The Washington Post, Pit Bulls, And How We Know It Is Foolish To Trust The News Media


If you think about it, you know you shouldn’t trust the news media.

Decades ago, I realized that almost any time I read or watched a news report involving something I knew about, it was almost always wrong, confused, left out important data, or lied.  Initially this realization manifested itself in sports reporting about baseball in general and the Boston Red Sox in particular, but later, as my knowledge expanded, so did my experience with authoritative news reports that were, metaphorically of course, full of crap. When I ran a research foundation for the US Chamber of Commerce, this phenomenon really came into focus. Reporters misunderstood what researchers said in answer to their questions. They misrepresented the press releases. They obviously didn’t read the full studies, and pretended they had. They misquoted me.

I didn’t think this was sinister. Mostly, the cause was laziness and inadequate intellectual training and cognitive skills. Most reporters I dealt with just weren’t very bright or well-educated. And I it suddenly hit me, one fine day in the Spring of 1981, like bolt from the blue:

Tf news reports are so often significantly wrong when I know a lot about the topic, why do I believe and rely on news stories about topics I don’t know much about? It makes no sense to trust these people.

The depressing thing is that the news media was far less biased and far more professional then than now. At least you know, however, that my distrust of U.S. journalism isn’t of recent vintage.

I thought about my 1981 epiphany when I read this story in the Washington Post this morning. It is crafted as a heart-tugging report about the tragic death of a 7-year-old boy, with the headline,  “‘It’s my baby. It’s my baby’: Two pit bulls fatally maul 7-year-old boy in Mass., authorities say.”

As readers here know, Ethics Alarms has thoroughly researched and covered the topic of ignorant anti-pit bull breed bias. The argument that the three to five breeds commonly regarded as “pit bulls” are inherently dangerous and more so than any other large breed rests on the same illogic as racial bias against humans; it has no factual basis in science or experience. I also, quite separately from my research, have a lot of personal experience with dogs of all kinds, including the so called “bully breeds.”

The reporter obviously does not, nor did he do the research necessary to write this story competently. The first sign is that the dogs are identified as “pit bulls” according to “authorities.” The authorities are obviously not authorities on dog breeds, and multiple studies have shown that few people are capable of accurately identifying a “pit bull.”   First, there is no such breed. The breeds commonly called “pit bulls” are American Staffordshire Terriers, Staffordshire Bull Terriers  and the American Pit Bull Terrier, as well as the American Bull Dog, because it kind of looks like a pit bull, and the Bull Terrier, which has “bull” in its name. Pit breed mixes are also often identified as pit bulls, though a lab/pit bull breed mix, for example, is as much a Labrador retriever as a “pit bull.” Never mind. If a large dog has short ears, a muscular body, a square muzzle and bites someone, that’s plenty, along with confirmation bias, to lead an “authority” to identify a dog as a “pit bull,” and for the news media to report it that way.

A lot of the time the description from the victim, onlooker or the police is wrong. but as one source notes, “Which is a more compelling hea line, “Pit bull mauls child” or “Unidentified dog mauls child”? There won’t be a correction if the attack turns out to have been by a mastiff, a Corso Cano, a boxer mix, an American Bull Dog ot a mutt.  A stupid woman in the park once got hysterical because she thought my Jack Russell terrier was a pit bull. Like most products of hate, fear, bias and prejudice, the campaign against these dogs is almost exclusively led by people who are completely ignorant and have no desire to be educated.

The Post reporter, Travis Andrews, quotes this statistic: “From 2005 to 2015, pit bull attacks caused 232 deaths, which accounted for 64 percent of all deaths caused by dog bites during that decade.” That’s fake news. The statistic has been debunked repeatedly by dog breeders and experts on many grounds, including the fact that it combines several breeds into one, ignores the circumstances of the attack, and was created from initial news reports only, which often use “pit bull” as a default description when the breed is uncertain. But then look at the source of that stat:

Does it sound familiar? If you have been an Ethics Alarms reader, it might: Ethics Alarms designated that sites as an Unethical Website of the Month in 2015, with  me writing in part,

Pretending that there is some dog-monster known as a The Pit Bull  is just one of the lies (or examples of reckless ignorance)  perpetrated by hysteric    and her deadly band of anti-dogowner fanatics on their website. Denver’s infamous pit bull ban, like Lynn, defines the “breed” as “an American Pit Bull Terrier, American Staffordshire Terrier, Staffordshire Bull Terrier, or any dog displaying the majority of physical traits of any one of those breeds.” This rigged methodology renders the statistics repeatedly cited by anti-pit bull bigots obvious nonsense. When one compares one distinct breed to many or more by falsely representing them as one breed, then it’s not hard to show that the fake breed is disproportionately aggressive. Says the site: “If it looks like a pitbull, then it is one.”

