|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The Media and The Pit Bull
On the same day, in Manitoba Canada, 2-year-old Derian Bird wandered off from home where the babysitter was watching him while his parents were grocery shopping.2 -The child came near a chained husky mix dog and another husky mix that was off lead. The child was attacked and killed. This story did not reach any of the major news stations. Few people outside the family and the town know about this fatality. Jimmie May McConnell died of cardiac arrhythmia brought on by the dog attack. According to the Wyandotte County coroner, none of the bites were specific in any one being the cause of the woman’s death. The child died from the dog bite attack. Two stories, two deaths, but one is reported across the country and on every major news station in nearly all the states. The other was just a by-line in the local paper. Why? Is the death of a child on a reservation not news worthy? Or is it because the death was from husky mix dogs, which are not news worthy if a story involving “pit bulls” is more dramatic and adds to people’s fears. Fear is a feeling of apprehension. It is a response, both physiological and psychological, to the perception of a potential danger or harm, or an actual one. Everyone responds differently to a perceived danger or risk. A person’s ability to control a situation perceived as a possible threat has a big impact on the individual’s fear response. As a whole, people fear that which they do not understand. As such, the object or situation may be viewed as a greater risk than it actually is. Many people are fearful of nuclear energy or biotechnology, but less fearful of situations they are more exposed to on a daily basis, like driving a vehicle. Vehicle related injuries and deaths are certainly far greater and a higher risk than one posses with the risks of nuclear energy or biotechnology. Yet we fear dogs, spiders, snakes, heights, and thunder. All are known to elicit more fear than guns or knives which are more likely to be associated with pain and trauma. Fear of dogs is referred to medically as cynophobia, derived from the Greek word for dogs, kyon. Some people have dogs as a valued part of their life. Some people are basically indifferent to dogs, generally viewing them as objects. They acknowledge the dog’s existence only when having to walk by one or encounter them in the park. These are the people oftentimes critical of dogs and their owners, especially if the dog is allowed to go off lead in an area frequented by children or for not picking up after their dogs in these public park areas. In addition, of course, are some people who are terrified of dogs. Their experience may arise from an encounter when young with a dog that resulted in a serious bite or their parents did not correctly teach them about how to behave around dogs. S. J. Rachman, professor emeritus of the University of British Columbia, in 1977 proposed three main components of fear.3 The response of an individual to fear can be a result of personal experience, observational, or informational. Fear of being in certain situations causes one great discomfort or anxiety. Fear of heights, fear of being in small, dark places like crawl spaces of a house, fear of getting lost, particularly in an unfamiliar city or area. Observing the response of others to a situation can be a factor. Particularly children may “learn” a fear by observing the reactions of parents or a trusted adult in a situation. Fear through information or instruction can affect us with out even being exposed to the event that we “learn” to fear. Several studies demonstrate how positive or negative information can influence a person’s fear of a situation.4-7 Children between 4 and 12 years of age were presented with two scenarios of “monsters”. Information provided in terms of a story or a video, one positive and the other negative about the “monsters”. The children’s reaction was evaluated by their responses to a survey. Negative information, either by the video or verbal, elicited a more fearful response and it also created expectancies about the probable outcome of any future interaction or encounter with the “monster”.6 Adults fearful of dogs reported as having come from their childhood and these individuals were more likely to report more fear of other situations.4 What is important in the adult study is the indication that information that creates or sustains a fear of dogs plays a big factor. The dog fearful adult was more likely to report fears of being bitten, of the dog jumping up, barking, snapping or growling. The media plays on the fear of dogs when describing a dog attack as “vicious” or “non-provoked”. And this fear is definitely fed upon when it comes to a dog attack that involves a pit bull. Media today utilizes this informational pathway to fear to a high level, creating new ways to scare their readers or viewers. No longer is the news a source of information on what is happening in our neighborhood and the world. News today is a construct of basic events, commentary, videos, interviews. It has become a creation of varying factors, the