KC DOG BLOG

Newsweek on "The Pit Bull Problem"

For the life of me, I have no idea why media people can't seem to even get the simplest things right when it comes to discssions on 'pit bulls'. Even those who are not being malicious in their content still don't seem to make even the faintest effort to understand pit bulls, or what is going on with them.

And while at least the recent Newsweek online article isn't malicious, it still has completely missed the point.

One glaring inaccuracy in the article stems around the total number of dogs that exist in the U.S. While the article quotes the number as being 61 million (no source is given), the 2006 AVMA Census gives a number of 72 million -- and growing -- so it is likely even greater than that now.

The article then goes on to say that the biggest "problem with pit bulls" is that people adopt these dogs for all the wrong reasons. Ok, I'm with her so far. But her reasons aren't the biggest problem for pit bulls by any stretch. She says that many people get the dogs for guard dogs -- but notes that they make for lousy guard dogs because they are too people-friendly. In some ways I do agree with this -- as dogs used for guarding tend to be trained to be aggressive toward all new humans without any ability to determine a friend vs a stranger*.  I also agree that 'pit bulls' often make bad guard dogs because of their friendliness - and in fact, are such bad guard dogs that they often struggle to keep THEMSELVES from getting stolen.

*I think we often give dogs WAY too much credit in their ability to tell a friend from a stranger. Given that many people can't determine if a new person is of ill-intent or not until it's too late, it is unrealistic to think a dog could make this determination. The result often ends up with a dog that is aggressive toward all new people.

The other "problem" the writer notes is that she thinks people get one just because Rachael Ray has one -- and that the trendiest of owners want a blue pit bull because they are rare.

People who want a dog as a fashion statement ala Racheal Ray are not the pit bull's biggest problem - -not by a long shot. These people are the problem for many breeds like Cavelier King Spaniels, Pugs and English Bulldogs who want dogs with a certain "look" that are encouraging the breeding of dogs for looks at the expense of the overall health of the dogs. They are also the problem for the high-priced "designer mutts" like Puggles and Labadoodles.  But if someone wants a 'pit bull' as a fashion statement ala Rachael Ray, this is a far smaller problem than if someone wants one as a fashion statement ala Michael Vick.

But even THAT may not be the biggest problem facing 'pit bulls' right now. It's when writers like this one declare "pit bulls are public enemy #1".  They aren't -- or at least certainly shouldn't be. And it is this perception, brought on repeatedly by writers like this one that spur issues like Breed Specific Legislation -- which the writer alludes to in one sentence at the very end of the story. It seems to me that the laws and restrictions that are created specifically against 'pit bulls' is their biggest problem. It is these laws that prevent them from being able to be adopted in many good homes. It is these laws that often prevent shelters from adopting them out at all. It is these laws that force otherwise good dogs in otherwise good homes to meet almost certain death in the shelters.

Go ahead and read the article. It really isn't all bad and is actually a little empathetic toward the plight of pit bulls in this country. But it's just painful when the news media can't do enough research to get basic stats right -- or to understand the topics they're writing about.

When Rachael Ray fans are the biggest problem facing 'pit bulls' in this country, then I will not have much to do here as a blogger...

UPDATE:  Newsweek has a SECOND editorial on the topic -- This story is actually by the same author as the first one -- but this one actually makes sense.  Here's a quote:

My reporting revealed that my issue isn’t with the dog – it’s with people. We are the ones that are ultimately responsible for the dogs – including the dog’s reputation. Pit bull owners have to be realistic about the potential for their dogs to do damage. It’s a dog. If you can concede that all dogs can potentially cause problems,  that means yours can too. And the haters, don’t go into a feeding frenzy of misinformation. It’s ugly.

A couple recent examples of fear mongering

Ok, so these have nothing to do with dogs, but since I just completed a series that highlights the media's proneness to fear-mongering, I thought I would pass along a couple of other examples that have come up as I was writing this series - -unrelated to dogs -- but I think relevant nonetheless.

The first is a story that ran just about everywhere earlier this year including the ABC Nightly News and the New York Times. The story involved our "economy in tatters" that has led to a major increase in eating SPAM in the US.

While much of what was said is true -- the media completely failed to note the actual scale of the impact. Yes, sales of SPAM was up 50%. So yes, the union workers in Austin, MN were working a lot of overtime to keep up. But what does 50% mean?

