I know. I should be ashamed. The truth is: I don’t really know what’s going on in Syria. I mean, I have the general outline but no specifics. I don’t know the history, so I have a hard time contextualizing what I hear on NPR.
So, let’s say I decide this week to get a firm grasp of the situation. Where would I go? Well, I’d probably start with mainstream magazines that have spent decades figuring out how to consolidate huge world issues into comprehensible, bite-sized chunks, right? That’s what most people do when they want to learn something about a particular issue…
And that’s where the problem comes in.
I could write about journalistic standards and the decline of integrity in the media, but luckily a lot of people* are doing that in the wake of Charlotte Alter’s fear-mongering article in TIME. (I’m not going to link to it here. You can find it on their site if you’re interested.)
Instead of addressing her lack of reporting and total disregard for her responsibility to objectivity, I want to focus on the other side of that article: the reader.
Since you are here, reading a dog blog during some of your precious free time, I’d venture to guess you’re more informed about a bevy of dog-related issues. I’d also venture to guess that the majority of TIME’s readers don’t fall into the dog-blog-reading category. What that means is that those readers, when they want to learn about a particular issue, turn to the magazine to info-gather. Most probably stop reading after a piece like Alter’s. Who has time, after all, to do further research? To fill the reporting gaps? Especially when there are other problems that are more pressing? So, they finish the piece, toss the magazine in the recycling bin, and walk away – having formed an opinion about pit bulls with only those erroneous 1,500 words as background.
And I can’t fault them for that. That’s probably a close approximation to how I’d tackle the Syria issue.
Alter’s shoddy reporting, her editor’s laziness in letting that piece get published without a shred of objectivity, the pressure to publish click-bait, foreshortened editorial calendars, and so on… all that comes into play.
But, again, my concern isn’t for the decline of journalistic integrity. My concern is for those readers who skimmed that article and walked away with a misguided, misinformed view of “the pit bull problem.”
And, I know, saying “problem” is a gross over-simplification. Pick your problem: chaining, limited access to veterinary and behavior services, bad breeding, an overcrowded shelter system, and on and on. The number of problems – all inter-related and cyclical – feels insurmountable, like an out-of-control wildfire.
But, when it comes down to it, misinformation and fear-mongering nonsense that comes from people like Alter are the fuel behind that fire.
We can put it out. We just need to reach out to those people who aren’t reading dog blogs.
I’ve been thinking “what can I DO about this” since I read her article last week. I thought about writing to Alter, though I’m not sure it’s worth it. I thought about writing to the TIME Magazine editorial staff (the masthead is available online), and I still might. But I’m sure those people are getting slammed on both sides already, and I kept circling back around to the issue of the reader, the average non-dog-blog-reading but likely-dog-owning magazine subscriber. Those are the people who need the correct information.
So, here are two simple things that we informed folks can do to combat Alter’s bad reporting and to help those readers get the correct information:
1. Write a letter to your local paper. Yes, it seems counterintuitive to go local to combat a national article, but it’s the same subscriber base. In fact, coming from someone they know – you! – your neighbors and colleagues may take it more seriously or spark a discussion with you. You can find the submission requirements for various sections (letters to the editor, op-ed, even features in smaller markets) on the paper’s website. Share your polite, educated, passionate position.
2. Leverage your social media accounts to reach those people who are close to you who may not be as in-tune with animal initiatives. A quick status update in your own voice – and maybe a pic of your pup – could resonate. Even a question, like, “Did anyone read that TIME article about pit bulls? I’m so disappointed in that lack of reporting. What did you think?” You’ll open up the possibility for people who aren’t in-the-know to ask you their questions, and it sets you up to dispel myths.
Did you read the article? Any other ideas or suggestions for how we, as a caring group of dog lovers, can address the misinformation presented there? Have you taken any steps or led any discussions about these issues? I’d love to know what you’re doing!
And, on a final note, when I do finally get the chance to read up on Syria, you can be sure that I will not be purchasing a copy of TIME.
*If you’re interested in delving into the mistakes and false data she presents, here’s a great recap of the problems.
New here? Thanks for visiting! Join the Facebook page or subscribe to the feed to stay on top of the discussion!
Wow!! What a great read! I will be sharing with my friends!
The Time article was so disappointing on so many levels. The complete lack of objectivity was really concerning from such a widely read outlet and yet, I feel like the entire KFC debacle was also too sensationalized with conflicting accounts of what really happened.
I did post a plea on mine and the boys Facebook pages to be respectful in a rebuttal. It never actually occured to me to engage in the rebuttal locally. Thanks for the idea.
