New Research Calls into Question the Reliability of Data Collected Based on Visual Identifications and Media Reports:
A comparison of visual and DNA identifications of breeds - Victoria Lea Voith, PhD, DVM, DACVB, Professor, Animal Behavior, Western University
Is the media a reliable or comprehensive source of information on dog attacks?
Media reporting of canine aggression
Limitations of the Media:
Any report or study derived from a survey of news stories can never represent the dog population at large, or provide a basis to analyze the nature and (in)frequency of canine aggression.
News outlets are in the business of reporting singular events. Statistical validity is not their job. They do not select stories for publication on the basis of random sampling techniques. Editors promote stories they believe to be of interest to their audience. Most incidents involving dogs, good, bad, or indifferent, are not reported at all. Severe attacks by dogs are, happily, exceedingly rare.
For the stories they do choose to cover, based upon their own estimate of its newsworthiness, journalists have no control over how their reporting will be used – or misused — by others.
Reporters are not specialists. They may report as fact what are really opinions, or cite official statements and/or published studies that experts have called into serious question. Stories completed against deadline pressures may contain errors that the outlet will only correct if later developments generate an interest in a follow up. Reporters will neglect critical factors that contributed to a serious incident involving a dog and assign unjustified significance to a dog’s breed description, while, at the same time printing inaccurate breed identification of dogs which are never corrected later.
Use the links below to learn more about the limitations of news accounts regarding incidents involving dogs:
-
Deadlines: Stories are written before incident can be properly investigated
How deadlines can result in inaccurate information to be published
How limited or no fact checking perpetuates myths as facts
-
Audience interest: Dog attack stories published to appeal to viewers/readers
How reader interest affects coverage of dog attack stories
-
Resident dog reported as family dog: No distinction between two very different types of dogs
What is the difference between a resident dog and a family dog?
A Boy and a Dog: A New York Tragedy.
***
Which is Aggression? Which is Big News?
“Pit Bull Eats Toes off Infant”
“Baby has Toes Chewed off by Pit Bull”
“Pit bull Eats Infant’s Toes”
“Pit Bull Chews Off Infant’s Toes”
These are but a few of the 225 news articles covering an incident of a 4-month-old child’s toes being chewed off by a “pit bull.”
The screeching headlines of Pit bull Eating Toes off Infant creates yet another false imagery that re-enforces negative perceptions about this breed/type of dog. Clearly, these types of headlines contribute to the all too pervasive, yet inaccurate perception that: Pit bull + infant = aggression / injury
In reality, this case has nothing to do with “pit bulls” or with “aggression.” This is a case of human neglect and puppy behaviors (chewing).
The facts are as follows:
The Onslow County Sheriff’s Office said that the child’s mother and her boyfriend are facing felony child abuse charges after a pit bull puppy chewed off all the toes on a four-month-old child’s left foot early Monday morning.
Authorities say the child’s mother, Robie Lynn Jenkins, and her boyfriend, Tremayne J. Spillman, were dog-sitting a 12-week-old pit bull for Aaron Watkins, who was arrested Sunday for possession of a firearm by a felon.
The sheriff’s department says Jenkins placed the baby on a foldout couch in the living room while she and Spillman slept on another couch. Two other children were in a bedroom while the dog was allowed to move throughout the house, according to the sheriff.
Jenkins told authorities she had taken medication, and even though she was sleeping in the same room as the infant, she never heard the child cry out. She discovered what had happened in the morning when she went to change the child’s diaper.
Chewing is a behavior exhibited by many dogs, but especially by puppies. As many puppy owners can testify to, puppies, can and will, chew an amazing assortment of objects, oblivious and irrespective of the value these objects may have to their owner. This is NOT aggressive behavior, nor is it an indictor of “breed behavior.”
While extremely rare for puppies to inflict these kinds of injuries on humans, it is well documented that numerous different breeds have been involved in this type of behavior (i.e, inflicting chewing injuries on long-unattended infants or incapacitated adults). While the types of dogs and circumstances vary, the one constant in all these cases is that nearly every caretaker (of puppy, infant and/or incapacitated individual) has been criminally charged with neglect or abuse.
Interestingly, while this case of non-aggressive behavior by a puppy (along with serious human neglect) was covered by 225 media sources—the following case of horrific fatal aggression, occurring the same week, was only reported ONCE by the media:
August 28, 2009 –JEFFERSON -A 30-year-old Lake Mills man may be charged with homicide after his 4-month-old son died last due to head injuries allegedly caused by the father.
Michael F. Wey was charged with the offense as his son was reported in critical condition at American Family Children’s Hospital in Madison. The boy, Nikolai Wey, died at the hospital Friday, Aug. 21.
According to the criminal complaint on the child abuse charge, Wey came home from drinking at about 10 p.m. on Aug. 14. He allegedly picked up the boy and threw him into a wall. There was enough force to cause cracks in the wall. The child then fell into the crib.
Upon questioning, Michael Wey told detectives two different reasons for the injuries his son sustained before admitting he had thrown the child against the wall.
Originally, Michael Wey said he had diarrhea and had hurried to the bathroom, leaving the infant lying on a corner of a bed. He said while he was in the bathroom, and when he came back into the room, the child was laying on the floor crying.
However, when Wey was confronted with the information that his version of what occurred was not consistent with the injuries, Wey said he was playing with the infant, threw him into the air at one point and dropped him on his head. Again, the story was not consistent with the injuries and Wey finally said he had thrown the infant against the wall.
***
“. . . in the aftermath of a highly-publicized event people are often more fearful than they ought to be – the phenomenon of ‘availability bias.’ An available incident can lead to excessive fixation on worst-case scenarios – just as the absence of such an incident can lead to an unjustified sense of security.”
Cass R. Sunstein, University of Chicago
National Canine Research Council