What is it with the media's infatuation with 'bad rap' breeds?
- Thread starter RD
- Start date
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2005
- Messages
- 13
- Likes
- 0
- Points
- 0
Neither breed is bred to be "genetically predisposed" to be human aggressive. Bunk and more propaganda put out by those who wish to rationalize insupportable, phobic positions. I can only think it offered in the same vein of sensationalized, pandering tripe as those idiotic series of "When Animals Attack" videos.
Don't even get me started on how easily people are manipulated by psuedo science, manipulated statistics and authoritatively presented bushwa.
Don't even get me started on how easily people are manipulated by psuedo science, manipulated statistics and authoritatively presented bushwa.
Every other study people do on it says a different thing. All i know for sure is that I have never been scared of a pit or a rottweiler. I've been frightened by some of their owners but no one is putting them to sleep! Every case of a dog attacking or biting has an explanation. Eitheir the people claim it was never aggresive-but they never even worked with it, or a pack mentality, theres a ton of things. Definately not the dogs fault! Pits were bred to like people.
ya know?!
Exactly!
Pits were bred to be Dog aggressive, Not people aggressive, infact, just the opposite. From experiance I know that they favor dogs who are friendly to people but hate dogs... this is including them letting kids pulling ears, tails, biting, sitting on them...! How is it that dummies who fight dogs have them better socailized with people than others who own one or two pits (or any ther breed for that matter) who 'turn on people for no apparant reason.'
Puh-lease
Exactly!
Pits were bred to be Dog aggressive, Not people aggressive, infact, just the opposite. From experiance I know that they favor dogs who are friendly to people but hate dogs... this is including them letting kids pulling ears, tails, biting, sitting on them...! How is it that dummies who fight dogs have them better socailized with people than others who own one or two pits (or any ther breed for that matter) who 'turn on people for no apparant reason.'
Puh-lease
Ok. Being part of the "stupid, one-sided media" I feel I should add a bit.
First of all, not all of us journalists follow the "if it bleeds, it leads" theory. Don't worry, I haven't been offended. Most journalists do a lazy, half-arsed job. They get into a routine and they don't push the limits or try to include all angles. It's called "pack journalsim." I'm sure you've heard the phrase.
Anyway, news is a business. News gets readers/viewers/ratings, that gets advertising which gets money and the circle continues. So the problem with the bad-rep breeds is that they are like a car accident. People like drama and they love to get all worked up about something. We don't gossip about who's dating who at church anymore (ok, some of us may). It's a much large scale but it's the same principle. This is actually why soap operas and CNN are really not that different.
So, people tune in. They pick up newspapers with those headlines and increase the statistics which tells publishers... that this is what people want to read.
I hope I'm not treating you like you're stupid. I know this is common sense stuff. I'm just trying to work through what I want to say as I write.
There are essentially two kinds of stories: those that people are intersted in and those that people NEED to know about.
Why would you need to know about something that you're not interested in? Because it could affect you in the long run. Because knowing that a rapist has been let out of jail could make you safer....
I meander.
IF there were to be a pitbull/rottie attack in town I would cover it because it is news and it people need/want to know about it. I would not glorify it. I would not put all one-sided facts in the story. I would tell both sides because that's my job.
Now I sound riteous.
Someone made a point about how the media is always showing pictures of victims... or something like that.
There is an interesting debate behind that.
Of course, a lot (most?) of the time those horrible pictures are shown for shock factor and to sell papers.
But there is another debate. And that is that if you tell yet another story about a drunk driving death few people will be affected by the statistics. "this is the seventh alcohol related death this year on BC roads..." bla bla bla. Put that story with a picture and it makes people stop and realize how sad it is and how important it is.
some people agree with it and others don't.
I don't agree with the extreme of a front page, full-colour photo that shows all. I don't want any family having to see that or the rest of the world. I don't mind running an older picture of the vicitm or of the scene (car crash...).
This is getting long.
I hate the attention that the media gives these breeds. I totally blame my peers, bad breeders/bad owners and the dogfighting industry.
I guess my point is that if you want to change anything than change the channel when those stories are on and don't pick up the newspaper.
I'll probably add more in awhile to this long post. I hope that it is a little interesting. I really care about good, quality journalism.
saje
First of all, not all of us journalists follow the "if it bleeds, it leads" theory. Don't worry, I haven't been offended. Most journalists do a lazy, half-arsed job. They get into a routine and they don't push the limits or try to include all angles. It's called "pack journalsim." I'm sure you've heard the phrase.
Anyway, news is a business. News gets readers/viewers/ratings, that gets advertising which gets money and the circle continues. So the problem with the bad-rep breeds is that they are like a car accident. People like drama and they love to get all worked up about something. We don't gossip about who's dating who at church anymore (ok, some of us may). It's a much large scale but it's the same principle. This is actually why soap operas and CNN are really not that different.
So, people tune in. They pick up newspapers with those headlines and increase the statistics which tells publishers... that this is what people want to read.
I hope I'm not treating you like you're stupid. I know this is common sense stuff. I'm just trying to work through what I want to say as I write.
There are essentially two kinds of stories: those that people are intersted in and those that people NEED to know about.
Why would you need to know about something that you're not interested in? Because it could affect you in the long run. Because knowing that a rapist has been let out of jail could make you safer....
I meander.
IF there were to be a pitbull/rottie attack in town I would cover it because it is news and it people need/want to know about it. I would not glorify it. I would not put all one-sided facts in the story. I would tell both sides because that's my job.
Now I sound riteous.
Someone made a point about how the media is always showing pictures of victims... or something like that.
There is an interesting debate behind that.
Of course, a lot (most?) of the time those horrible pictures are shown for shock factor and to sell papers.
But there is another debate. And that is that if you tell yet another story about a drunk driving death few people will be affected by the statistics. "this is the seventh alcohol related death this year on BC roads..." bla bla bla. Put that story with a picture and it makes people stop and realize how sad it is and how important it is.
some people agree with it and others don't.
I don't agree with the extreme of a front page, full-colour photo that shows all. I don't want any family having to see that or the rest of the world. I don't mind running an older picture of the vicitm or of the scene (car crash...).
This is getting long.
I hate the attention that the media gives these breeds. I totally blame my peers, bad breeders/bad owners and the dogfighting industry.
I guess my point is that if you want to change anything than change the channel when those stories are on and don't pick up the newspaper.
I'll probably add more in awhile to this long post. I hope that it is a little interesting. I really care about good, quality journalism.
saje
You said you had killed this thread so let's see if I can start it up again. You said earlier that if a Rottie/Pit attacks people need/want to know so you publish it. How about if a Collie bites? Or a Labrador? Or even a Golden Retreiver? How come when those breeds bite, it doesn't make news but if a Pittie bites it becomes an attack? Shouldn't people know if a Collie bites just as much as when a Rottie bites?
Last edited by a moderator:
That's actually another game in another forum. The "threadkiller" game. People write obscure things in a post and then the next poster has to write something that includes at least two words from the above post. Whoever "kills" the thread wins. That means that if someone posts and no one can think of anything to post within 24 hours the thread is dead and the last poster triumphs.
I also like the "guess what movie this line is from" game.
For example: "there slippery little suckers."
What movie? Do ya know?
I also like the "guess what movie this line is from" game.
For example: "there slippery little suckers."
What movie? Do ya know?
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2005
- Messages
- 13
- Likes
- 0
- Points
- 0