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.
Will this never end, seriously? The magnitude of this misreporting is unbelievable. It kills me when anti-pit bull people act like media bias is dubious, at best. I mean, come onnnn... how can people not see through this nonsense by now? And how can the media continue to pull this same old stupid crap over and over?
Don't worry, rhetorical questions.
Posted by: Julie | September 01, 2009 at 09:40 PM
You can now spell main stream media, "mediocre".
Posted by: Social Mange | September 02, 2009 at 07:32 AM
Remember back in the day when the "rags" by the grocery store checkout stand carried papers such as The Enquirer? All the stories in those "rags" were more ridiculous than the next;alien stories were always their forte. (And yes these papers are still alive and kicking)
IMO all of the media has sunk to the same lows at those "rags". The days of true investigative reporting that actually meant something, are long gone.
Posted by: KC KS Kills Dogs | September 03, 2009 at 08:35 AM
Yes, it's a shame, but true. The people we used to know as journalists are long gone.
They've been replaced by a media that is a profit-seeking business first, a reliable source of information second. I often wonder if the newsies even realize how much editorializing they do when supposedly reporting. I think part of the reason for this is the concentration of media into fewer and fewer hands. We need more of the old-time independent newspapers and local TV stations but I doubt they will come back now.
Most of the people I know pretty much discount reporting by mainstream media outlets. But the people I know aren't exactly mainstream types.
Posted by: Selma | September 05, 2009 at 12:38 PM
I just stumbled on your blog while looking for a rescue dog to adopt and I had to tell you how refreshing your posts are.
Two days ago I went to my local SPCA to look at available dogs. I saw a Weimaraner that seemed like a lovely dog. I wanted to visit with it in the Meeting Room to see if she would be a good fit for adoption. When I asked a volunteer to see her I was informed I couldn't unless my adoption application had been pre-approved because she was a pit bull. I asked them how they determined the breed (I'm fairly dog savvy and have seen many William Wegman greeting cards in my day).
They said her coat and build were that of a pit bull (she has a short, silver-grey coat and a tall muscular build similar to a Labrador). I asked why her being a "pit" meant I needed to be pre-screened. They told me they had to be sure I could handle an aggressive breed and that it was legal to own a pit bull in my town. The entire experience was extremely frustrating and ridiculous.
I understand that they need to ensure people are obeying the law and are adopting dogs responsibly, but I have a hard time believing a volunteer staff of high school aged students can correctly identify the breeds of the dozens of dogs that come in each week.
Posted by: Sue | September 06, 2009 at 11:52 PM