National Canine Research Council
Home | About NCRC | NCRC Research | NCRC Resources | Dogs in the Media | Are Dogs a Danger in Your State? | Fear vs. Fact | Canine Aggression | Recent Case Studies | An Epidemic of Dog Bites? | Politics and BSL | Contact NCRC

The Media: A Reliable Source of Information on Dog Attacks?

Into the realm of science fiction:

There seems to be no end to the escalating insanity and outrageous claims made about Pit bulls. 

July 25, 2008:  WLBT News in Mississippi ran the following headline,  "Pit Bull Victim Favors Ban."  The article then goes on to recount the experience of a "pit bull victim."  The victim is quoted as saying:  "I parked my truck and before I got 6-foot in front of my truck, a 200-pound pit bull come out and got me."

It is difficult to comment on this, other than to say that if this man encountered a 200 lb. Pit bull, he should be contacting  the Guinness World Book of Records instead of the local TV news channel, because this definitely would be a World Record weight for a "Pit bull."

Apparently the local news, WLBT, also didn't recognize, (or care) about the significance of this very unbelieveable claim, as they had no problem headlining the words "Pit bull" in their story about a man bitten by a "200 lb." dog.

Everything is a Pit bull, whether it is or not....

The media will "identify" dogs as Pit bulls regardless of the fact that  the dog does not conform to even  the most basic and obvious "breed standards"  

July 23, 2008:   WPXI News in Wilkinsburg, PA reported that a boy received 200 stitches after being attacked by a "140 lb. pit bull."

There is no need for any discussion here about breeds or Pit bulls.

If the dog is 140 lbs. (as the media claims) then quite simply:  It is NOT a Pit bull. 

(It would have been helpful if the media reported how the dog was maintained, where the owner was at the time of the attack, or how the dog was able to attack the boy, but, as usual, the media did not supply this information).

Everything is a Pit bull, whether it is or not:  Again

On July 7, 2008 two local Portland, Oregon news stations KPTV and KXL radio reported the following story on the news and on the Internet: 

"Three people were recovering Monday afternoon following a dog attack on Sunday...after a pit bull mix busted through a screen door and onto Southeast 70th and Flavel streets. One woman was still in the hospital, listed in fair condition after the attack."

Since no one witnessed the dog leaving his property, it is unknown how these news sources knew the dog "busted through a screen door." Animal Control stated only that the screen door was "broken." However, it is known that the gate to the yard was open and the dog was able to leave the yard because his owner apparently suffered a fatal heart attack when he was mowing the grass.

One other "little" error on the part of KPTV and KXL radio reports:  The dog involved in this attack was not a "Pit bull mix" but found to be a 150 lb. Great Dane / Bullmastiff x.

It should be noted that KGW News did an admirable job of reporting this incident as a traumatic and sad event for all parties; the victims, the owner who passed away and for the dog that was obviously effected by his owner's death. 

Everything is a Pit bull, whether it is or not:  Again

On June 4, 2008, at least 29 news articles were run on a story about a Los Angeles boy "mauled by a Pit bull."  Some of the headlines were:

The Mercury News even reported that two Pit bulls attacked the child. Another article described the dog as the "family Pit bull."  The Los Angeles Times reported the boy in "critical condition after he was bitten by a pit bull."

Perhaps the media should not bear the brunt for this serious error, as the source of the breed mis-identification was found to have originated from the Los Angeles Police Department.

The LAPD should not attempt to identify breeds of dogs or comment on canine behavior. The average police officer is no more skilled in  breed identification than is the average reporter. Perhaps in the realization of this, the LAPD later referred all inquiries on the dog involved in this incident to the city's animal services department.

The Los Angeles Department of Animal Services released a statement declaring the dog involved in the attack on the boy was "in fact a shepherd mix."