bottom line of which is obtaining the most attention in terms of ratings or “hits” on a website. What does help these ratings or “hits” is playing to people’s fears, reinforcing and expounding upon the social problems and concerns that we as a society face. We have availability of 24 hour news, on the radio, on television, on the internet. The news or the story is out as fast as possible; the checking of facts and corroboration of the story from other sources or obtaining accurate information from knowledgeable people often seems to be left behind. A news world driven not only by the ratings, but also by profit, and this profit is enhanced by becoming a source of entertainment and not just news. This is now Hollywood news, a melodramatic, tabloid style presentation, of emotions, conversations, and speculations.8,9 It is a news style that has become gratuitous in its violence, speculations and constant repetition of videos and photo shots, with fear generation the bottom line. Barry Glassner, a professor of sociology at the University of Southern California, relates how the media has created a “culture of fear” in his book, The Culture of Fear: Why Americans are afraid of the wrong things.10 The media feeds into and perpetuates both societal and individual fears, even when that fear is not the biggest concern for our daily life. The media presents a view of rising crime rates, of school violence and unrest. Danger is lurking everywhere, inside the home, outside, driving in your vehicle, taking the kids to school. These fears result in people overestimating their actual risk of a specific event occurring, be it the risk of cancer, the risk of a child being assaulted, the risk of being a victim of crime, or the risks of a serious or fatal dog attack. People become terrified of some nebulous event that might occur, huge sums of money are spent and ordinances passed to deal with the fears and hysteria generated that does nothing to address the basic social problems. Local politicians oftentimes will seize on a current emotional issue or problem to direct attention away from those issues which would demand more thought and effort. And yet more time and money is being spent on trying to minimize some potential theoretical risk, when more could be done using some practicality and commonsense. We are a nation captivated by our fears. Fears of crime, fears of one’s safety, fear of becoming a victim, and fear of our kids becoming victims. We have lost all sense of perspective. Mass media are part of what David Altheide, a professor in the School of Justice Studies at Arizona State University, calls a “problem generating machine” geared to entertainment, voyeurism, and the quick fix rather than seeking an understanding of the complexity of social problems.11 Victims are everywhere, laying claim to whole categories of abuse and social exploitation, the major theme of which is fear. This fear has given rise to what Professor Altheide calls the “problem frame” that “promotes a discourse of fear that may be defined as the pervasive communication, symbolic awareness and expectations that danger and risk are a central feature of the effective environment.”12 The problem frame sets up the narrative that something is wrong, it features everyday life filled with
Fear and the mass media is used as well to promote the agenda of organizations or “stakeholders” who have an interest in some stance or a reaction to social polices that promote some form of state control or regulation. Consider the single page headline in a recent news magazine: “How do you deal with an enemy that has no government, no money trail and no qualms about killing women and children?” Large bold type certainly catches one’s attention. And who is this mortal enemy that we must fear? The enemy as the ad states is Mother Nature. Mother Nature? Are we now supposed to go on a campaign to impose our will on Mother Nature? Are we to now spend our lives in fear? The ad tells of the affects of Hurricane Katrina and Rita in 2005, that killed 1,836 people and devastated a huge swath of the Gulf Coast with 100 billions dollars in destruction. Continuing that Mother Nature is accountable for almost 500 American deaths and billions of dollars in damages each year. And the solution to this problem that we are supposed to start fighting back? The organization, protectingamerica.org, wants your support for federal legislation to create a financial solution to protect Americans from future wrath of Mother Nature, “to get our country ready for the next big attack.” Major news sources fuel societal fears through selective use of events that contribute to negative perceptions about the social order. News reports routinely stress danger and violence, over representing more severe and gruesome events, hence viewers over estimate the frequencies of such events. When a particularly tragic event occurs, people interviewed, such as neighbors, friends or News or stories associated with pit bulls hit the emotional centers. Pit bull stories are safe because they are a dog many love to hate. The stories do not have to be accurate, there is little to no risk by the