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?
It's fear mongering aimed at boosting the paper's bottom line. Reinforces my belief that newspapers are no longer interested in truth or objectivity, only the 40 pieces of silver.
Posted by: SocialMange | October 11, 2009 at 09:37 AM
Have you seen this article from Australia?
http://tinyurl.com/yhvpadn
Posted by: Brenda | October 21, 2009 at 11:59 AM
Yes Brenda - -I caught this one this morning. Well done by the head of Australia's RSPCA. I'll for sure be posting this sometime this week.
Posted by: Brent Toellner | October 21, 2009 at 12:06 PM