Note:  Acknowledgement is given to the Los Angeles Times for printing a "For the Record" remark on the erroneous breed identification of the dog in this incident. On June 7th the  LA Times printed the following: "An article in Thursday's California section about a boy attacked by his family's dog quoted authorities as saying the dog was a pit bull. The Los Angeles Department of Animal Services said Friday that the animal that bit the toddler was a shepherd mix."

However, this small retraction cannot possibly undo the damage that was done by the media.  All the headlines run by the LA Times which initially identified this dog to be a Pit bull have not been pulled and can still be found in the LA Times archives.

Additionally, more than one attorney website and dog bite "advocacy" website has picked up this "Pit bull attack" story and posted it on their website as additional "evidence" of the nature of Pit bulls.

Everything is a Pit bull, whether it is or not:

A two-year-old Las Vegas boy was in serious condition in the hospital after being attacked by a dog that had escaped its yard on June 4, 2008.

Las Vegas ActionNews13 reported the dog to be "a pit bull mix."  While, the Las Vegas Review Journal reported the dog to be a "70 lb. Boxer."

The NCRC observed videos and photos of the dog and no discernable Pit bull characteristics are evident. Some Boxer characteristics are discernable, however, the dog appears to be a mixed breed, which may or may not be part Boxer.

Sad event for a little boy, but a field day for the media:

The May 25th attack on a 6-year-old Youngstown boy by his father's yard dog (kept in a kennel) was described in a number of Ohio papers.  Please read the following excerpts of the attack as presented by the media:

The Story:

"The boy was fading in and out." "I never seen anything like it in my life." "I heard the mother screaming and saw the dog rolling the baby like a tumbleweed, I heard the bones crush on his left arm." "The dog bit the boy's face and neck, ripped his lip, and bent his arm back like paper." "The mother was trying to free her son from the pit bull's jaws, but the dog kept tearing at the child's flesh as they rolling in the yard." "Neighbors used a baseball bat and a steel rake to beat the dog away." "He (the dog) had a lock on the baby." "The dog clamped his jaws around the boy's neck." "The initial call to police listed the victim as a nonbreather." (Quotes from Vindy.com, May 26, 2008 & Tribune Chronicle, May 27, 2008)

The Facts:

Sadly, a 6-year-old boy experienced a frightening, painful and unfortunate attack by a dog and no doubt he was seriously injured. However, despite the graphic descriptions about locking jaws, crushing bones, ripping of skin and tearing of flesh -- The boy was released from the hospital a few hours after the attack.

Does the identification "possibly a Pit bull" demonstrate a reliable or serious attempt to report accurate details of a dog attack? And when is a "loose, fleeing dog", really a chained dog?

On March 24, 2008, a Lugoff, South Carolina girl was reported to be playing in her front yard when she was attacked by a loose dog. The family of the girl reported the fleeing dog to be "possibly a Pit bull mix," which "bit the 5-year-old and took off."  WLTX-News19 promptly printed this "Pit bull" breed identification and version of events in their coverage of this incident.

The same day, The State, reported this same version of this incident and identifying the dog to be a "bulldog mix."

The same day, WIS News 10, put a little more effort into their coverage of this incident and quoted Kershaw County Control officials identifying the dog to be "an adult mixed breed."

The next day, March 25th, The State covered this incident again, and reported to the dog to be a Chesapeake Bay retriever / Mastiff mix.

Additionally, the story had changed from the girl being attacked by a loose dog in her front yard to the child being attacked after entering onto her neighbor's property and approaching the chained dog.

Credit is due to The State, for printing a follow-up and corrected version of the events as they really occurred. However, here is yet another example of how initial reports of dog attacks rarely identify the correct breed of dog involved and rarely reveal the true circumstances surrounding how an attack occurred.

It is vital for the public to recognize that rarely does the media print a "follow-up or corrected" version of an attack after the initial (and often erroneous) story. 

How Can a Boy "Critically Mauled" by a Pit bull be Home from the Hospital in less than 24 hours?