…Dogsbite.Org deals in bad statistics, debunked fallacies and anti-dog propaganda that has turned into cruel legislation in communities all over the country. Their tactics succeed because craven political hacks would rather kill harmless pets than risk losing the votes of PETA members, dog breed ignoramuses and bigots.

Many of those dog breed ignoramuses and bigots have commented in the still growing threads on that post. They generally have not bothered to read the voluminous cites and research I have assembled in my other posts on this topic. or the powerful evidence presented in the documentary, Beyond the Myth.

There are whole websites devoted to warning the public and the news media about, including one created by the American Dog Breeder’s Association (it cites my post, among others.) On that site, a study by the American Veterinary Association is quoted that explains why the statistic cited by the Post is junk.

So why did the Post reporter use that statistic? Why didn’t he check his source? Why didn’t he examine how the statistic was created? It’s simple, really.

First, neither he nor his editors were interested in the dogs, or the issue of breed specific bans. They were interested in a visceral, sensational news story, hence the beginning on the headline, ‘It’s my baby. It’s my baby.’

Second, the story’s angle is that “pit bulls” are dangerous, and the piece is assembled to make that case. The two graphics used online are a photo of the  deceased child, and a video that sits there holding the image of  some kind of pit bull breed mix. That isn’t either of the dogs involved in the attack, though. Misleading, incompetent, sloppy.

Third, there aren’t any reputable sources that will back that bogus statistic. If you want stats to make people think “pit bulls” are deadly, you go to Here is another site’s assessment of DogsBite:

“While it seems that lately, several media outlets have been treating them like they have a particular knowledge on the subject of dog bites and attacks (I’ll get to a possible “why” on that later in the post), itdoesn’t erase the reality that is simply a website run almost entirely by an individual person who has an expertise in web design, access to google, and a desire to seek revenge on an attack that happened to her several years. Those are the qualifications behind the website. And it runs no deeper than that. And treating the website as anything more than that is a recipe bad information that will lead to less safe circumstances for people and dogs.”

Finally, the reporter didn’t vet or check his source, investigate the facts, or bother to educate himself about what he was writing about. He was incompetent and lazy.

What then, does this Travis Andrews’ story tell us about the integrity, professionalism, competence and trustworthiness of  the Washington Post when it supposedly informs the public about what “it has the right to know”? And since the Washington Post is supposed to represent the best in American journalism, what does this tell us about the quality of American journalism?

These are not difficult questions. They just have frightening answers.


14 thoughts on “The Washington Post, Pit Bulls, And How We Know It Is Foolish To Trust The News Media

    • A sick—but funny!— way of pointing out what the article negligently ignored:

      1. No child is safe intruding on the space of any strange dogs, of any breed.
      2. The enclosure should have been secure. Not the dogs’ fault.
      3. A seven year old should not be unsupervised to the extent that one can just wander in to a dog. enclosure.
      4. Of the parties involved, the dogs were the least culpable. If their owners, the parents and the child had behaved responsibly and rationally, there would be no incident, and the child would be alive. Naturally, the dogs are the one that are blamed.
      5. See: Harambee the Gorilla. But nobody feels sorry for pit bulls….

  1. Is it possible that pit bulls aren’t more aggressive or violent, just that they are stronger and more able to fatally injure another person? Obviously a beagle isn’t as strong as a pit bull, but that doesn’t mean beagles are never aggressive, just that when they ARE aggressive they don’t have the strength that could lead to a fatality?

    • Any medium to large sized dog will create more serious injuries, than a smaller breed,

      Still, Chihuaha’s, Cocker Spaniels and Yorkie’s have killed lots of babies. So have cats.