news media in negative portrayal of the dogs and their owners. While there may be some letters of protest from some dog owners, the news media is not going to loose advertising revenue or readership. Nor are they likely to become embroiled on legal issues over slander or misinformation regarding the dogs as much as they would say lambasting political candidates, or organizations. The media has associated the pit bull with gangs and thugs, violence and dog fighting, drugs and crime in general. The dogs are portrayed as vicious, snarling monsters that seemingly stalk the streets looking to attack any unsuspecting individuals. People are confronted time and time again about vicious attacks, massive jaws, and massive injuries, being ripped apart or torn to shreds. Photos and videos of the dogs and the people played over and over. People become afraid of what could happen. They believe the stories; they base their fears on what the media portrays, not on their own experience. When another breed of dog is involved in a serious attack, the headline, if one at all is just dog attack, and the breed may be mentioned somewhere in the story, maybe the last line. Or a dog is described as “pit bull-like”, essentially it becomes any dog that bites is perceived as a pit bull. This type of reporting does a grave disservice to the public. It gives people a definitive distortion of dog bites and targeting a specific breed fails to help the public adequately address how to prevent or minimize the risk of a dog bite. Recently in eastern Canada a woman was attacked by two dogs identified in the paper as a pit bull and Rottweiler mixes. In the curious and small world series of events of one person knowing another, the driver of the car that helped the woman who was being attacked was shown the article by co-workers, unbeknownst to them of her role. The woman was surprised at the identity of the dogs, because she stated they were a Border collie and a Labrador. So why does the paper identify them as pit bull? One reason, it sells papers and continues to stir the pot of peoples fears, and obviously helps to support the Ontario governments recent ban on pit bulls in the province. By association of pit bull dogs with crime, violence, and drugs, people are afraid of becoming a victim to violent crime and/or murder, and yet if one is not involved in such activities, the risk of violence is low. No other breed is so associated. So the fear when other breeds are implicated in a serious attack is just not there. The incident then is viewed more as a tragic accident. If the family husky/husky mix dog is implicated in a fatal attack on a new infant in the household, this may be a small note in the news. It is called a tragic accident, the dog was not adequately socialized to the introduction of a new baby to the family unit.13 Or the boxer that fatally mauls it’s owner. Boxer rescue calls it tragic, these are good natured dogs. The rescue explains how they save them from the dog fights, associating the dogs with being victims of pit bulls and those who fight them.14 Again raising in the conscience of people that only pit bulls are the ones that attack and maim. The Presa Canario dogs, a breed involved in fatal attacks in Florida and California, described in the media as large pit bulls or pit bulls on steroids.15,16 Again, further association of pit bulls and fatalities. The pit bull as a scapegoat takes the public’s mind off the issues and problems that no one really wants to confront. Societal issues of low income, economic disadvantages, disenfranchised youth, animal abuse and it’s associated human abuse and violence. What is ignored or inadequately addressed is the mundane aspect of irresponsible dog ownership and a lack of responsibility by parents. And the media is certainly not interested in a “balanced” approach. The Chicago Tribune did a 3-part special report of a child recovering from a pit bull attack, the title of the series was certainly enough to get people’s attention: Open Wounds: The enduring agony of a pit bull rampage. The series took the tragedy of an event and turned it into a melodrama. Would the article have been done if the dog was of another breed? What if the child had sustained injuries from a Labrador or German Shepherd? Would this have gotten the attention of the reader? “The enduring agony of a dog attack”? The title itself gets the attention certainly better than Labrador rampage, or just dog rampage. The article focuses on the pit bull, continuing the misinformation of jaw strength, viciousness, and fails to address the key issues of animal behavior and a lack of responsibility. Accompanying the article is the obligatory unscientific poll survey: Should pit bulls be banned? And the comment section for readers. There were nearly 1,300 comments made to the website. No other recent special report elicited such a response from the readership. Many comments indicate a generalization of the dogs and the dog owners in a manner that is negative. The subject clearly evoked a passionate and emotive response, a number of people clearly having little to no experience with the dogs, but are basing