to ask them to put a muzzle on there dog (it was eating, so we would be saying the dog could not eat outside). I do not think the dog should be put down for something like this, which is what the mother of the child wants.

In regards to the example, its hard to compare how a dog thinks and how a human thinks. If you change the scenario and make the man who attacked handicapped enough that they would not understand the damage they would cause then you may get the mentality of the dog.

[casablanca1]

All the owner had to do was lock the gate. Then his dog could have frisked it's little heart out in the yard, gambolling about on massive paws and eating dog food. And the bratty little girl who didn't understand that a man's home is his castle, which must be defended with mamoth guard dogs, could never have gotten in to molest the beloved symbol of freedom and homeowner rights.

[Fran27]

I don't see why anyone would have to lock the gate when they are home, just in case some random kids wanders in the yard.

[J's crew]

While I do not agree that the dog owner is at fault, this is one of the major reasons I lock my gates. You just never know. :(

[misticaleclipse]

All the owner had to do was lock the gate. Then his dog could have frisked it's little heart out in the yard, gambolling about on massive paws and eating dog food. And the bratty little girl who didn't understand that a man's home is his castle, which must be defended with mamoth guard dogs, could never have gotten in to molest the beloved symbol of freedom and homeowner rights.

I don't see why anyone would have to lock the gate when they are home, just in case some random kids wanders in the yard.

I have no right to walk on someone elses property/open there gate and go into there yard. A 9 year old child is old enough to understand what trespassing means and they do not have this right either. Yes it would have been great if the ower had locked the gate, but its not an open invitation into there home if they do not.

[Amstaffer]

..... gambolling about on massive paws and eating dog food. ....... defended with mamoth guard dogs, .

I wonder if you have a dislike for larger dogs, how would you have felt had the child had gotten 15 stitches from a Jack Russell Terrier?

[Roxy's CD]

I agree with the statement about the media (not you gempress :)) A couple of weeks ago there was a story on the news about the a dog killing an elderly man and when i called the news station for some further details, they had none. Just that the dog killed the man and it was such a nice friendly dog and the men was such a nice man.

It's sad that the girl was hurt. It's sad that the dog that reacted instinctively, and people just don't understand that :( It's sad that the owner now feels guilty about the incident when IMO he did nothing wrong. But most of all, I'm sad that no one has pointed the finger at the mother directly, because if they did perhaps she would take raising a child and teaching them morals and basic rules more seriously.

A child that was raised knowing to respect peoples property, never to approach a strange animal etc. would never be caught in this predicament. (always exceptions..getting *attacked*)

[GSDlover_4ever]

All the owner had to do was lock the gate. Then his dog could have frisked it's little heart out in the yard, gambolling about on massive paws and eating dog food. And the bratty little girl who didn't understand that a man's home is his castle, which must be defended with mamoth guard dogs, could never have gotten in to molest the beloved symbol of freedom and homeowner rights.


Wait a minute. Are you saying that I have to lock MY gate because some little BRAT might wander in. PUH-LEASE!!! At 9 years old she was old enough to know better, and she got what she deserved. I show no remorse. now if she was a 6 year old thats different but at 9 years old you are old enough to know right from wrong.

The dog was EATING. Heck, when I was 2 I knew that messing with a dog while eating was wrong. And the neglectful mother has her nerve to say that she wants the dog put down.

[LabBreeder]

I agree with AmStaffer.

I don't think the child should have been wandering around the neighborhood unsupervised. The man had a gate and a fenced in yard. His dog was in it's own yard, minding it's own business eating and this kid comes over and puts her face by his bowl. C'mon, how dumb do you have to be to do that...to any dog at any time, much less one that's eating. No, she didn't deserve to get bitten, but she shouldn't have been there. She was "trespassing" on his property. The mother should have called or walked the girl over and said that she wanted to play. This could have been avoided by her mother being a, ummm, responsible parent. If you let your kid wander around and don't teach them that they are NOT to open someone elses gate and go inside unbidden then it's your (the parent's) fault. The dog should not be put down because of a neglectful parent.

[Red_ACD_for_me]

I hate when the media BLOWS things out of proportion when a dog bites. I remember a few times on the news there was a dog bite and they said it was a pitbull and then they showed a clip of the dog and it obviously wasn't one. Once it was even a rottweiler and another time a lab mix :rolleyes:

[Amstaffer]

But most of all, I'm sad that no one has pointed the finger at the mother directly, because if they did perhaps she would take raising a child and teaching them morals and basic rules more seriously.

A child that was raised knowing to respect peoples property, never to approach a strange animal etc. would never be caught in this predicament. (always exceptions..getting *attacked*)

I think a MAJOR problem in our society today is that everything that happens with our kids we want to blame on someone else. Parents as a whole are not being held accountable for their lack of parenting.

