My Photo


follow us in feedly

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Best Of KC Dog Blog

Become a Fan

« Weekly Roundup - Week Ending 7/25/10 | Main | Kansas City Mayor Talking Pet Issues on the Radio Today »

July 26, 2010



Excellent article. This makes a lot of sense. However, I've also found I can hand them all the the "whys" on a silver platter and still sometimes can't get them to report the entire truth.


We miss you Walter Cronkite.


Another great post Brent...

Unfortunately, addressing Nokillhouston's concern, most media outlets do have an agenda and so your comment about "handing them the "whys" " is very valid. Their agenda might be as simple as gaining more views or viewers (readers) and thus important details (like the "whys") will get glossed over in the interest of sensationlism. Other times, the reporter may have the agenda and will only be looking for a quote that can be spun in the wrong direction.

Sadly, we, the news reading public, are to blame for this. We don't care enough about the "good" stories of the day to make it worthwhile for the news to focus on them. We eagerly gobble up sensational stories and ask for more. Like Brent said, many people don't ask the right questions and therefore, the stories are allowed to fade away, even when the initial story was less than accurate.

We can change this by utilizing social media to question these stories (as Brent does every day). Repost blogs like this, discuss how things went awry and make sure you use the name of the paper or the station that aired the original story. Eventually, when enough people had questioned their news gathering abilities, that media outlet will do a search on themselves and see the errors that they have made!


Just received this great blog article about this very subject by a reporter with the Denver Post. I'm passing it along to you because I hope more people will read it:

H Houlahan



PetDocsOnCall09, I know media mostly want the sensationalistic stories, but even when I provide these stories regarding our local animal control facility (BARC), it seems that they mostly only report what the city's spin doctor says---most of the time this information is FAR from the truth. For instance, I sent out a press release regarding a dog that entered BARC with a severe head/eye injuries. Rescuers were BEGGING to take her out of BARC to get her to a specialist. BARC would not let her leave and instead planned surgery to remove her eyes even though they did not have proper equipment. A reporter read my press release on air (I recognized my words) but did not contact me for more information. They instead interviewed the city's PR person who lied, and some other woman who had absolutely nothing to do with the story other than seeing it online. (BTW: The dog died after surgery--and the 3 rescuers who tried to save her were banned from BARC).

The same thing happened when we got the media involved in the story about the pet adoption facility that the city plans to waste $12 million on (in a remote location--bad for adoptions; also in a flood plain; next to a sewer treatment facility; on land where protected birds live--it will destroy their nesting grounds; and a city council member was lying and threatening people in the neighborhood). The reporter didn't show any of my interview and only showed the city's dog and pony show. Ugh.

This is why I started writing for At least I can write the entire truth about what is really going on here.

The comments to this entry are closed.