judgment on what they have read. Often people decry that if the dogs are all that great and other breeds also cause fatalities, then why do we not hear about them? Simply because, the involvement of another breed does not evoke this type of response. Pit bulls sell papers. One of the other special reports was on “Teens at the Wheel”. Certainly a controversial subject and more teens are killed or seriously injured by vehicles than by dogs. In 2004 nationally, there were 5,610 fatalities of teenage drivers. In Chicago alone, from 1994 to 2004, an average of 57 teens aged 15 to 18 years of age die in vehicle related events. Comments? Polls? Nothing. Allstate Insurance put out a single page ad in a national news magazine, “The #1 killer of teenagers doesn’t have a trigger….. It has a steering wheel.” So do we ban cars? Prevent teenagers from driving them? No, the effort is proactive steps to reduce the risk, not an outright ban, which would certainly be met with some protest. Peer influence and parental guidance are the best influence to help teens drive safer. Suggestions here are more parental involvement, setting rules and holding teens responsible to meet those rules, limiting time and passengers, and banning cell phone usage while driving. A search was made of the archives of the Los Angeles Times using the Proquest software with keywords, “dog attack”, “dog bites”, “dog fighting”, “pit bull”, and “bulldog”. Prior to the 1970’s the dogs were more often referred to as “bulldogs”, in addition to Yankee terrier, pit bull, and Staffordshire terrier. That dog fighting was going on there was no doubt. Bakersfield, 1882, described as the “home to the gambler and the sportsman”, with everyday amusements of horse racing, foot racing and dog fighting.18 One editorial decried any type of fighting, be it bareknuckle, bull-baiting, dog fighting, or cock fighting.19 All described as “Not in the history of California has there been a time when bull dog baiting was as popular as now…..Hundreds of young men are cultivating the ‘sport’. Scores of them are buying and training bull pups for the pit. Fights are pulled off every week in and about Los Angeles…”.21 The time? Could be now, comments coming from today’s authorities and headlines, however, this was 1908. While efforts were being made to stop dog-fighting and the men and dogs involved, a clear distinction was made with regard to dogs that were pets, your average dog owners who loved and admired the breed and had nothing to do with dog fighting. And the dogs were indeed popular, then as now. The dogs were recognized for their intelligence, spirit, loving disposition, and steadfast loyalty.22 The dogs possessed the courage and certainly the ability to take care of himself. The breed was acknowledged as one of the kindest and most affectionate dogs, regardless of his fighting history.23 They were recognized as the safest and most affectionate dogs towards children, loving and docile.22-24 This love and affection to children was epitomized by Pete the pup of Our Gang/Little Rascals fame.25,26 Celebrities and socialites alike were seen with the dogs, photo-ops for fundraiser for humane organization, including the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS).27,28 Very little was mentioned about dog fighting or dog fighters for about fifty years. Then things started to change. There were several high-profile raids on dog fighters, coming at a time when humane organizations were gearing up a push for federal legislation for an amendment to the Animal Welfare Act that would increase penalties on dog fighting. A dog fighting ring was broken up in Los Angeles County in the early 1970’s. The police detective working on the case was shocked, since dog fighting was “practically unheard of in Southern California”.29 Obviously they did not get the earlier memo. A 1974 article describes the illegal “sport” of dog fighting.30 The article depicts a “typical” pit fight, the training, and the associated gambling. The dog losing in such fights, if not already dead, will most likely be killed by his “sporting” owner.31 Increasing numbers of pit bull puppies advertised in the paper and an increase in the dogs showing up in the shelters.31 In the late 70’s there followed a number of high profile dog fighting raids.32 And an increase in articles in popular magazines following the publicized raids across the country. Harper’s and Esquire, among others, stories that brought the harsh, bloodthirsty world of dog fighting into the public conscience.33,34 What these actions have done is raise the awareness of dog fighting to the American public. Not in the sense of trying to help put a stop to it, but of portraying an image to another group of people; not the historical ‘professional’ dog fighters, but to another generation of youth, of the socially disenfranchised, of those looking to create an image of themselves. Images created are of a violent and dangerous dog. A 1980 article, with a similar title to the one 5 years earlier contributes more to the dogs declining reputation, and increasing its reputation to people who have no business owning a dog in the first