With the deaths of Rhames care taker the media was so fast to talk about killer mastiffs. Now that we find out he died of a brain anurisim and the dogs were probably trying to help him , or drag his body back in the yard, the media is not saying a word , do you thing the media is anti-dog ...
2007-08-22 06:03:46 · 11 answers · asked by MASTIFF MOM 5 in Pets ➔ Dogs
I think they are VERY "anti-dog"...but only against big dogs or the "aggressive" breeds. If a pit bull bites someone, its in the paper, no matter how minor the damage but if a chihuahua bites a little kid and he/she has to get stitches....we hear nothing! Now I know big dogs can do more damage, that's common sense, but they are considered "aggressive" because of the simple fact that the media only tells stories of the big dogs. I have owned big dogs, the most "aggressive" breeds out there in fact, my whole life and have yet to be bitten. Now little dogs...that's a different story! I've never owned a little dog yet I have been bitten more times than I can count!! I think that little dogs are more aggressive than big dogs....it's just not shown through the media!
2007-08-22 06:22:03 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 1⤋
The media isn't anti-dog, the media is pro-sensationalism.
I thought they did a pretty good job (not great but good) on this story as they originally said the cause of death was unknown. They didn't say the dogs mauled the caretaker (from the accounts I read) but they did say he had bite marks on his forearms.
I think most people (including those in the media) love dogs. They are looking for an interesting angle to the story so that people will read about it. I think they were also pretty reasonable about the Roy Cohn incident with the tiger.
People are becoming more aware about how animals act and I don't see that many knee-jerk reactions blaming the dogs.
2007-08-22 13:14:50 · answer #2 · answered by WooHoo 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The media will do whatever is necessary to make sure they aren't wrong about something. They arn't going to write an article about a killer mastiff and then turn around and say "opps, sorry about that we meant to say he was trying to save him." They think reading about animals being killers is more interesting than dogs being savers or lovers. Yes, they are anti-dogs and anything else they think they can get a story out of. Don't believe everything the newspaper says!
2007-08-22 13:14:39 · answer #3 · answered by sun day 5 · 1⤊ 2⤋
I'm just glad it wasn't a pit bull for a change. The media is definitely anti-pit bull.
You can't throw a dog in a backyard or chain in up and never socialize it and expect it to act civil !!!!!!
Most of these so called pits that the media loves to per tray as killers are not true pits they are bull dog mixes and therefore the pit bulls are getting a bad rap. Go to www.blessthebullys.com website. I believe they have a poster of about 20 dogs and they ask you to find the pit bull. 99 out 100 people will pick the wrong dog.
It really makes me sick for people who haven't owned a pit bull or even educated themselves on the breed to bash them and we have the media to thank for that. Where in the media do they talk about the top drug dog in the U.S. being a pit bull?? they don't. Where in the media do they talk about all the pit bulls that are therapy dogs??? they don't. Where in the media do they talk about a pit bull who saved an 80 year old ladies life because she collapsed at her neighbors door before she could knock because she was having a heart attack and the pit bull raised hell and scratched at the door until his owner opened it and found the lady. They don't!!!!!!!! Because our society feeds off of tragedy.
If anyone wants to get truly educated on pit bulls please go to this website it was started by a lady who has owned and trained pit bulls for over 20 years. www.workingpitbull.com
2007-08-22 13:18:26 · answer #4 · answered by blessed1 4 · 2⤊ 2⤋
I think the media is ANTI-NEWS. They only want the "shock" factor and to be the first to make a story. The media has become a total shame! no more in-depth investigation only political correct phrases. Thank you INTERNET!
The small dogs are more of a problem than big dogs. But it all come down to the OWNER not the dogs.
2007-08-22 13:13:00 · answer #5 · answered by MarkyMarkC 3 · 2⤊ 2⤋
I agree with the first answer. I recently got a boxer and all of my friends looked at me like I was insane for getting one. They all said "arent they mean?".
Most boxers are loving family dogs that are very playful. Unfortunately there are too many Michael Vikks out there.
2007-08-22 13:15:04 · answer #6 · answered by one 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Not particularly. There are also lots of stories of how dogs alerted their owners to house fires or those that rescued small children. However, people need to be aware that there are certain breeds that are bred to show aggressive behavior and no matter how "sweet" or "loving" they are, they still are animals and are quite capable of unpredictable behavior.
2007-08-22 16:20:02 · answer #7 · answered by RoVale 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
I think that unless you own a "foo-foo" dog the media will always blame the dog instead of the behavior the dog was taught.
2007-08-22 13:08:42 · answer #8 · answered by To The Point 3 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Absolutely. I think the media right now is a HORRIBLE way to get information. They are very one sided and tend to tell only half truths. It's what's convenient and what might make ratings.
2007-08-22 13:10:49 · answer #9 · answered by sillybuttmunky 5 · 3⤊ 2⤋
they probably are...all u ever hear about is the bad and the ugly, its never about how the dogs was tryin 2 help. ur rite the dogs were prob tryin 2 help in the only way they know how
2007-08-22 13:10:05 · answer #10 · answered by Mandie K. 3 · 1⤊ 2⤋