by Dudley Hanks

Created on: October 25, 2008

If one interprets this question as meaning, "Does the media have a moral responsibility to intentionally portray the pit bull as a dangerous animal?" the answer is no.

The job of the media is to present to the public all sides of issues and affairs, as objectively as possible. It is then up to the ordinary John and Jane Doe to evaluate what they read, see or hear and establish their own opinion based on their unique experiences and beliefs.

In most cases, this is what happens.

If the question is interpreted as meaning, "Is it right to lay the blame for vilifying pit bulls on the media because of overly sensational reports of bloody attacks? the answer is still no.

Certainly, journalists have covered many maullings, and a lot of people think that this coverage has been rather one-sided, even sensationalistic. But, the bulk of the blame lies with the consumers of media products, rather than the media outlets themselves. People, quite naturally, seem to gravitate to dangerous situations and topics.

No matter how one views this issue, the media folks get the "short end of the stick." They are accused of greedy exploitation when they report the graphic details of little Johnny's 135 stitches after being attacked by the neighbour's pit bull, and they are labelled as being blind to a public security problem if they opt instead to cover something else. Like it or not, Sally's diving competition is destined for page two of the daily news.

It's a "no win" situation for the news guys.

Obviously, anomalies exist. Yet, most reports I've read or heard tend to present a lovable portrayal of a family's pet pit bull to counter-balance each tragic encounter. Somehow, though, after the reports have been digested and a bit of time passes, people don't remember the more tranquil part of each report. What they remember is the child trying to put on a brave face after it was nearly chewed off.

As humans, we have enjoyed a rather successful evolution. Part of this success stems from our ability to learn from mistakes. In more primitive times, learning from mistakes meant identifying dangerous animals and situations. Then, after the danger had been identified, we either decided to avoid it in the future, or we devise strategies for mastery of it. Either way, we made sure we kept in mind the potential for danger.

Our minds still focus more attention on dangerous brutes than family pets. It isn't right to castigate the messenger for the way we remember the message.

Learn more about this author, Dudley Hanks.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.