Well, a couple of weeks ago, I attended a presentation by Harry Balzer, a national expert on Food Trends in the US and he talked about this topic. According to Balzer's numbers (which would be as accurate as any that exist), every 12 weeks in the US -- for about the past 40 years -- about 1% of the US population will buy Spam. So, when in the first quarter of 2009, sales increased 50%, that meant that 1.5% of the US population bought Spam.  So while yes, what the media reported was technically true, what it failed to note was that in spite of the "economy in tatters", 98.5% of the people in the US STILL are not buying Spam.

Perspective is everything.

Secondly, last night on the Daily Show, John Stewart had a great segment on the media scare over H1N1 and then the SUBSEQUENT scare over the safety of the vaccine.  It really is a good piece that shows how much fear mongering the media is responsible for in all areas of our lives. You can watch the segment below.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Doubt Break '09
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Ron Paul Interview

My biggest fear is what will happen if there ever is a disease that we really should be afraid of comes out. After major fear mongering over things like the Avian Flu and now H1N1, it sure seems like the public will ignore it as another fear-mongering tactic by the media even if it is the next Bubonic Plague. I'm pretty certain I will.

Pit Bulls As Overarching Media Themes (Part 6 of 8)

This is part 6 of my 8 part series on Daniel Gardner’s book, the Science of Fear.

 

On May 4, 2006, Alan Hill of Independence, MO was seriously wounded when he was attacked by three ‘pit bulls’.  The dogs were known to be aggressive and the caretaker of a property where the dogs stayed purposefully let the dogs out just “to see what would happen.”

 

Over the course of the next 6 months, the Kansas City Star newspaper ran no fewer than 124 stories about ‘pit bulls’ (which is the equivalent of 2 articles running every 3 days for six months. Many were editorials. Many were news stories. The news stories covered everything from cities discussing breed bans to a few additional bite incidents. A couple of the bites were major – but many were simply stories about dogs that scratched someone. One TV news station’s lead story on a Friday night consisted of one of their camera men SEEING a pit bull – and the video they showed is a shaky video of a photographer trying to capture a pit bull on film as the dog slinks away into a wooded area afraid.

 

As the stories mounted, cities throughout the Kansas City metropolitan area began discussing potential bans on pit bulls. The newspaper was there to cover it. The more the Star covered these stories, the more of a moral panic there became – which led to more articles by the media.  The feedback loop was in full force.

 

Articles from the newspaper showed a clear bias about what cities should do about pit bulls – they all must go. Headlines included:

 

“Lee’s Summit stalls on dog regulations”

“Independence poised to approve ban”

“Incidents prove pits must go”

“Action on dogs delayed”

“Efforts across the area to put new limits on pit bulls will continue tonight”

“Olathe stands by its dog law; given second chance to ban pit bulls, council declines, going against the trend in other cites.”

 

The last one is especially damning because at the time, 19 area cities had discussed a potential ban on pit bulls, and only 3 had chosen to move forward with breed specific restrictions.

 

To put the 124 articles in six months into perspective, in the year prior to the attack on Alan Hill, the Star ran only 16 stories about ‘pit bulls’ – with several of those being articles that cast them in a positive light.

 

Over the years, similar things have happened in cities around the country. The media will virtually ignore ‘pit bulls’ for years at a time, but then, when one attack occurs, the media will begin to write all kinds of negative articles about these types of dogs. 

 

In Omaha, in the 12 months prior to June 24, 2008, KETV ran 19 news stories about ‘pit bulls’ (about 25% of which were about Mike Vick).  On June 24^th, a three year old girl was attacked by a ‘pit bull’, and in the 12 months that followed, the news station ran 62 news stories.

 

In The Science of Fear, Gardner notes that in many cases, one big event may lead to the formation of a larger narrative. Whenever a story fits into an existing storyline, it is generally strengthened by the larger story.  If a story isn’t part of a larger narrative – or worse, if it contradicts the narrative – it is far less likely to see the light of day.

