My Photo


follow us in feedly

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Best Of KC Dog Blog

Become a Fan

« It's academic | Main | Weekly Roundup - Week Ending 12/21/08 »

December 20, 2008



Tragic for the family and my condolences to all but even when more facts come to light it`s very unlikely that 270 Media Sources will retract,enlighten or educate.

As Karen Delise says on her site.The damage is done and these stories remain in the Archives no matter what.

Once again the story becomes about the alleged 'pit bulls' and you don`t have to be much of a canine expert to know that none of the Breeds lumped under 'Pit Bull' approach 100 pounds but then again the Mob don`t really care about facts.

I don`t know how Journalists are getting away with this type of reporting before ANY facts are known.


When I read that I could but wonder do these people need to have their eyes examined? For the media to even print this is just lunacy. You would think that they would report facts not what they make up. These people really do know the facts and they do know that a pit type dog is, they just act stupid. They know a pit is not 100lbs, please let's not act like you're uneducated on the breed, they have written hundreds and hundreds of stories demeaning the breed. How many times has the media going in and eyeball the pits when a breed ban was being proposed, and know what their characteristics are.

I know that they lurk around cities when bans are being voted on, so they can't tell me that any pit is 100lbs, they know better, they just are trying to get the frenzy to continue.

Sorry I think that the media knows what's it doing and by sensationalizing a story, sells. That is the bottom line.

They get away with it because we allow them to, if we would write to the editor and they have enough complaints then we can only hope that something will be done. It's just not with pit bulls, it seems anything printed and they feel that will sell, if it's fact or not is printed for the shock affect.


Yes, using 'pit bull' guarantees more reader attention which means higher revenue for the media source.

Due to the cutbacks, an already under-educated, overworked, underpaid workforce is now struggling to keep up. Add online updates, 24-hour 'news' radio and TV, 3 or 4 daily newscasts when there used to be 2 and you can see they are in a race they will never win.

So yeah, who has time to actually investigate a story? Besides, it's much easier when the newswires are firing out constant releases.

All you do is pull them, change a few words so you can put your name on it, and run it.

Stories about 'pit bulls' have it all - scary animules with teeth, blood and guts - made to order for an industry that has pretty much sold out every principle it used to embody.


I was reading the dog bite Investigative worksheet on Jim Crosby`s site.

Is that used in fatalities?
Are fatalities by canines or alleged to be by canines properly investigated?

jon bozak

It never dawned on me that the trickle down from our tanking economy would have this effect, but it's all so obvious. This scares me. With print media collapsing, and no 'bailout' to rescue it, the centralized AP is going to continue to do exactly what we're witnessing in this particular dog attack story. Whereas before with individually reported dog attack stories, we could contact, and refute the info directly to the columnist, now that opportunity is practically eliminated.

It's as if by happenstance a more efficient "Pit Bull Attacks!" News Robot" has been developed to auto-generate misinformation.

This is very bad. I'm really concerned because as news corporations develop more efficient and cost-effective ways to get information out, such as what you're talking about in Detroit, they don't go back and change those methods. Those methods become entrenched in a historically static system and then utilized for a good long time -- and the fallout from that? Suspect investigation into the facts, reliance on easily-digested stereotypes, and zero accountability. Bad news.


Brad, with all due respect to your (and Jon's) thoughtful and (sadly) VERY plausible interpretation of the New World Media, I offer the other side of this re-organization.

These news sources are downsizing for a reason - readership (and therefore advertising) is down. Is it that "we" are consuming less information? Or, is it that there are new sources of information that we prefer over the old format? I tend to believe that many are now turning to online "papers" and "magazines", blogs, etc. for information. With the popularity and growth of alternative information sources comes opportunity (for those that seize it) and the possibility of reaching previously out-of-reach readership.

Maybe we should think of it this way, fellas, those with popular/thoughtful blogs may be able to leverage their thoughts into the "pages" (on-line and print) of damn-near any media source...wishful thinking, sure. But this may be our only chance for a while.

One thing I've learned from the dogs, persistence shows'em how to earn a biscuit.


It appears that I should've addressed my comment to Brian (and not "Brad".) My apologies...


Or "Brent" actually -- but no offense taken.

Donovan -- I concur that people are spending more time with media and news. There is more "news" available than at any point ever before in our history. And yes, it's at the expense of the dead tree media.

I've got some thoughts on this also that I'm going to post on tomorrow (probably on my other blog -- but will link to it if I do). The problem is that as news sources over-report innaccuracies because of the lack of reporting staff -- they still have more "reach" than any blogs out there and people have to accurately seek out the alternative information...


Brent (third time is a charm, right?)...I agree, the "reach" of the main stream media is a tough one to overcome; and when the info is chock full'O inaccuracies, well, it is a bad day for all of us (and that goes double for the dogs.)

While the "comment section" on these types of reports are often infuriating, I have (from time to time) posted links to NCRC, etc.. Again, in that format, I am attempting to reach folks that I may never have had access to. How effective is this approach? (I may never know.)

Certainly, I'm not looking to make a mole-hill out of a mountain, but I do see opportunity in change. (not suggesting that you don't) Please do come through with your thoughts on this one - looking forward to it.

"...and people have to accurately seek out the alternative information..."

Great point.


I also attempt some education in the comments.
There`s certainly a certain group that can`t be reached(they have an agenda) but I believe there are people reading those comments that may be looking for factual info.

I read a comment somewhere and I can`t remember where(perhaps a blog)that said Don`t post for those who are posting,post for those who are just reading.

You would drive yourself crazy attempting to discuss anything with most of the Posters.

I think that`s great advice.

The Media needs to be countered with sites like NCRC,Animal Farm and others.
And when more facts on fatalities come to light the info has to be put out there as this blog does.

If the Media won`t tell the truth,it must be told elsewhere.

The comments to this entry are closed.