Considering the source

I love the internet. In many ways, I think the internet has helped level the playing field in the talks of BSL because we no longer need to have a multi-million dollar media outlet to tell our story and relay information. Thus, we don't have to rely on the media, which has often been biased on the subject.

Unfortunately, there is a con to this. The con is that on the internet, everyone gets more or less an equal voice -- regardless of their qualifications for being able to speak knowledgably about the subject.

And, unfortunately, it seems many Americans don't have the ability to discern good sources of information from bad ones -- including, at times, the media.

Last week, I stumbled across a terrifying and hilarious blog entitled "Literally Unbelievable". The blog essentially just pulls screen shots from facebook or twitter where people are believing, and commenting on articles published by The Onion. Now, I assume that  most of my readers know about The Onion, but for those over-seas or whatever, the Onion is a Satire newspaper (now mostly website) that has been published in the United States since 1988.  That's nearly 25 years of publishing satirical gems like how the American Public Hired a High-Powered Lobbyist to represent them in Washington DC.

And yet, when you read "Literally Unbelievable" you realize that many people are taking the 'news' published at the Onion as real news. 

While the website clearly highlights the absurdities in not understanding what are meaningful opinions and sources, there are many more subtle examples that are more concerning.

Yesterday, I published a very well-researched article on this blog by the Australian Veterinary Association speaking out against breed-specific legislation.

Now, call me crazy, but I would consider an association of Veterinarians, in a sophisticated country like Australia, with a lot of research backing up their stance to be a reliable source on the topic.

Meanwhile, this paper joins many other similarly posted articles by experts in this country that similarly oppose breed-specific legislation because it is ineffective at inproving public safety. In fact, there is a completely lack of professional support from experts in the animal behavior for breed-specific laws.

BSL is not support by Lawyers -- who understand the legal wranglings of such laws -- as the  American Bar Association has come out against the laws.

Dog trainers, who understand dog behavior more than anyone generally, don't support the laws -- as evidenced by position statements by the Association of Pet Dog Trainers, International Association of Animal Behavior Consultants, International Association of Canine Professionals, and National Association of Dog Obedience Instructors.

Rescue organizations, many of whom handle hundreds, if not thousands of dogs each year, and have trained staffs of professionals, don't support Breed-specific laws either -- including major national organizations like Best Friends Animal Society, Humane Society of the United States, ASPCA, and American Humane.

Breed-specific laws are also not supported by the National Animal Control Association, or the American Veterinary Medical Association -- who has their own very good position paper on dog bite prevention.

Given all of these outstanding resources on what are appropriate responses to dog bite solutions - -and specifically calling out why breed-based laws are wrong, why are we still having the conversation about Breed Bans?

Why are people still citing newspaper articles as sources for effective legislation, or blogs written by annonymous writers, or websites created by people with no animal handling expertise or, Miss Universe Canada, as experts on the topic of dangerous dog laws?

They're not.

Experts are experts. Science is science. And websites written by people who are not experts in the field they write about are not viable sources for information. Nor are people just because they're pretty.

So here's my call out to people in the public, and the media, please consider your sources. Deterimine who is or is not an expert, and report on what real, true, experts believe.

Thank you.

Comments

[H. Houlahan]

Like the non-experts themselves, the internetz confuses intemperate passion and an overabundance of free time with expertise won by hard and rigorous experience.

This is, of course, not limited to any one topic.

[Donna]

I have to wonder if the trait of gullibility was ever helpful to humans during our evolution. It's so hardwired in our species -- it just boggles the mind.

[Central Ohio Dog Blog]

Oooh... this reminds me of an article I stumbled across a couple weeks ago. Did you see this one? http://unexamineddog.com/2012/07/15/hey-have-you-heard-the-one-about-climate-change-and-dog-training/

[Keira Fritzen]

I get all of my best advice for living from celebs, pageant contestants & of course the Onion;)

[Zbyszek]

Great Pit Bull experts is very much .....

[Selma Mulvey]

Nice one.

The problem is that if you are an opinionist, and you support BSL obviously for emotional or financial reasons, you can't FIND any experts to support you.

[Che Bean]

Used to be that newspaper editors would question the sources for their journalists articles. Questions where who, what, where and why. Real journalist like Edward R. Murrows are now VERY few and VERY far in-between. Even most well known news outlets are more tabloid than informative. Sad.

[VetNewsNetwork]

Very nicely stated, Brent...and, if I can be a little self promoting here, what you are discussing is one of the main reasons why the Veterinary News Network created the American Society of Veterinary Journalists. ASVJ certifies veterinarians, veterinary technicians and anyone providing animal health/veterinary information through any sort of media, from television to Internet. Think of ASVJ like the American Meteorological Society...

Although we can't STOP uninformed people from posting their opinions, pet owners (and non-pet owners) can look for the ASVJ Seal of Approval as well as the initials, CVJ for Certified Veterinary Journalist.

[Randy]

Excellent observation about the availability of so much infomation most of it non vetted by any source. As various causes come and go it is a little chilling to realize a very few folks on what ever side of the argument they are on can set up numerous social media pages and make what ever appear much larger than it is. I suppose it is even more true in the world of animal welfare where emotions can tend to trumph any real information out there.