Example: Schools, most of the problems in our schools today are directly related to poor parenting.( ie Poor work ethic, apathy, bad attendence, lack of respect for others...)When kids do mess up the parents enable them to be dysfunctional rather than correct or punish them.

In this case the blames goes in this order (to me IMHO)... 1st Child, 2nd Child's parent, 3rd Home owner, 4th Dog.

[casablanca1]

I wonder if you have a dislike for larger dogs, how would you have felt had the child had gotten 15 stitches from a Jack Russell Terrier?

Nice try, Amstaffer, but insinuating I'm a meanie who hates big dogs is just ducking the issue of responsibility. Disagree all you like that the owner was irresponsible to leave a food-aggressive guard dog in an unlocked yard. That's fine, that's a debate. If you'd like to start talking trash about how my opinions are based on bias and hate, that's an accusation goes both ways, and it's nothing more than name-calling.

[DanL]

I'm not sure where you are coming from here casablanca. This situation is pretty clear. The type of dog doesn't matter- this could have been a cocker spanial, a pit bull, GSD, beagle, anything. A person puts their dog out into the yard on their own property, behind a gated fence. A 9 year old girl goes into the yard uninvited, then goes up to a large strange dog while it is eating and does who knows what to the dog- pets it, pokes it, hugs it, tries to feed it. The dog reacts. If the dog was truely aggressive it would have jumped her the minute she went into the yard.

To me, that blame is squarely on the kid and the kid's parents. The kid's parents are to blame because they should educate their child on a couple basic things- 1 you do NOT go into someone elses fenced in yard for ANY reason unless you are invited. 2 you do NOT go near ANY dog if the owner is not present. The only issue I can see the owner at fault on is the fact that he watched the girl approach the dog. If that was my yard and my dog, I would have been out the door yelling at the kid the second I saw her, not waiting for her to get near my dogs.

[casablanca1]

The type of dog doesn't matter- this could have been a cocker spanial, a pit bull, GSD, beagle, anything. A person puts their dog out into the yard on their own property, behind a gated fence. A 9 year old girl goes into the yard uninvited, then goes up to a large strange dog

You seem to feel the type matters, as long as the emphasis on the child's stupidity in approaching a large dog. Perhaps you'd be more sympathetic if she'd been bitten while approaching a small dog?

[DanL]

I should have omitted the "large" out of my "large strange dog" comment.

The girl was stupid for going into someone elses yard uninvited, whether there was a dog there or not- who knows about the person who lived there. Maybe they were a child molester or other deviant. Aside from mistake 1, then she approaches a strange dog, no matter what size or type. Sorry, I don't have sympathy for people who allow their kids to do stuff like this. 9 is old enough to be taught and to know better. I'm sorry that a little girl was badly hurt and will be scarred, but I'm not sympathetic for her parents at all. Common sense dictates to me, that if I had young children, and I knew someone on my street had a dog that we were not familiar with, I would warn them to avoid that dog. In general when my kids were little they were taught not to enter peoples property at all. If a ball went over a fence, you knocked on the door and told them what happened. If no one was home, you wait until they are there. Thats pretty much common sense and respect for your neighbors.

[Amstaffer]

Nice try, Amstaffer, but insinuating I'm a meanie who hates big dogs is just ducking the issue of responsibility. .

I haven't dodged the issue of responsiblity at all, many of my posts address my feelings on that.

Name calling? I didn't use any names and I think you claiming that I am name calling is your own "Red-herring". Revealing bias whether mine or yours is not name calling but rather a valid point in any discussion.

I have read many of your posts and they all have a common theme (as do many of mine...in the opposite direction). You seem to dislike like larger dogs and bully breeds. You also when speaking of issues dealing with larger dogs and bully breeds you seem to want the blame to be put first and foremost on the dog and human responsibilty somewhere at the very end of the list of liability.

Legally speaking the girl trespassed which is a crime (minor one but still a crime) and that simple fact should put her and her parents at the top of the liablity list.

[Saje]

I hate when the media BLOWS things out of proportion when a dog bites. I remember a few times on the news there was a dog bite and they said it was a pitbull and then they showed a clip of the dog and it obviously wasn't one. Once it was even a rottweiler and another time a lab mix :rolleyes:

I wish you had read Gempress' post.

If I write an article about anything I get all my information from sources not my own little head.

Therefore if they reporter goes to the authorities (shelter/pound/county cop... whoever) and they tell them it's a pitbull/rottie/lab... that's what the source says.

I know nothing about swordfighting and if I write an article about it and someone tells me it was a ..... kind of sword that's what I'd put in the story. That's why it's called 'reporting.'