On February 17, 2008, a Lubbock, Texas newspaper reported the headline: "Boy Critical after Pit Bull Mauling." The article claimed the boy was in "critical condition after being mauled by a Pit bull - Boxer mix."  And in an "expanded coverage" byline, the paper went on to list each and every story of any Pit bull encounter (with or without injuries) with a human or animal that they could dig up in their archives.

Yet, less than 24 hours later the "critically injured" boy was at home, running around and playing like a normal 3-year-old.  Photos of the boy reveal a sweet-looking boy with a few scrapes and abrasions on his forehead.  Indeed, it was later reported that it could not be determined if the dog actually bit the boy or if the abrasions were caused by the dog's claws when he jumped on the boy.

So, here again is another "Pit bull" encounter with a human that has been grossly and irresponsibly misrepresented by the media, and which again re-enforces the hysteria around Pit bulls and dog attacks. And, indeed, this is demonstrated by the fact that the Lubbock newspapers ran multiple stories on this "attack" along with an emotional editorial to "Ban All Pit Bulls."

However, the real facts of this case are:

Was there an irresponsible owner who allowed his dog of undetermined breed to roam loose and frighten and injure a child?   Yes

Did this dog actually "attack" this child or did the dog simply react (chase and jump) on a small boy who admittedly ran because he was scared of dogs?  Undetermined, but the injuries suggest this was not an attack, but an over stimulated dog chasing and jumping on a fleeing child.

Was the boy "critically injured"?  No

Was the boy "mauled"?    No

Was this an unnecessary, preventable, and frightening incident for a child?  Yes

Did the media report this incident accurately and responsibly?   No

So here again, the media has stirred up a storm of controversy and hysteria about "Pit bulls." However, this case has nothing to do with "Pit bulls" or any breed or dog.

This was simply a century-old problem of an irresponsible dog owner allowing his/her dog to roam loose in an urban setting and the dog behaving as dogs often will when left to their own devices and without direction, (i.e., behaving badly by frightening, chasing and inflicting minor injuries on fleeing children)

When is a "Woman Killed by her Own Pet Pit Bulls" not a Fatal Dog Attack?

On January 28, 2008 the following headlines were printed in the Illinois media:

All these articles then went on to say that police are investigating the death of a woman who was mauled to death by her pet pit bulls.

There is no need for any discussion on how these dogs came to be identified as "Pit bulls" or how they really were not "pets of the woman" (as the dogs belonged to her boyfriend). The issues need not be addressed because the woman was not killed by the dogs. 

The media had pronounced the dogs had caused this woman's death prior to an autopsy.

One week later the autopsy and toxicology tests conducted by the Sangamon County Coroner revealed the woman died from a drug overdose and was NOT killed by the dogs.

It was highly irresponsible and unethical for the media to pronounce "a cause of death" in a case such as this, where there were no witnesses to the death. It can safely be said that these media sources do not have a medical examiner or coroner on staff, and as such, they should not have reported as "fact" a cause of death until a preliminary autopsy was done.

This kind of irresponsible reporting is far too common, as the media works under deadlines to report the news as quickly as possible. This rush to "report" the news makes the media less concerned with accuracy and detail and more concerned with deadlines. The resulting articles are often incomplete accounts of the event,  filled in with speculation and  then fortified by at least one sensational quote from any readily available source (whether this source is qualified to make a statement on the event appears at times to be irrelevant).

See below for more cases of  reported fatal dog attacks that were later found to be from other causes.

When is a Boxer not a Pit Bull? And when is a Pit Bull not a Boxer?

On December 30, 2007 a 20-month-old girl and her grandmother were attacked at a relative's house in San Jose, California. As will often happen when a dog's teeth come into contact with a child's face, the injuries to the girl were significant. 

At least 90 articles were printed about this attack:

Perhaps this may not seem so significant to the casual observer, but consider the response to the one newspaper (The San Francisco Chronicle) which reported the dog to be a Pit bull:  On their webpage (SFGate.com) the message board below this article had 120 comments, most about dog attacks and the "vicious" nature of Pit bulls.