place. “Dogfighting: Illegal but proliferating” describes a growing nationwide problem.35 A Los Angeles Sheriff deputy describes the dogs as “sharks”, another term that has become synonymous with the dogs. We now have more and more interviews and dialogue of “experts”. A Mr. Anonymous Dogfighter tells of the losing dog being shot, the infamous “lock and not letting go.” 35 The jaw strength claims have doubled 2000-2600, and we now hear about the “loaded gun”.35 The more vivid the description, the more puppies he can probably sell. An image is created appealing to people that want something to intimidate with, the machismo of having the biggest dog on the block. A real problem for authorities was getting the charges associated with dog fighting arrests to stick.35 Obtaining a conviction was difficult. Prosecuting dog fighting was not a priority or not taken very seriously. Also, consider the fact that probably a lot of people were really involved, as in the turn of the century, the dog fighting attracted a wide range of socioeconomics. Little to no effort was made by city/county prosecutors, but a push was on by humane organizations to make the charges stick.36 Television shows spotlight the world of dog fighting.37 The dogs are becoming more and more popular, puppies are in demand. Anyone who has a pair breeding are having puppies without regard to temperament, genetics, training or adequate socialization, it is seen as a way of making money. Articles now are becoming more melodramatic, with vivid descriptions of fights. The concepts of the jaw strength in terms of psi being excessive in comparisons with other dogs persists.38 The dogs displayed in a negative fashion, walking “time bombs”, “lethal weapons”, the dogs are somehow “different” than other dogs.38 More and more the dogs are associated strictly with violence, crime, drugs, and gambling. What is becoming totally lost is the recognition of the dog’s friendliness to people, their loyalty, and their patience with children. We see the beginnings of a clamor for banning the breed or more restrictions towards what is viewed as “dangerous dogs”.39,40,41 Dog fighting is centuries old, but the push now by the humane organizations to stop it has only increased the popularity of the breed to a new group. With each highly publicized attack by one of the dogs, the demand increases.42 The attraction of the dogs is not as loving pets, but as a symbol of power, of an adolescent macho world, of youth with little to no other options. The dogs are expendable; their life extending only as far as the dog can be used to obtain money and “respect”. There is no licensing of your dog, there is no veterinary care, there is abuse and neglect, and little regard for life of any form. The increasing shrillness and demand for legislation to solve the “problem” through banning, some sort of restriction, muzzling, or special liability insurance totally ignores the root cause of the problem and that such actions would be fruitless, after all there are laws against murder, assault, drugs, and other such crimes. In early 1987, a 16-month-old Oklahoma girl, a 67-year-old Ohio retired surgeon, and a 2-year-old California boy were killed by pitbulls.43,44,45 In addition, a televised incident of a pit bull attacking a Los Angeles animal control officer was sent out nationwide.46 The public and the media went into a hysterical frenzy. While in 1985/1986 there were about two dozen articles on the dogs, in 1987 there were over two hundred.. articles nearly every other day or about four per week. The media driven hysteria had people terrified of any dog that remotely might resemble a pit bull. Owners that had dogs for years with no problems surrendered them as a result of pressures from family or homeowners associations.47,48 Dogs were surrendered for euthanasia to humane organizations or let loose to fend for themselves and eventually ended up in local animal control.48 People were afraid of the “potential” of some consequence or did not want to have to deal with arguments with family and neighbors. The dogs had become the pariah of the canine world and by association so too the owners.49 The scenario is created of an urban jungle.50 A tableau of violence, “crazed adolescents”, guns, drugs, alcohol, people spoiling for a fight.50 Human nature is in itself aggressive and many people use aggression to deal with their own frustrations. People are now worried about the possibility of being attacked by a dog, of being shot on the freeway, of being accosted in a public park. Freeway shootings, scandals, the generation of fear are progressing in the media.10-12,51,52 And the pit bulls are a manifestation of that fear.52 Again, as in the late 70’s, news and popular magazines jump in the fray.53,54,55 US News & World Report called the pit bulls “the most dangerous dog in America".53 Rolling Stone Magazine describes a day in the life of street kids in North Philadelphia.54 A life of survival, disillusionment, and crime. Adolescents, children basically, with few examples of hope or prospects, a life of abuse and neglect bereft of any positive role models. The same for the pit bulls they keep; the dogs useful only as far as they give them “respect”. The media continues from this point it’s somewhat conflicted relationship with pit bulls, dogs, and dog bites. Dog bites man may be reported, but pit bull bites man brings out the media hype.55 Recognition is given that other breeds may become popular and hence victims of their popularity as well as implicated in serious bites.56 But no breed captures the public imagination and flames their fears as much as the pit bull. The pit bull’s associations with gangs, drugs, and violence is kept in the forefront to the public.57,58,59 Pit bulls are kept in the public eye through three main focal points used by the media. First is the plethora of adjectives used to describe pit bulls only contributes to the scenario: “shark attack”, “wild animal”, “time-bomb”, “fourlegged guns”, “canine enforcers”, “lethal weapons”. The descriptions set the dogs apart from other dogs; they are somehow “different”. The constant use of the bite force, that has been repeated for over twent five years, with no scientific justifications, no documentation of who, what, or how these numbers were “determined”, other than they just sound good. The myth of the “locking jaw”, a concept that also has no scientific justification or documentation. A mechanical scenario that is physiologically impossible. This is usually stated in conjunction with the “uniqueness” of the dog’s bite as “bite, hold, and shake”. Has anyone ever watched their dog, of any breed play with stuffed toys? All dogs bite, hold, and shake. This is normal behavior for a prey animal. Dogs do it if they attack another dog, a cat, or other small animals, and unfortunately, this is the type of behavior seen if the “prey” happens to be a small child. The second way the media keeps pit bulls in the forefront is inadequately reporting incidents of other breeds involved in serious or fatal attacks. A common refrain from the public, in fact, is one never hears of attacks by other breeds. It is not that they do not occur and that the injuries are not serious or lifethreatening, they are not pit bulls and some how the fears and connotations do not evoke the same response. The news is local, as the case of the child in Canada killed by the husky mix dogs, not national or international as the case if a pit bull is implicated. One had to do some searching to find information about the French woman seriously attacked by her recently adopted Labrador, who had the first face transplant. Labrador severely ravages woman’s face just does not evoke the same feelings of horror and fear that it would if the dog had been a pit bull. A German Shepherd dog severely injured a child in a rural Northern California county. The animal control director approached the county paper to have information about the attack in the paper. The paper declined, not a pit bull. Consider the scenario of two dog bite incidents that occurred in the same week. “Killer” an intact male dog was eating his kibble when the family’s 3-year-old son apparently got too close.61 The dog attacked the child, another family member kicked and punched to get the dog off the child. The result was 9 stitches near the eye of the toddler. And what breed of dog with the name “Killer”, this was a mixed breed, described as looking like a Cocker Spaniel. In the second incident, an 11-month-old child was introduced for the first time to the family dog. The dog had been staying with a grandmother since the birth of the child. The child was placed on the floor with the dog, described as a Border Collie-pit bull mix.62 The child was treated at the local emergency and released. Only one report was sent out about Killer, the Cocker Spaniel mix dog, but over fifteen reports were made to news stations across the country regarding the “pit bull” incident of the 11-month-old baby. No news station bothered to clarify that the mixed breed dog that attacked the baby was predominantly a Border Collie, only “pit bull” was reported. What we have are two very similar situations, but two very different reporting outcomes:
But only the Border Collie incident where the dog was almost universally identified solely as a pit bull, made the news on multiple stations. Even the parent of the 3-year-old states of the family pet, Killer, “I never expected it, never….”. The lesson learned from this…”Any kind of dog can end up attacking, whether it is big or small.” There are a number of incidents one can find, if you look hard enough, of other breeds implicated in serious bites, but they are not reported nationally or internationally. Consider a few in the past year:
Biased reporting of dog bite incidents is not limited to the US, during the time of the media activity in the late 1980’s, Britain also was having its media assault.60 The Rottweiler received intense negative press around 1989 in regard to the fatal attack on an 11-year-old. And although the German Shepherd dog was implicated in a number of attacks, it did not receive the intense press coverage. The Rottweiler was described as “devil” dog, “killer”, “war” dog, and there was a call to ban all aggressive breeds. Then in 1991, the American pit bull was implicated in a fatal attack and all the media and public indignation was redirected to the breed. The descriptions of the dogs once attributed to the Rottweiler were now used to describe the pit bull. The Dangerous Dog Act 1991 was passed through Parliament in response to media and public pressure. The Act bans “pit bull type” dogs, along with the Japanese Tosa, Dogo Argentino, and the Fila Braziliero. Dogs little known in the country at the time. The third way of maintaining public focus on the pit bull is the media’s erroneous reporting of a breed or the deliberate generalization of a dog as “pit bull type”. As the example mentioned above of the Border collie/pit bull mix, in the majority of news sites, the dog was reported as simply pit bull. Describing a dog implicated in a bite incident as “pit bull type” is a broad generalization, that is certainly misleading, and of course reinforces the public view that only and “all” pit bulls bite. A few of the incidents are:
Apparently it is easier just to state that a dog is "pit bull type", than to be concerned about the accuracy of the report. The idea of course is to get the incident out as fast as possible, worry about details later. "Pit bull type" is a broad generalization, but the use of the term maintains the negative connotations of the dogs in the public mind. Malcolm Gladwell, in his well written article in the New Yorker, states “(w)hen we say that pit bulls are dangerous, we are making a generalization.”64 And a generalization is a “stereotype”. So a pit bull or a pit bull type dog is a generalization, and “thinking about dangerous dogs as anything substantially similar to a pit bull is a generalization about a generalization.”64 This is exactly what the media does. Any dog can be described as "pit bull type", hence includes, any mix of breeds, Bull Terriers, French Bull dogs, Boxers, Bull Mastiffs, Presa Canarios, along with the usual suspects of American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, and Staffordshire Bull Terrier. So yes, bottom line, this is “stereotyping”, a broad brush of generalization of a wide number of breeds and mixed breeds from multiple types of dogs. What this does is completely ignore the temperament and personalities of individual dogs. The dog that is the search and rescue or the therapy dog is not the same as the dog chained up in the back yard with little or no human contact and interaction. The obedience trained dog, the agility dog running the course with happy enthusiasm is not the same dog that is basically left to his own, allowed to run at large, with little to no training. Regardless of breed, German Shepherd, pit bull, Rottweiler, Akita, dogs like humans are individuals. A recent column in Newsday in response to the proposed ban of pit bulls in New York City states simply that a ban is not the answer.65 Because human nature does not want to face the racial and socioeconomic associations linked to the reputation of the pit bull, the media is willing at every opportunity to demonize them.65 How much does the public believe the misinformation that is presented about the “pit bulls”? Cohen and Richardson wanted to find out in their 2002 study on how the public believes about the media portrayal of the pit bull.63 A survey of people taken at a retail outlet indicted people’s perceptions of pit bulls are not as negative as expected given the media coverage, with an unwillingness to The pit bull terrier has become a reflection of ourselves that no one cares very much to see.55 We are a nation conflicted. We decry the violence and brutality of the blood sport, yet seem to be attracted to them. We are more interested in the gruesome details of the hanging of a dictator than we are of the accomplishments of a passing president. We have become obsessed with our fears, concerned with minor events or happenings that get blown out of proportion in their potential effect on our lives. We seem to be looking for reasons to justify our fears and hence are willing to point fingers at potential scapegoats, like the pit bulls, as targets for our fears. We want something tangible, something other than some nebulous concept that events are outside our control. The media allows society to target our fears in specific directions for the crisis at hand. Fears of guns, of children being kidnapped, of school shootings, of terrorists next door and of pit bulls running amuck. The media, instead of giving facts, information that may help place our fears in a context, only seek to feed them. Profitable for the media, a grave disservice to the public.
Notes: 1. Kansas City Star, July 28, 2006. “71-year old mauled to death while gardening, neighbor’s dog jumps fence.” Additional references: G. Keenan, The savage world of dog fighting. American Humane Magazine 66:8-11, 1978. J. Lowther, Dying like a dog: confirming that man is the vilest beasts. Macleans 9:45-46,48,50, 1978. J. Rubright. Humane Society Heartbeat 4-5, 1982. CM Brown, Pit. Atlanta 22:60-67, 83 1982. B. Knoll, The savage pit. Geo 1:56-78 1979. HSUS An exposition of dogfighting. 1-8, 1980.
|
FORPITSSAKE.ORG © 2007
|