According to KMBC tonight, it is a story about a 77-year old woman who got "attacked" by a "pit bull". The woman got bruised up pretty good, and there appears to be a pretty bad scratch (bite maybe?) .
Last year, Leavenworth wisely opted to remain with a non-breed specific dangerous dog ordinance. Good for them. Who knows what type of dog this may or may not have been given that the only ID given on this is story was either by the woman or an assumption on the reporter's part.
I'll also note how disturbing this is that this was KMBC's "Top Story". Let's look at the headlines over at KSHB shows the following headlines:
"Man Exposes himself to children"
"Garth Brooks Movie Tickets go on sale"
"Smoking ban compromise Promised"
"Planned Parenthood says changes are outrageous"
"KC Mayor proposes office for immigrant affairs"
And over at KCTV (where all news is bad news):
"Man found dead after carjacking"
"Massage may have led to professor's kiling"
"Man fires gun outside of daycare"
"More than $5 million worth of cocain seized"
"Two killed in Missouri Storms"
You get the idea.
So how is it that the pit bull knocking down the little old woman was a "Top Story" tonight? Sensationalism maybe?
That is why I dont watch the news with my kids in the room because it seems to be rated R! (IT IS SCARY & DEPRESSING!)
Posted by: morgan | October 19, 2007 at 08:10 AM
KMBC has a thing against Pit Bulls, they love to kiss Alan Hill's ass anytime they get the chance to.
Posted by: Tony | October 19, 2007 at 08:23 AM
Well, look how much attention these inane stories get from both sides of the fence.
Journalists are generally under-educated, underpaid, overworked and underappreciated these days. Most of them are kids out of school working under awful conditions.
They are under immense pressure to fill the huge space allotted to 'news', which is largely opinion and hearsay. Round the clock 'news' stations. Extended daily broadcasts. Media websites which need constant updating. No time to filter out the superficial or even check the facts.
These days, most of the 'news' items are equivalent to stories about how many people have locked their keys in their cars on any given day, which of course becomes a crisis situation deserving of disproportionate fear-mongering. They do this with every trivial fact of life, including dog bites which are really not a big deal overall and never have been.
I became disenchanted with these bobble-heads and panderers a long time ago, but, like looking at an insect nation living under a rock, I can't look and I just can't look away.
I used to say that when you mass-produce anything, it ends up being plastic.
The same is true of our so-called news these days. No style, no substance, nothing but superficiality and the promotion of hysteria.
hysteria
n 1: state of violent mental agitation [syn: craze, delirium, frenzy, fury]
2: excessive or uncontrollable fear
3: neurotic disorder characterized by violent emotional outbreaks and disturbances of sensory and motor functions
The media hacks have a lot of responsibility for the increasingly strident tone of our society. We need some people with class and principles to take over the job of relaying information. Will that happen? I doubt it, not when advertising revenue, ie, filthy lucre, is the ultimate goal.
The thing is, they don't care who they hurt in order to gain attention through audience share. They have no compassion, no empathy for those they target. The line between packs of baying paparazzi and decent, ethical reporters has been hopelessly blurred.
Too few people control information and unless independent news outlets start cropping up, it can only get worse, not better. Blogs are a good counterpoint to mass media but I'd really like to see some old-time newspapers and independent TV stations come back into the field. I don't mind hearing people's opinions, I'd just like to hear more of them, more often.
Posted by: Caveat | October 19, 2007 at 09:27 AM