Animals in the News: When Headlines Attack

Every cause here could write volumes on the irresponsibility of the media. When it comes to animal welfare, bad reporting can cost lives.

The most obvious, and common, examples of this are pit bull headlines. You'll see things like Pit Bull Mauls Neighbor, and the article will name or show a picture of an entirely different breed and/or the "mauling" will turn out to be a single outpatient dog bite, or even a case where someone felt threatened but wasn't bitten. It's as if the media really thinks "pit bull" is a term to describe animal aggression rather than an actual type of dog.

Earlier this year, Time magazine published a feature on the dogs rescued from the huge, multi-state dog bust in the Midwest. Overall, it was a decent article that seemed well-intentioned. Except for the headline: Can Attack Dogs Be Rehabilitated? Hey, Time: dog fighting has NOTHING to do with being an attack dog. Dog fighting is a cruel blood sport where dogs are trained to fight each other and, traditionally, culled if they "attack" the humans around them. The term "attack dog" implies hostility, trained or untrained, particularly against people. It's like saying professional boxers are guilty of assault, except much worse since the dogs don't get to choose whether or not they go in the ring.

But it's not just pit bulls who suffer from bad headlines. I came across this headline the other day: Transplant Guide Highlights Daily Infection Risks from Factors Like Pets and Food. My first thought was that this was going to be another article like the ones that crop up from time to time about toxoplasmosis, blowing the risk to pregnant women out of proportion by advising them to get rid of their cats instead of focusing on easy, common-sense precautions. But as I read further, I realized it was worse than that -- this is a case, like the Time story, of unintentional (hopefully) damage from a headline barely resembling the information in the article.

A basic rule of marketing is that, on average, 8 out of 10 people will read headline copy, but only 2 out of 10 will read the rest.

According to the article on transplant risks, the actual guideline for patients was to:

Balance the psychological benefits of pet ownership with the potential infection risk. A variety of infections can be transmitted to humans from animals like young cats, reptiles, rodents, chicks and ducklings. Animal feces are also dangerous, so cleaning out cages and litter boxes should be avoided or disposable gloves and face masks worn. Ideally the transplant recipient should wait at least a year before getting a new pet.

The more detailed information isn't particularly damaging, but 80% of the people who came across this article only saw the headline, with keywords like DAILY INFECTION RISKS and PETS setting off little panic alarms in their minds.

Science Daily isn't exactly a sensationalist publication looking for sexy headlines to sell papers. Yet headlines like this create a perception that pets are dangerous to have around, which leads to people turning their animals in to shelters. The media whips up a frenzy and next thing you know, the shelter is full of animals given up for no reason other than irrational, but headline-justified, fears. It happens with pregnant women and cats, with kids who haven't developed allergies yet, and with pit bulls in areas that are considering breed specific legislation.

It's the same reason I hate those When Animals Attack type shows. It gives the false impression that animals are to blame, when usually common sense is the enemy. Most of the "attacks" featured on those shows are situations where either a) humans were somewhere they had no business being like in a zoo enclosure or natural habitat (Ever see the one where a hunter was "attacked" by a deer? That's karma, not news); or b) humans brought animals somewhere they didn't belong, like onto a stage or into a TV studio.

Check out this screenshot from CNN earlier this year with the headline: Chimp had tea, Xanax before vicious attack. I'm pretty sure the injuries inflicted on the chimpanzee's owner had a lot more to do with the fact that chimps aren't pets than it did with a substance abuse problem.

With articles only being read a small percentage of the time, and the high number of incidences of animal abuse and abandonment, reporters need to take a little less license with their creativity. There is -- or there should be -- a difference between grabbing attention and causing hysteria. Keep an eye out for headlines on the rampage and, when you catch them, write the editors to let them know you don't approve of their portrayal of animals.

Photo credit: hyperscholar