Disinformation by any other name
When I was still employed by the media, one of the issues I fought tooth and nail about what the mislabeling of dogs. Many dogs, especially when they had done something wrong, were labeled as pitbulls even though the photos clearly showed they were a mixed breed and some had no pitbull characteristics at all.
When I saw this article about the pitbull who saved her owner, I immediately read it and looked at the picture. That dog may be 1/2 pitbull but even from the photo you can tell it has a lot of either hound or retriever in her.
So with that point being made, this reporter is doing the same thing in telling everyone this dog is a pitbull, only the news does not reflect badly on the breed.
It is still disinformation. The only true way to distinguish breed is from DNA. Plain and simple. Just because the story tells you this dog is a pitbull doesn't make it true.
Dogs are dogs. Some are nice and some are not. Why do we have to continually label the breed, when the important thing is the dog helped save his owner's life?
When I saw this article about the pitbull who saved her owner, I immediately read it and looked at the picture. That dog may be 1/2 pitbull but even from the photo you can tell it has a lot of either hound or retriever in her.
So with that point being made, this reporter is doing the same thing in telling everyone this dog is a pitbull, only the news does not reflect badly on the breed.
It is still disinformation. The only true way to distinguish breed is from DNA. Plain and simple. Just because the story tells you this dog is a pitbull doesn't make it true.
Dogs are dogs. Some are nice and some are not. Why do we have to continually label the breed, when the important thing is the dog helped save his owner's life?
Comments