And here again public perception is focused on an aspect of a dog attack which is unknown (breed), while the factors that directly contributed to this attack are not discussed or examined in a context which may help people understand why this attack occurred and how it could have possibly been avoided.

When is a Pit Bull not a Pit Bull?  And when is a Golden Terrier not a Golden Terrier?

On March 18, 2007 at least 4 different media sources ran headlines proclaiming "Pit bull kills its owner in Friendswood."  Newspapers and TV stations reported there were 3 dogs in the yard when the woman was attacked and some of these media sources identified the dogs to be: An Alaskan Collie, a Golden Terrier, and a Pit bull. Undaunted by the fact that testing or evidence collection had not yet been performed on any of the dogs, or the fact that there were no witnesses to the attack, the media concluded that the "Pit bull" was the dog responsible for the attack on the victim, and printed the story as such.

Fortunately (or not), the newspapers concluded, on their own, that the "Golden Terrier" and "Alaskan Collie" were not involved in the fatality; thereby saving those who use newspapers to identify and keep track of breeds involved in fatal attacks the embarrassment of adding these non-existent breeds to their "statistics."

However, the "Golden Terrier" (aka Golden Retriever) was ultimately determined to have participated in the attack and was euthanized.

The "Alaskan Collie" (aka Australian Shepherd) was deemed not to have participated in the attack and was not euthanized.

And the "Pit bull" which was later identified not to be a Pit bull, but to be a mix of  Catahoula Leopard and Am. Bulldog. Although shot at the scene, evidence determined this dog had participated in the attack.

Can we believe the San Francisco Weekly and their U.S. Postal Service source about dog attacks?

On January 9, 2008, yet another article on the "dangerousness" of dogs, was printed in the SFWeekly. James Wigdel, spokesman for the San Francisco district Post Office, was quoted in the article as stating that "mail carriers in the United States have been killed by dogs."

The NCRC has no record or documentation, dating back to 1965, of any Postal Office worker, Police Officer or Animal Control Officer being killed by a dog in the United States. The San Francisco Post Office was contacted and asked to reference who these individuals were and when these mail carriers were allegedly killed by dogs. No one in the San Francisco Post Office could substantiate the comment made by their spokesman.  When asked to research this further, the San Francisco Postal Service complied and contacted the USPS headquarters in D.C. for any information on mail carriers killed by dogs.

The USPS headquarters in D.C. had no information or documentation, dating back to 1982, of any U.S. mail carrier killed by a dog. 

SFWeekly and their source (a spokesperson for the SF Post Office) have "reported" events which did not occur.

Are All Reported Fatal Dog Attacks the Result of a Dog Attack?

In December 2002 an elderly woman was found dead inside her daughter's home in New Jersey. There were two dogs in the home at the time the woman was found. The incident was widely covered in the media and reported as:

So here again is more "proof" of the "unpredictable and vicious" nature of Pit bulls and thus began renewed discussion about controlling dangerous breeds of dogs in New Jersey. 

There was only one problem with this "fatal Pit bull attack."  The woman was not killed by the dogs. An autopsy eventually revealed that her death was due to natural causes and the dogs were found not to have contributed to her death.

This is not so uncommon as one may imagine. Since 2002 there have been at least seven (7) cases of deaths reported in the news as "fatal dog attacks" but which were later determined (through an autopsy) to be from natural causes (unrelated to dog bites) or natural causes with a non-lethal dog bite as a contributing factor. 

Not surprisingly all these erroneous reports of fatal dog attacks were attributed to Pit bulls or Rottweilers, (in one case the media alternately identified the dogs involved in the "attack" to be either; Fila Brasileiro, Mastiff, Bulldog, Am. Bulldog and/or Pit bull).

 www.nationalcanineresearchcouncil.com