Ok. Being part of the "stupid, one-sided media" I feel I should add a bit.
First of all, not all of us journalists follow the "if it bleeds, it leads" theory. Don't worry, I haven't been offended. Most journalists do a lazy, half-arsed job. They get into a routine and they don't push the limits or try to include all angles. It's called "pack journalsim." I'm sure you've heard the phrase.
Anyway, news is a business. News gets readers/viewers/ratings, that gets advertising which gets money and the circle continues. So the problem with the bad-rep breeds is that they are like a car accident. People like drama and they love to get all worked up about something. We don't gossip about who's dating who at church anymore (ok, some of us may). It's a much large scale but it's the same principle. This is actually why soap operas and CNN are really not that different.
So, people tune in. They pick up newspapers with those headlines and increase the statistics which tells publishers... that this is what people want to read.
I hope I'm not treating you like you're stupid. I know this is common sense stuff. I'm just trying to work through what I want to say as I write.
There are essentially two kinds of stories: those that people are intersted in and those that people NEED to know about.
Why would you need to know about something that you're not interested in? Because it could affect you in the long run. Because knowing that a rapist has been let out of jail could make you safer....
I meander.
IF there were to be a pitbull/rottie attack in town I would cover it because it is news and it people need/want to know about it. I would not glorify it. I would not put all one-sided facts in the story. I would tell both sides because that's my job.
Now I sound riteous.
Someone made a point about how the media is always showing pictures of victims... or something like that.
There is an interesting debate behind that.
Of course, a lot (most?) of the time those horrible pictures are shown for shock factor and to sell papers.
But there is another debate. And that is that if you tell yet another story about a drunk driving death few people will be affected by the statistics. "this is the seventh alcohol related death this year on BC roads..." bla bla bla. Put that story with a picture and it makes people stop and realize how sad it is and how important it is.
some people agree with it and others don't.
I don't agree with the extreme of a front page, full-colour photo that shows all. I don't want any family having to see that or the rest of the world. I don't mind running an older picture of the vicitm or of the scene (car crash...).
This is getting long.
I hate the attention that the media gives these breeds. I totally blame my peers, bad breeders/bad owners and the dogfighting industry.
I guess my point is that if you want to change anything than change the channel when those stories are on and don't pick up the newspaper.
I'll probably add more in awhile to this long post. I hope that it is a little interesting. I really care about good, quality journalism.
saje