 

Gardner uses the media publicity about Road Rage as an example:

 

“In 1998, Time magazine declared, “It’s high noon on the country’s streets and highways. This is road recklessness, auto anarchy, an epidemic of wanton carmanship.”  Road rage. In 1994, the term scarcely existed and the issue was nowhere to be seen. In 1995, the phrase started to multiply in the media, and by 1996, the issue had become a serious public concern.  Americans were increasingly rude, nasty and violent behind the wheel; berserk drivers were injuring and killing in growing numbers; it was an “epidemic”.  Everyone knew that, and by 1997, everyone was talking about it.  Then it stopped. Just like that.  The term road rage still appears now and then in the media – it’s too catchy to let go – but the issue just vanished about the time Monica Lewinsky became the most famous White House Intern in history.”

 

The feedback loop was broken, and the media moved on to the new interest among the American public.  Ironically, there appeared to be no real reason for the heavy emphasis on road rage. From the book:

 

“’Headlines not withstanding, there was not – there is not – the least statistical or other scientific evidence of more aggressive driving on our nation’s roads,’ concluded journalist Michael Fumento in a detailed examination of the alleged epidemic published in The Atlantic Monthly in August 1998. “Indeed, accidental, fatality and injury rates have been edging down. There is no evidence that ‘road rage’ or an aggressive-driving ‘epidemic’ is anything but a media invention, inspired primarily by something as simple as alliteration: road rage.’”

 

 

In the late 1970s, society had begun to take an interest in the cruel sport of dog fighting in the US. Media reports began to increase as reports of law enforcement raids on dog fighting rings began to pop up. 

 

In July, 1987, Rolling Stone Magazine did a remarkable and graphic report on teenagers, inner city gangs, violence and abuse of ‘pit bulls’ entitled “A Boy and his Dog in Hell”.  On July 27^th of 1987, Sports Illustrated ran a cover article – complete with a picture of a teeth-baring pit bull (pictured left) with the headline “Beware of this Dog.”

 

In the same month, Time Magazine ran an article entitled “Time Bomb on Legs”.  The article may have been the worst of the articles that ran. From Karen Delise’s book The Pit Bull Placebo:

 

“Horror Author Stephen King could not have created a more frightening monster than this portrayal of the Pit bull. The second sentence of this article reads: “never in the delirious dream of a disordered brain could anything more savage, more appalling, more hellish, be conceived than the dark form and savage face (of the pit bull). The rest of the article descends even further, vilifying the Pit bull as a creature that revels in the “frenzy of blood-letting,” and described as “lethal weapons” with “steel trap jaws” and as “killer dogs” and the new “hound of the Baskervilles.” An unproven, unreferenced claim of Pit bulls biting with 1800 psi is even included.” 

 

(My note, since, science has shown us that pit bulls indeed bite with the same relative bite force as other medium sized dogs – at about 320 psi).

 

In this same month, in 1987, People magazine ALSO ran an article on ‘pit bulls’ entitled “An Instinct for the Kill”.

 

By the end of August, 1987, the larger narrative of ‘pit bulls’ as “aggressive killers” was begun. It didn’t matter much of the information included in the articles wasn’t really true – and that many of the claims were as outrageously wrong and unsubstantiated as the 1800 psi statements.  It didn’t matter there were literally thousands of examples of ‘pit bulls’ as household pets that existed. It didn't matter if statistically and scientifically the fear they were creating was not valid -- much like in the "road rage" example. All that seemed to matter was that a type of dog, with a very “cool” sounding name, ‘pit bulls’, made for very dramatic magazine articles, very dramatic covers and increase sales.

 

It is almost no wonder, with the media coverage of the time that created a moral panic, that over the next 18 months, some of the country's post notable bans on pit bulls came into existance -- Denver, Kansas City, KS, and Miami -Dade County all passed their breed bans in 1989 -- and all exist today, in spite of the wealth of science and research that has shown that there is little scientific reason to ban particular breeds of dogs, and evidence that shows that such bans are not effective.

 

And yet, the narrative began – and it is a narrative that continues to this day. It’s the same narrative that leads to stories that normally wouldn’t be “newsworthy” on their own making it into the headlines because it supports the larger narrative.

 

It’s the same narrative that allows a news station in Mobile, AL to report on only 6 of the city’s 80 dog bites throughout the year – but in every incident where a breed of dog was mentioned, the breed was a ‘pit bull’ – even though they did not lead the list of biting breeds and made up only a small percentage of the total bites.

