roger
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- May 22, 2002
- Messages
- 11,466
Okay, media and other bias. We've discussed the poor kid that was killed. It was picked up by over 300 outlets, all blaring "pit bulls kills child". The situation here? The primary caregiver leaves the 2yo (!!!) child alone for several hours, and has a bunch of dogs he keeps in a garage!!! (danger alert for any dog).
On the same week we have a 2yo killed by a family dog - in the home, with others present. http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/jul/31/dog-mauls-toddler-death-tierrasanta/
To me the latter is the scary incident/dog. Several dogs always left alone have a small prey sized person enter their home, vs a single dog attacking while multiple other humans are present. If you don't follow me, dogs left to their own space are going to come to regard it as theirs, not human's. Dogs in packs are more likely to engage in hunting/predatory behavior. In contrast, family dogs should recognize and respect family members, and they should not regard the family home as 'their' territory. Any person with half a brain would recognize the former situation as potentially dangerous regardless of breed, and the latter as very unusual and quite possibly indicative of a very unstable dog, regardless of the provocation.
Yet, the latter only gets carried by about 50 outlets, all CA newspapers. Quotes in the story include questioning what "provoked" the dog, and calling it a "horrible tragedy". No call for euthanization of the breed, almost no mention of the breed whatsoever, and certainly no mention of the breed in the headlines. Updates on the story indicate no charges will be filed - the mother was sleeping on the couch downstairs and not supervising the child - yet it was ruled accidental.
In another few years the mail carrier mauling and the former death are going to make it into all of the attack 'statistics' collected from media sources. The latter? Doubtful. You have to search
Oh, and what about the postal carrier that was killed by a dog back in May? Not a pit bull, so no CNN coverage. Heck, it's very hard to find in google, even searching by the victims very unique name (Hao yun lin), though you can once you add enough additional terms. Finding the Minneapolis pit bull mauling? Easy peasy.
Sure, 'google fights' are often silly, but google seems to do a good job of index major news outlets. I'd say in and of itself it's strong, but not absolutely ironclad evidence of media bias in at least these few cases. But the same results happen week after week. Pit bulls make CNN. Labs make the local papers below the fold or inside the A section.
Another sobering google search. Google "child killed by dog". I chose that phrase to see if the 2yo killed by the non pit bull would even get a hit. It did - one. It's not 100% predictable, but links where the breed isn't immediately apparent from the link itself of the lead in snippet usually means it wasn't a pit bull - some stories go no further than "dog", "mix", or "mutt" (which means yet another story not getting included in breed statistics). In contrast, it is relatively rare (though it does happen) for it to be a pit bull and not immediately apparent in the blurb quoted by google.
No, that's not scientific, I know it. But it's an interesting way to explore the issue a bit if you aren't willing to go search out the books I mentioned in another post, one of which I believe is now out of print.
It's also "interesting" to read the comments on these stories. Take this one. First, you have to search pretty far down the article to find the breed (not a pitty). Then read the comments - a bunch of people putting down pitties (and defending, but still).
On the same week we have a 2yo killed by a family dog - in the home, with others present. http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/2010/jul/31/dog-mauls-toddler-death-tierrasanta/
To me the latter is the scary incident/dog. Several dogs always left alone have a small prey sized person enter their home, vs a single dog attacking while multiple other humans are present. If you don't follow me, dogs left to their own space are going to come to regard it as theirs, not human's. Dogs in packs are more likely to engage in hunting/predatory behavior. In contrast, family dogs should recognize and respect family members, and they should not regard the family home as 'their' territory. Any person with half a brain would recognize the former situation as potentially dangerous regardless of breed, and the latter as very unusual and quite possibly indicative of a very unstable dog, regardless of the provocation.
Yet, the latter only gets carried by about 50 outlets, all CA newspapers. Quotes in the story include questioning what "provoked" the dog, and calling it a "horrible tragedy". No call for euthanization of the breed, almost no mention of the breed whatsoever, and certainly no mention of the breed in the headlines. Updates on the story indicate no charges will be filed - the mother was sleeping on the couch downstairs and not supervising the child - yet it was ruled accidental.
In another few years the mail carrier mauling and the former death are going to make it into all of the attack 'statistics' collected from media sources. The latter? Doubtful. You have to search
Oh, and what about the postal carrier that was killed by a dog back in May? Not a pit bull, so no CNN coverage. Heck, it's very hard to find in google, even searching by the victims very unique name (Hao yun lin), though you can once you add enough additional terms. Finding the Minneapolis pit bull mauling? Easy peasy.
Sure, 'google fights' are often silly, but google seems to do a good job of index major news outlets. I'd say in and of itself it's strong, but not absolutely ironclad evidence of media bias in at least these few cases. But the same results happen week after week. Pit bulls make CNN. Labs make the local papers below the fold or inside the A section.
Another sobering google search. Google "child killed by dog". I chose that phrase to see if the 2yo killed by the non pit bull would even get a hit. It did - one. It's not 100% predictable, but links where the breed isn't immediately apparent from the link itself of the lead in snippet usually means it wasn't a pit bull - some stories go no further than "dog", "mix", or "mutt" (which means yet another story not getting included in breed statistics). In contrast, it is relatively rare (though it does happen) for it to be a pit bull and not immediately apparent in the blurb quoted by google.
No, that's not scientific, I know it. But it's an interesting way to explore the issue a bit if you aren't willing to go search out the books I mentioned in another post, one of which I believe is now out of print.
It's also "interesting" to read the comments on these stories. Take this one. First, you have to search pretty far down the article to find the breed (not a pitty). Then read the comments - a bunch of people putting down pitties (and defending, but still).
Last edited: