Is the media a reliable or comprehensive source of information on dog attacks? 
Media reporting of canine aggression
Media Bias (2006) 
Pit bull paparazzi 2006
Media Bias (2007) 
Pit bull paparazzi 2007
Media Bias (2008) 
Pit Bull paparazzi-2008
***
Breed Bashing in the media – Consider the source!
We all enjoy a snappy quote in a news story, especially from an eye-witness or a victim. But snappiness and proximity to an event are not to be confused with accuracy or reliability.
While pit bulls presently suffer the most from “breed bashing,” they do not have a monopoly. Other breeds are also the subject of fanciful theories about breed-specific behaviors. In news coverage of an attack by a dog described as a pit bull, Rottweiler or Chow, it is disturbingly common to see comments based on stereotypical attitudes, from persons not qualified to discuss either the complexities of canine behavior or the characteristics of different breeds of dogs.
Reporters look for a comment from someone involved or near the scene. When they quote that person in their story, they have draped that person with the mantle of authority. What are, in fact, personal opinions, are reported as if they were factual information based on professional knowledge of dogs, or of a specific breed of dog.
For example, two park rangers in Alice Springs, Australia, received serious bites from a dog they described as a large Corgi cross. The rangers were trying to capture the dogs, one of the many that have been abandoned in that area.
One of the injured rangers told the reporter, “Corgis, as they get older, get very, very nasty.”
That was good enough, right? After all, he is a ranger! The reporter did not follow up with a veterinarian or animal behaviorist, who might have suggested something other than age or genetics as the critical factor in the attack. A professional might have proposed that the attack was the reaction of an abandoned, fearful, unsocialized dog, to the attempt of the rangers to corner and capture it.
Oh, well. When the ranger/victim has something that snazzy to say, why look further? File the story, and move on.
How about this–from a paramedic, who had responded to a dog attack call. After a very young puppy killed an infant in Oklahoma, news stories quoted the paramedic saying, “Even a very familiar family dog can turn on you, puppies specifically, they’re unpredictable, they’re young, they got a lot of hormones going on, you’ve (sic) never know what they’re gonna do.”
The news accounts further quoted the paramedic’s advice to parents/dog owners: “Never let an animal sleep in the same room as your child, and have your dogs spade (sic) or neutered.” **
While we would be pleased to rely on this paramedic if our heart stopped beating, or we were bleeding from multiple wounds, we are less inclined to act on his advice regarding the keeping of a companion dog.
Someone more familiar with dogs, say, a canine professional, might have examined the particular circumstances and suggested reasons for this tragedy besides unpredictable hormones and allowing an animal sleep in the same room. He or she might have concluded, based upon the available evidence, that a starving puppy had attacked the child who had been left unattended in a baby swing for almost 2 hours. The mother and grandmother, the responsible human agents, were sleeping in their respective bedrooms.
Some of the most damaging and inaccurate information about dogs and breed traits originates from people who are often highly skilled in their own field, yet are totally unqualified to speak about canine aggression, dog breeds and canine behavior.
In its February 25, 2010 edition, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported the comments of Dr. Mark L. Wulkan on the number of children admitted to Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta for treatment of serious injuries due to dog attacks. Dr. Wulkan is Surgeon-in-Chief at Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta, and Associate Professor of Surgery at Emory University.
“There’s no place for pit bulls or rottweilers around children,” Dr. Wulkan stated. He speculated about breed-specific behaviors, saying, “With German shepherds, they bite you and then that’s it. Pit bulls and Rottweilers, once they go, they’re going for the kill.”
Of course, these comments are completely without merit and demonstrate a pristine ignorance of canine behavior, canine aggression and/or breeds of dogs. But, think of all the years he went to medical school, then put that together with the emotional resonance of his remarks. That’s a wrap!
Unfortunately, emotional resonance aside, these kinds of remarks are detrimental to our understanding of dogs. They offer no useful information on the human/canine interactions that often precede a bite or an attack, and do not promote an understanding of why dogs bite. And they reinforce stereotypes about breed that have no basis in fact.
Medical doctors are no more qualified to make comments on canine behavior or which breeds of dogs are suitable for children, than a canine behaviorist is qualified to comment on the benefits and/or risks of antibiotic regimens or surgical protocols to be used to treat dog bites.
We look forward to a day when journalists will evaluate an interviewee’s comments based on that person’s field of competence. We must all recognize that there are experts in the field of canine behavior, and not cite comments from others as knowledge-based, which are, in fact, nothing other than personal opinions.
- * NTnews, Rangers injured when dog bit back, March 17, 2010
- ** FoxNews23, Police: Dog Kills Infant in Tulsa, July 28, 2008
***
One sensational case of a “fatal dog attack” that was not a fatal dog attack was the 2007 case of actor Ving Rhames’ dogs and the death of his friend Jacob Adams.
See details of media coverage: 
NCRC Press release Ving Rhames
***
National Canine Research Council