You can blame the media all you want but there is a lot of people who are more directly involved.

[GSDlover_4ever]

I wish you had read Gempress' post.

If I write an article about anything I get all my information from sources not my own little head.

Therefore if they reporter goes to the authorities (shelter/pound/county cop... whoever) and they tell them it's a pitbull/rottie/lab... that's what the source says.

I know nothing about swordfighting and if I write an article about it and someone tells me it was a ..... kind of sword that's what I'd put in the story. That's why it's called 'reporting.'

You can blame the media all you want but there is a lot of people who are more directly involved.


The media CHOOSES to listen to these sources. IMO, a "fact" is not valid unless I see it with my own eyes. So you just trust that a person is telling the truth and CHOOSE to report on what you "heard". Sounds like middle school to me.

[Gempress]

The media CHOOSES to listen to these sources. IMO, a "fact" is not valid unless I see it with my own eyes. So you just trust that a person is telling the truth and CHOOSE to report on what you "heard".

That's just a bit extreme, IMO. So you don't believe anything you haven't seen yourself? By that logic, it's safe to say that you don't believe that World War I, the American Revolution, and 3/4 of the international news that is broadcast around the world is actually real. There are people who insist the Holocaust never happened, and the mentality you just described is a big reason behind that.

People cannot witness everything firsthand. It's an impossibility. That's why we depend on sources, word of mouth, etc. Just because you don't see something yourself doesn't mean it hasn't happened, doesn't exist, or is a lie.

[GSDlover_4ever]

That's just a bit extreme, IMO. So you don't believe anything you haven't seen yourself? By that logic, it's safe to say that you don't believe that World War I, the American Revolution, and 3/4 of the international news that is broadcast around the world is actually real. There are people who insist the Holocaust never happened, and the mentality you just described is a big reason behind that.

People cannot witness everything firsthand. It's an impossibility. That's why we depend on sources, word of mouth, etc. Just because you don't see something yourself doesn't mean it hasn't happened, doesn't exist, or is a lie.


What happens when one person says something to another person? That person embellishes the story a little and then the next person exagerates and ect. People get mad when the media gets blamed for exagerating but no one FORCES the reporters to write what they "hear".

[Saje]

The media CHOOSES to listen to these sources. IMO, a "fact" is not valid unless I see it with my own eyes. So you just trust that a person is telling the truth and CHOOSE to report on what you "heard". Sounds like middle school to me.

Nobody forces people to believe it either. Media is a business just like anything else and the best a good reporter can do is tell both sides of the story with as neutral a tone as possible. Again that's why it's called 'reporting' If you don't believe things until you see it yourself then good for you.

[Saje]

What happens when one person says something to another person? That person embellishes the story a little and then the next person exagerates and ect. People get mad when the media gets blamed for exagerating but no one FORCES the reporters to write what they "hear".

I don't really get that statement. What exactly is it you think reporters do? We interview people and write stories :rolleyes: Nobody forces us to work in the field but that is the job. Listening, researching and writing.

[Gempress]

What happens when one person says something to another person? That person embellishes the story a little and then the next person exagerates and ect. People get mad when the media gets blamed for exagerating but no one FORCES the reporters to write what they "hear".

I do understand what you're saying.

But, that would be more relevant if reporters depended heavily on word-of-mouth. A huge chunk of what we write is based on written documents, official reports and other proofs. We never do a story strictly on a person's word (at least not in my experience). There is waaay to much risk for libel, especially in today's world of lawyers.

[Saje]

That must be the editor in you talking Gempress because in my experience most stories don't even have paperwork to back them up. The only times I would need that is for court cases and the like. Of course, I do mostly human interest stories but most of the sources reporters have is from contacts not documents and I usually have at least two sources for each story but the more the better.

[GSDlover_4ever]

I understand what you are saying but people will (including myself) will continue to blame the media. My point is no one forces you to write a story based on word of mouth.

[Saje]

I understand what you are saying but people will (including myself) will continue to blame the media. My point is no one forces you to write a story based on word of mouth.

My point is you are putting the blame in the wrong place. Assuming I didn't know anything about dogs I would always find a 'professional' to give their opinion for the story. If they said that dog was a pitbull then I am going to put in the story that he/she said it was a pitbull. If you want to educate someone educate the people who say they are pitbulls not the ones who report on idiots shooting off their mouths.

By saying no one is forcing us to write a story word of mouth is like saying no one is forcing us to be reporters. No one is forcing you to read the paper. No one is forcing the industry to exist. That's where the ideas come from. The quality of the story is only as good as the paper and the journalists they hire and a well written story will have BOTH sides (whether people like to read it or not) and it will have educated sources as well as 'regular' people.

