Question.
Let's assume you work for a local news source. Two years ago, your city passes a specific law that was designed to decrease the number of dog bites in your city. As a reporter, you decide to do a follow-up story on the law to see if it's working. Do you:
a) Get the dog bite stats to see if it's working
b) Talk to the victim of the dog bite that pushed for the changed law and see if she thinks it's working?
If you're a reporter in Omaha,you apparently do option b.
The reporter did also talk to the head enforcement officer at the Nebraska Humane Society who also said that the law was "working" - noting that last year (when they also had their current dangerous dog law) they had 5 serious 'pit bull" bites, this year so far they've only had one.
I think the one stat provided by NHS is interesting. First of all, they compared the number of serious bites by pit bulls from one year after the law was enacted to another year after the law was enacted -- not to where numbers were before the ordinance was enacted. 2009 was a pretty bad year for dog bites all around in Omaha -- in the first year after the ordinance was passed.
NHS also casually mentioned that Labradors have already had 6 'serious' bites as well in the first half of this year. It is worth noting here that 5 was the maximum number of "serious" Lab bites Omaha saw in any FULL year between 2003 and 2007 before the ban took effect. But hey, it's not a 'pit bull' right? So it must be working -- even if 'serious' would be defined the same way regardless of the type of dog involved.
Also, out of curiousity, why has KETV not reported any of those 6 serious Lab bites this year? Just curious.
The Nebraska Humane Society doesn't give out dog bite numbers -- and have been very secretive about the impact of their laws. They tend to just give out whatever snippets support their case. The new laws have been very profitable for them -- bringing in an extra $100,000 a year in revenue from the city PLUS one of the requirements for 'pit bull' owners to get around the law is for dog owners to get their dog to pass the canine good citizen test -- which is nicely available for a fee through the NHS.
However, a simple call to the city clerk's office would give the reporter the actually data that shows that overall dog bites have gone up since the law was enacted. This news report also comes a week after the Platte Institute noted that Omaha's ban was a "waste of taxpayer's dollars'.
I attended journalism school....and we had entire classes dedicated to Freedom of Information Acts and Sunshine Laws. So why is it too much to ask for the media to find and report the actual data? To date, there has yet to be a media outlet in Omaha that has actually reported the numbers.
Talking to the victim and asking if they think it's working is not the same as getting the actual information. It's important we force city leaders to review the total success or failure of ordinances -- and open access to that information is the route to do it. Unfortunately it doesn't appear as if anyone in Omaha is ready to dive into the real data to see how the taxpayer's money is being wasted there and how overall public safety has not improved.
I've found the same thing in Houston when it comes to animal issues. It's hard to get reporters to do a story involving animal issues at all, then they frequently only report the "sanitized" version of a story that the city tells them. Most reporters rarely dig deeper to discover the entire story. It's very frustrating that citizens hear information that is most times very inaccurate.
It really makes me wonder how accurate the other stories that they report really are?
Posted by: No Kill Houston | July 12, 2010 at 04:28 PM
I don't understand why they didn't interview Paul the Octopus on the success of the law. That would really get ratings!
Posted by: YesBiscuit! | July 12, 2010 at 05:34 PM
"then they frequently only report the "sanitized" version of a story that the city tells them" -- exactly what happens in KC. The last time I went on tv I gave them all kinds of facts about intake number, etc. Head of AC blew smoke up their pant leg. Anything straight from the city is considered the source of the info so no fact checking required. They don't want to spend anytime fact checking anything the opposition says so none of my info made the air. You'd almost have better luck going on factless rants because no fact checking is required and at least you'll get some air time.
Posted by: MichelleD | July 12, 2010 at 09:33 PM
I don't know if you read the economics & politics blogger/econ professor Brad deLong, but "Why oh why can't we have a better press corp?" is one of his regular laments.
Posted by: Lisa Hirsch | July 13, 2010 at 03:28 PM
I think the issue is that the "reporters" are not "journalists". I'm frustrated with the same thing all over the place. They only ask questions and cover stores that are "sensational", not really trying to find out the facts.
Posted by: NicholeH | July 13, 2010 at 03:59 PM
Quality journalism is largely dead in this country, I swear. It's almost a waste of time to watch the news or read the paper anymore.
Posted by: Pai | July 13, 2010 at 07:03 PM
Pai, I agree. When I watch what is supposed to be the news, I am constantly amazed at the fluff and celebrity bs that they talk about. Recently, a program on one of our local news broadcasts was "how to get the perfect bangs".
This is why I am glad I get to write for Examiner.com. Since I can't get the media to do animal stories that matter or are even remotely accurate, I can write about it myself. I'm not a journalist, but at least I try to fact check before I publish something.
Posted by: Nokillhouston | July 14, 2010 at 01:46 AM
Journalism requires diligence and courage. Reporting requires good hair. End of story, except within the alternative media, like this blog. Tiny audience, relatively speaking, but it's growing. Who gets a newspaper anymore, and who watches the 6:00 news? Change takes time. We have it. They don't.
Posted by: Ted | July 14, 2010 at 06:37 AM
Last night on Nighline, they did a "story" on Mel Gibson's fights with his baby momma. Although Gibson came out sounding like a wingnut, is this really journalism worthy of Nightline? The next story was about Sarah Palin's daughter's plans to marry her baby daddy. Again, this is journalism? Seems the only thing newsworthy these days are children born out of wedlock.
Perhaps we can somehow work thought into the "pet overpopulation" theme and get some media coverage that way? ;-)
Posted by: Nokillhouston | July 15, 2010 at 12:01 PM