 

It’s the same narrative that allows media outlets in places like Kansas City and Omaha to create even larger local narratives whenever a singular incident gives them the opportunity to.

 

And it’s the larger narrative that relies on the feedback loop to continue to create fear, and then have the public fear come to them in terms of more viewers/readers, that leads them to create even more stories about ‘pit bulls’ that feeds the cycle.

 

It’s time to end the narrative.

The media loves a pit bull story

In Connecticut, an animal control officer died this week.  While the cause of death is unknown, the media sure has added some confusion to the mix.  

The headline from the Boston Herald notes: "Animal Officer Dies after Pit Bull Encounter."  Which is theoretically true. The officer was "knocked down" but not bitten by a 'pit bull in an incident earlier this week.

However, according to all of the other media sources, the incident and the animal control officer's death were in no way related.  (The cause of death is unknown).

So yes, it is tragic that an animal control officer has died -- at way too young of an age.  However, why is it that every single media source keeps referring to the story?  Would it be unusual for an animal control officer to be involved in an incident involving a dog the week before they died?  The dog did not even even bite the officer? 

And 18 different media sources have picked up the story.  The media loves itself a pit bull story. Even if the dog wasn't responsible for the tragedy...and even if the dog, like most dogs, didn't bite anyone. It still makes the headline in the story.

Media creating hysteria lately?

Des Moines, IA Considering BSL, News Report "Interesting"

Ok, so I said that I would start a new series this week, but at this point, it doesn't make sense to start a new series on a Friday. So part 1 will come either Sunday or Monday. In the meantime, there was an interesting story from out of Des Moines this week.

It seems that the folks in the city council there are considering toughening their ordiance on certain types of dogs. Currently, the Des Moines ordinance declares all 'pit bull' type dogs "vicious" -- and while some groups are calling to get that repealed, Des Moines is considering making the regulations more stringent by adding higher licensing fees, insurance requirements and owner training to the requirements.

Apparently they haven't learned from their own struggles (still a lot of dog bites even though they have already singled out 'pit bulls') or the struggles in nearby Omaha, NE -- where they put a lot of qualifications on 'pit bull' owners which focused a lot of resources on the dog owners who weren't going to be a problem in the first place instead of focusing their efforts on the truly problem owners.  In Omaha, it led to a 37% increase in dog bites in the first half of 2009.

Now here is the other "intersting" part of the original article.

According to the article, the last year that dog bite numbers were kept was in 2006. Huh? So they are now looking to increase their dangerous dog laws -- but based on 3 year old numbers that they are no longer tracking? 

According to these 2006 numbers, 'pit bulls' aren't even the most common biting breed -- that honor goes to Labrador Retrievers.  This isn't instantly clear, as the article notes that 'pit bulls' make up nearly 29% of the city's 182 dog bites, while Labradors had 56 bites total.  I'm not sure why the media would choose to not give easily comparable numbers (both in percents, or both in real numbers).  For the record, that would be 52 dog bites for 'pit bulls' and 56 for Labs.  Labs are given a pass though as they are "one of the most widely owned dogs registerd in Des Moines".  No doubt 'pit bulls' are popular also, but that is not called out.

Meanwhile, there is one other glaring point in the article. According to the article, the city's 182 dog bites are spread out among only 5 breeds. Yip, 5. Now there are 140 some breeds recognized by the breed clubs, the idea that only 5 of them could be responsibe for 182 total dog bites would be a phenominal statistic.  Which brings me back to a point I've made before here.  It seems like very often, city animal control departments just lump dogs into large categories for measurement. If the dog is large and black, it ends up as a "Lab mix".  If it's vaguely brown and shaggy, it is a "shepherd mix".  If it has a wider body/blocky head, it is a "pit bull".  You may end up with another category for Northern breeds ("Huskies"), Chows or Rottweilers, and then everything else gets grouped in as "other".

Which is why, in virtually every city you look at, three "breeds" end up in the top three of dog bites -- German Shepherds, Labs and pit bulls -- because they end up becoming very large catch-all categories for categorization purposes.

Hopefully Des Moines wisens up on their idea for more restrictions -- and focuses on laws that will focus on irresponsible owners, vs just creating more hoops for responsible owners to jump through. And hey, how about keeping some decent statistics on dog bites too while you're at it.