[Dani]

It's important to take what you will with a grain of salt, as the old saying goes:p

[Red_ACD_for_me]

I wish you had read Gempress' post.

If I write an article about anything I get all my information from sources not my own little head.

Therefore if they reporter goes to the authorities (shelter/pound/county cop... whoever) and they tell them it's a pitbull/rottie/lab... that's what the source says.

I know nothing about swordfighting and if I write an article about it and someone tells me it was a ..... kind of sword that's what I'd put in the story. That's why it's called 'reporting.'

You can blame the media all you want but there is a lot of people who are more directly involved.
I was only stating what I have seen on the news that was wrong and not trying to get into an argument with anyone *sigh*. The people who forecast the news should do a little more investigative research before blaming a breed that is already ruined enough and makes the head lines enough. I live in Boston where there are alot of pitbulls owned by morons and the attacks do happen. But, I can't tell you how many times I have been watching the 6 o'clock news and hear of an attack and then they show a clip of the dog and it is a rottweiler or a lab. The media does BLOW lots out of proportion whether some think so or not. At least on the news in my area.

[whatszmatter]

reporters do take liberties sometimes to sensationalize or make a story more dramatic, it was obvious in the recent NBC predators story/thread. WHy have an officer in a ghillie suit jump from the bushes to make a "dramatic arrest" when the guy was walking calmly directly towards 3-4 uniformed cops in front of him. If the guy decided to run, have you ever tried running in a ghillie suit?? That cop was of absolutely no use but to add drama to the story.

more along the lines of dog stories. There was one not too long ago about a guy that shot a dog in his yard. One story convienently left some major points out. Talked about the the owner and her age and how "friendly" the dog always is, and the fact that some kids in the neighborhood were mad at the guy for shooting the dog that was on his land. Said he just went to his vehicle got a gun and shot the dog. SOunds pretty bad to me.

But the reporter in that story left out that it was a larger dog, trespassing, that started to fight the owners dog on his property. The owner of the dog that was eventually shot was nowhere around. The dog had been loose before on many occasions roaming the neighborhood, during the fight the guy tried breaking up the fight and was bitten by the other dog enough to draw blood and then it continued to fight with his dog.

I don't know about you, but any dog that comes on to MY land unattended and starts fighting my dog and bites me and draws blood, then continues to fight with my dog isn't going to get a bowl of treats. I don't care if it was the 60+ year old woman's that lived down the street.

it was easy in this case for one reporter to pick and chose what he/she was going to report in order to make the guy that shot the dog look bad and the negligent owner with the fighting dog look like the victim. The only thing that prompted me to look further into the story was that police only had a minor weapons charge against the guy, nothing about murdering this poor old lady's dog.

That is **** poor reporting IMO and it appears to be happening a lot more often. If a reporter is given bad info fine, but to intentionally slant an article or just being too lazy to even get both sides of the story, time to get a new job, reporting isn't for you.

[whatszmatter]

I was only stating what I have seen on the news that was wrong and not trying to get into an argument with anyone *sigh*. The people who forecast the news should do a little more investigative research before blaming a breed that is already ruined enough and makes the head lines enough. I live in Boston where there are alot of pitbulls owned by morons and the attacks do happen. But, I can't tell you how many times I have been watching the 6 o'clock news and hear of an attack and then they show a clip of the dog and it is a rottweiler or a lab. The media does BLOW lots out of proportion whether some think so or not. At least on the news in my area.
I wanted to addto this, last summer there was an attack on another dog by a pitbull and the other dog died. For one the dog that died they said was a dachshund, I've never seen one with light brown and white long fur and that tiny, but thats what they called it. They then showed a quick video of the "killer" pitbull in quarentine when in actuality it looked like a JRT more than anything. But besides those two short clips when you could actually see the dogs involved they had a generic picture of a vicious looking bully breed up on the screen. Another job of rather poor quality reporting.

[Amstaffer]

reporters do take liberties sometimes to sensationalize or make a story more dramatic, it was obvious in the recent NBC predators story/thread. WHy have an officer in a ghillie suit jump from the bushes to make a "dramatic arrest" when the guy was walking calmly directly towards 3-4 uniformed cops in front of him. If the guy decided to run, have you ever tried running in a ghillie suit?? That cop was of absolutely no use but to add drama to the story.

.

They should tackle and whoop their a##. Your right it is drama but those perverts got it coming.

[DanL]

They should tackle and whoop their a##. Your right it is drama but those perverts got it coming.
They'll get it when they are in jail.

[Amstaffer]

They'll get it when they are in jail.

Thats a bit of a Myth (at least in Wisconsin). I was a correctional officer for 9 years and rarely saw any harassment of sex offenders by "normal" inmates.