How the media sensationalizes dog bites! Great Artcile!
- Thread starter misticaleclipse
- Start date
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Red_ACD_for_me said:
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 
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.
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.
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.
- Joined
- May 19, 2006
- Messages
- 891
- Likes
- 0
- Points
- 0
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
W
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.
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.