Consumer confidence in the media is diminishing

A new Pew Reseearch Study of people and the press notes that now, 63% of the people now report that they feel like the information they get from the media is often off base -- this is up from 53% of  people who doubted the accuracy of the media in 2007.  This is the least confidence people have had in the media since Pew began this study in 1985.

According to the full study, currently, only 29% of Americans feel that the news organizations generally get their facts strait, and only 21% say that the media will admit their mistakes while 70% of people say they regularly try to cover up mistakes.  74% of people say that news organizations tend to favor one side or the other when it comes to dealing with political or social issues. 

Much of the survey is centered around partisan politics, but overall it is showing that by and large, people in general trust what they hear in the media less than they have over the past nearly 3 decades.

Given that the single largest category of posts I've made on this blog over the past 3 years has been misleading reporting by the media, none of this comes as much of a surprise....but I'm glad that the general public is starting to realize what is going on.

Balanced Reporting in the media?

Since I'm having a little fun talking about media mis-reporting and bias this week,  I think I should probably include this one as well.

In Mobile, AL, a 26 year old woman helped out a a 13 year old girl who was being chased by a 'pit bull' in the neighborhood. The woman put herself in between the girl and the dog and ended up getting bitten by the dog.

I would be remiss if I didn't note the desperate need for teaching our children how to act around dogs (ie -- don't run from them because you can't outrun them and it only brings out their prey drive) -- and noting that the owner of this dog is grossly neglegent in a lot of cases and has four tickets to show for it.

But I thought it was interesting that the TV station used this as an opportunity to note that of the 80 dog bites in Mobile this year, 22 were by Labrador Retrievers, 18 were by 'pit bulls', 13 by mixed breeds, 9 by Chow Chows, 4 by Golden Retrievers, 3 by Boxers, 2 by Blue Heelers, and 1 by a Poodle (and yes, I realize that doesn't count up to 80, I have no explanation).

So out of curiosity, I decided to check to see how many of these dog bites were covered by WKRG TV -- the news station that covered this particular bite incident. 

So using their handy little search feature, I searched generic terms like "dog bite, dog attack, dog maul" and then also searched under each of the individual breed names.

The results?

Six stories about dog bites so far this year by WKRG -- 5 of the six were "pit bull" bites, and the other incident has no breed of dog mentioned at all.

So while "pit bulls" make up aobut 22% of the total bites in Mobile (Labs make up 28%), they happen to make up 100% of the stories where the breed of dog was mentioned in the article and 83% of the total stories covered.

Still think the 'pit bull' problem isn't something largely created by the media and how and when the media decides to report on dog bites?  Still think any study on overall dog bites that relies solely on media reports is going to be in any way accurate? 

Cross Country Runners attacked by dogs

Two high school cross country runners in Silver Lake, KS wer bitten yesterday by a pair of dogs. The girls will be fine - -although they are a little rattled by the attack.

But once again, it's the media reporting that is problematic. Does anyone fact check anything anymore?

KTKA News in Topeka had the initial article with the headline "Pit bulls attack cross-country runners".  The dogs are described as 115 pound dogs -- which wouldn't be 'pit bulls' by hardly anyone's standards. Even in the video newscast, where the female news anchor calls the dogs "pit bulls' on two occassions, the male anchor corrects himself once from saying "pit bulls" and just replaces it with "dogs".

In today's Topeka Capital Journal, they refer to the dogs as "dogs" throughout, but they do say that the High School coach said the dogs "resembled a pit bull mix". Uh huh.

Meanwhile, KSNT in Topeka -- even as ealry as last night, had updated their website to call the dogs "American Bulldogs" -- which sounds a lot more realistic of a breed ID for any dog that is even close to 115 lbs.

Which brings us back to a few questions.

1) Why does the media report dogs to be "pit bulls" even if they're not pit bulls?  Why is fact checking this not important?

2) With as much information as is out there about dogs, how is it that no one seems to realize a 115 lbs dog is not a 'pit bull'?

3) If the news stations hadn't thought the attacking dogs were 'pit bulls', would they have bothered to cover the story at all?