I skimmed the Time ‘article’ expecting to see what I always see in the comments when a story like this comes up, huge popular support for ‘pits’ and a few lone loons citing the same discredited BS over and over (I’m looking at you Colleen Lynn!) However, Time apparently doesn’t do comments anymore.
I did read the excellent recap you linked to, and I think the most pointed of his points was this:
“Problem #22: Holding Colleen Lynn, Merritt Clifton and PETA up as examples of compassionate advocates for the well-being of Pit Bulls (and bigger dogs in general) is like putting the head of the Ku Klux Klan in charge of African American reproductive systems.”
Ouch.
I’ve been calling BSL and anti-‘pit’ attitudes “dog racism” for a while now, it’s nice to know others are thinking the same way.
It’s a sad article and poor for all the reasons you and others have pointed out. Unfortunately, TIME is a very poor source of news and has been throughout my lifetime. Their pittie article is just the latest example.
The truly sad thing is that some people who are bit by dogs suffer tremendously. We need to prevent bites as a public health problem. And demonizing one group of dogs based on their appearance has not saved one person.
Sadly I don’t think Time Magazine or the msm in general is concerned with getting the facts straight and informing people. It’s easier to write a hit piece and get noticed. The more outrageous the story, the more attention it receives. what surprises me is that they are still in business.
There’s a reason they are an online only publication now.
better try another site that provides real information, you got a point.
No editor will ever say this but they feel pressured to get pieces out quickly nowadays and not fact check. They are sort of in competition with blogs and social media to break stories. Since people’s attention spans are short and the goal really is for maximum SEO, link, and sharing benefits they only care about “clicks” and “conversions.” You can’t sell banner advertising or get PPC revenue with no traffic.
I’m not defending the piece or anything. I stopped reading a lot of these publications which don’t edit a long time ago. Honestly a big media company like that has no excuses.
The Wall Street Journal still has great articles. I guess they did the right thing in the beginning charging for the paper online.
Bravo, Maggie! Its one thing to have a personal problem with bully breeds – it’s another problem entirely to use ones klout to unfairly persecute a breed. The Time piece was biased, inflammatory and lacking any scientific evidence. What she failed to mention is that there are more bully breeds in the shelter system than ever before, so it’s little wonder that there are more bite problems.
The problem begins with a lack of education and irresponsible pet parents; and it will continue to escalate until people begin to look at solutions that involve education in the inner cities and throughout the nation.
I’m disgusted with the TIME piece. It’s further proof that unbiased reporting, true reporting of facts, is dead.
Where to begin? When I’m doing research on a paper I typically delve in with a preconceived theory in mind. I will choose research and supporting documents that support my thesis. If I’m a good journalist then I will also research and present opinions differing from mine. It’s apparent to me that Charlotte Alter did not do this and is in fact biased about pit bulls, but I see that with most of the mainstream media.
When I hear of a dog attack (typically it’s a pit bull) the facts are that a pit bull attacked an elderly woman who was walking alone and the attack was unprovoked. BUT what isn’t presented is the woman was walking with a cane and the owner of this pit bull routinely used a cane to discipline the dog.
Sadly many people refuse to see that poor training, lack of socialization and cruelty and neglect have such a huge influence in the way a dog turns out. I think Pack Leader said it best, “The problem begins with a lack of education and irresponsible pet parents; and it will continue to escalate until people begin to look at solutions that involve education in the inner cities and throughout the nation. ”
Where I live the cities that have the highest poverty levels are also the ones with the highest population of pit bulls, pit bull ‘attacks’ and pit bulls in shelters.
I truly believe if we start with the children, and begin educating them early, we will really see a change in animal welfare.
well, the media is asking Cheney, Wolfowitz, Bolton and other architects of our disastrous war on Iraq what they would do in today’s tragedy (and taking their responses seriously), so what do you expect?
The media is about stenography, not reporting.
Oh Maggie, thank you for this post.
You’re right about the average readers of Time. My grandparents subscribe to it and they are exactly the type of readers you are worried about. Since they also watch CNN all the time, they are already afraid of pitbulls without even being able to identify an actual “pitbull.” It’s the pitbull label that scares them. I am sure my grandpa will read only the headline, and that will be enough to reinforce what he already believes.
I’m hesitant to even mention the article on any of my social platforms. I’m kind of just wishing it will go away. But I like your suggestion, and I am going to say something after all.
Anyway, this post gives me some hope over the whole sad situation.