    • That’s pretty much true, but the various pit bull breeds aren’t stronger than lots and lots of breeds. They are terriers, which means they are high spirited, hunters and lively (and smart), and they have the bulldog strength.AKC tests showed that they are among the most patient dogs. But all bets are off if they aren’t socialized, or if they are abused. People are like that too.

    • The claim HAS been made that pits (leaving aside, for the moment, how/if they’re accurately identified) besides having strong jaws, have a tendency to tenaciously grab, hold, and shake, causing more damage than other types might. I don’t know if there is reliable information to truly support or refute this, but it’s easy to believe if you consider at least some strains were bred attempting to maximize these qualities (as well as aggression) for bull-baiting, dog-fighting, ratting, etc. You might wonder if there couldn’t now sometimes be an inherent difference between some of these types and, say, another bred to have a “soft” mouth and cheerfully retrieve birds for multiple “masters”. Isn’t selecting characteristics a prime function of domesticating animals, and one reason your dog isn’t a wolf? The Russians have been able to breed ill-tempered, aggressive foxes into cuddly house pets. Have kennel clubs, dog breeders, trainers, hunters, etc., all deluded themselves over the years in believing that different breeds behave, even think, differently?

      While I love dogs (my favorite animal), and agree with most of what Jack wrote (especially about the irresponsible way the press and some others handle issues), I think it’s maybe a bit PC to too readily brush aside questions about possible differences in temperament and characteristics. In this particular case, the issue is further clouded by pit-types being a favorite of less-than-responsible owners, like dog-fighters, drug dealers, and other criminals.

      • “I don’t know if there is reliable information to truly support or refute this”

        It’s a myth. All terriers have the grab and shake instinct, as do many other dogs. These terrier mixes have strong necks and jaws, so you don’t want to be shook. That’s all. The “Locking jaws” stuff is baloney.

  2. Wobw, Jack.

    I read through the comment on the linked article. You took quite a social media beat down from some of the knee-jerk responders. I hope your computer survived the online onslaught. How dare you defend the vicious and terrifying pit pull?!?!

    I was also impressed by the comments regarding the parents of the young child. They ranged from “where are the parents” to “they have suffered enough by the loss of their child, so leave them alone”. It seems to me that adult supervision is the biggest factor in this horrible incident, with many unanswered (unasked?) questions, principally how this child ended up in the dogs’ enclosure and what provoked the dogs to attack the child? The article doesn’t spend much time on those questions, focusing mostly on the grisly nature of the attack.


  3. The DBO idiots, PETA bigots and Borchadt’s crew of lunatics are in the minority. The media is to blame for most of the negative impact on these dogs because they want advertising money and could care less about the facts. The focus must remain on promoting responsible dog ownership and raising children that know what respect for others, including animals, means. Adults need to properly raise, train, and socialize their dogs and teach their children how to act when around unfamiliar dogs. Shut down the back-yard breeders and dog fighters. The reason this particular case is getting so much attention is because, again, a child was killed after entering onto private property, even though he had been in contact with the dogs before (with the owner’s permission, according to our friend’s in the media). It was also reported that the kid had thrown rocks at the dogs in the past. The general public cares nothing about banning pit bulls or the hate groups’ agenda of extermination. Most people have real lives to live and don’t manically focus on hating, banning and killing dogs. Outside of social media and the ignorant press that publishes biased news, it really is a non-issue. People at work don’t stand around and converse about pit bulls. No. They talk about real life – their families, politics, how much their job sucks, other people, their pets, etc. Rejects like Borchadt, Lynn, Kay, and the Clftion twins have made careers out of demonizing these dogs. The media pipes in every time a pit bull type dog is involved in any type of violent incident (and never prints a retraction when the dog is shown not to be a pit type dog) while mostly ignoring other breeds of dogs that attack. Take a look around. There are many more pit supporters than haters. Call and e-mail your local legislators and voice your opinion. Contact the prosecutors and judges involved in dog fighting cases and demand harsher punishment for convicted offenders. The haters will not win. Never stop fighting for what you believe in. Thanks for speaking the truth.

Leave a Reply to Willem Reese Cancel reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.