KC Star Reader Representative in denial

Derek Donavan, the Reader Representative for the Kansas City is in a bit of denial this week about his newspaper and the motives of his editors. 

Donavan, who is a nice enough guy, responded in yesterday's newspaper to some letters he received regarding a story about a "pit bull attack" of an 8 year old boy in suburban Lenexa.  The story never mentioned all the facts behind the bite (it was one bite, not an 'attack") that occurred when the 8 year old boy took a bone from the dog and the dog snapped for the bone and bit the kid.

People wrote in and asked if the newspaper only reported stories about "pit bull" bites.

"On the other hand, I think pit bull lovers do sometimes overlook that other dogs get bad press, too. The Star has run stories about attacks by bull mastiffs and German shepherds in the recent past, for example. And a Page A-1 story on Jan. 27 took a very sympathetic look at the pit bulls rescued from Vick’s kennels, noting that even dogs that had been abused can be socialized into pets."

While it's true that the Star ran two stories about other breeds of dogs involved in attacks, I would also note that the Bull Mastiff attack they covered was originally reported as a "pit bull" by a TV news station.  To the Star's credit, they got the story right by the time it ran in the newspaper, but I do question if they'd have shown up if it hadn't been reported to be a "pit bull".

And congrats to the star for running a positive story on the Mike Vick dogs.  It's a great story, no doubt.  But it was an AP story that was picked up in over 200 newspapers, CNN, the New York Times, and People magazine.  It wasn't like they went out of their way for the story. 

This is the same newspaper that ran 256 news stories and editorials containing the term "pit bull" in calendar year 2006 (not all were negative -- and one of the articles was mine).  But that's nearly one per day.  The Star has a lot of making up to do....so pardon our defensiveness.

Comments

[Caveat]

It never fails to make me laugh when they try to explain this bias (and by the way I hold them most responsible for BSL).

'Pit bull' lovers is one of my favourite put-downs (they think), as if that has anything to do with it. How about fairness lovers or people who have properly firing neurons?

They always dig up the one or two other stories they've run as if we would say "Oh, OK then, that's fair, you're not really fueling the flames here or using unbalanced reporting. Sorry to have bothered you."

At least they should have the spine to admit what they are doing.

[Becky]

Please correct me if I am wrong, but I do believe it was Donovan who published an extremely ignorant, disrespectful, nasty, and bigoted piece on pit bulls awhile back -- maybe a year? Wasn't that a piece for which Brent had published an excellent response?