Public perception is created in large part by the media. But the media has been woefully inaccurate and selective in their coverage of dog bites that take place. Which means so much of public perception is based of of inaccurate and misleading information.  We must demand better.

The Details Matter

Yesterday, a story was broken about a 4 month old Onslow (NC) child who had his toes chewed off by a 'pit bull'.  According to all of the reports, the mother was "on medication" and apparently slept through the infant's crying as the dog gnawed off the baby's foot.

Headlines broke out everywhere -- less than 24 hours later, the story has been picked up in over 230 media outlets around the world.  All with more or less the same lack of detail thanks to this story from the Associated Press.  Some stories even mention how the dog "mauled" the infant.

The AP story says that the child's parents were dog-sitting the "1 year old" pit bull for a friend who had been arrested on gun charges.

But there appears to be more to the story - -and not everything in the AP story turns out to be true. 

The Jacksonville News (the hometown of the incident) tells a slightly different story.

According to the Jacksonville News (and most local media outlets) the dog is 12 WEEKS old -- not 12 months old. Taking the dog from an adult dog to just a small puppy. Anyone who knows much about puppies is that puppies chew.  A lot. Breed is irrelevant. 

But the info on the dog's owner seems relevant.  Apparently the dog belonged to Aaron Watkins -- who was in jail under bond for possession of marijuana and discharging an illegal firearm.  They keep good company.  It also makes one wonder what type of "medication" was being taken that would prevent two adults -- who say they were sleeping in the same room with the child -- from waking up to the child's crying (I assume the child cried while having its toes chewed off).

But none of that ran in the hundreds of newspapers that carried the story. Nope, just the 'pit bull' and the child's toes -- with the age of the dog being incorrect. 

And we wonder why there are irrational fears about certain types of dogs....

The media, breed bans, and the ineffectiveness of breed bans

Last week, a South Salt Lake City man was bitten by two dogs outside of a gas station.

The dogs, roaming off-leash, approached the man. There is no word that the dog approached the man aggressively, but regardless, the man became scared and when the dogs got close to him, he began kicking one of the dogs. The dogs retaliated and "attacked" the man.

Of course, the headlines were all about the "pit bull" attack -- not about the reality that the man attacked the dogs first.

When police came to get the dogs, police officials said the dogs were quite friendly and showed no signs of aggression...apparently only showing aggression when they are kicked.  Many dogs would react the same way.

The story goes on to talk about how attacks like this often lead to talk of breed bans -- even though the news source didn't find one person in favor of such a ban --- although th Humane Society of Utah spoke out against such a ban.

The news station also noted that the community of South Jordan, UT passed a ban on pit bulls (which happened in 1997).  The article even shows South Jordan's dog bites from 2000-2007. During that time, the total number of dog bites went from 42 to 112.  Less than 5% are coming from 'pit bulls'. It's interesting to note the huge increase in dog bites from 2000 to 2007 -- a 167% increase in bites over the 7 year timeframe. It's worth noting that South Jordan is a rapidly growing city in Utah -- and the population grew from 29,437 to 48,046 during this timeframe. But while the city has grown in population by 63%, the number of dog bites has increased at more than double the rate of the population.

The breed ban there isn't improving public safety in South Jordan. Bites continue to go up at an alarming rate.  And quite likely this is in part due actually TO the breed ban -- which as noted in Yakima earlier today, eats up animal control resources dealing with 'pit bulls' (both real and not real) and not with aggressive dogs -- regardless of breed. Additionally, the media fear-mongering leads to people having an irratoinal fear of pit bull type dogs -- which would lead a man outside of a gas station to kick two friendly dogs because of his unfounded fears -- and actually CAUSE him to get attacked.

And so the vicious cycle goes.  A 'pit bull' bites someone.  The media uses the situation to fear monger and create talk of breed bans even when such talk really doesn't exist. The media even uses the "other cities are doing it" approach -- ignoring the fact that it isn't improving public safety. And then another city passes a ban, which decreases public safety, and increases ignorance about what it really takes to increase public safety, which leads to more dog bites, and the cycle continues.

It's time to break the cycle. It's time to insist that cities look at ordinances that actually WORK -- not just laws that other cities are passing.  It only makes sense...and we need to quit letting the media fear-monger us into bad legislation and further ignorance among people in our communities.