Is There an Anti-Pit Bull Bias in the Media?

Last Updated on February 19, 2022

Do news organizations have an anti-pit bull bias? The answer depends, likely, on whether you own or love the breed. But the ASPCA, in claiming there is a bias, seems to support both sides of the argument at the same time as they raise some important points about the breed itself.

When a dog mauls someone — or worse, kills someone — it is likely to be news, even if only in the community where the incident occurs. Pit bull owners have long accused the media of having an unreasonable desire to “smear” the reputation of the breed, suggesting that the media seems sometimes “too eager” to report the story if a pit bull is involved.

The ASPCA posted a page about pit bulls in an effort to clear up some of the confusion the general public has. In doing so, however, they may well have created additional confusion.

But first things first: the ASPCA correctly raises the point that it’s important to be clear what a “pit bull” actually is. On its site, it defines the general term as referring either to an American Pit Bull Terrier or an American Staffordshire Terrier. Other breeds some people may group into the generic term, including the Bull Terrier, the Staffordshire Bull Terrier and the American Bulldog, are distinctly different, despite appearances, and should not be referred to as “pit bulls.”

The ASPCA makes this claim about pit bulls and the bad rap they’ve received:

A pit bull bite is also far more likely to draw media attention. Many dogs of other breeds bite people, but these incidents almost always go unreported. They’re just not exciting enough fodder for television and print.

“Not exciting enough?” I’ll come back to that absurd notion in a moment.

Before that, however, let me show you how the ASPCA shoots down its own argument about unfairness to pit bulls in the paragraphs before that statement.

In discussing the history of the breed, the ASPCA points out that pit bulls were bred for fighting. That same website states quite clearly that when most dogs fight, the goal is to inflict enough pain to end the fight without causing serious damage, but that when pit bulls fight, it’s a different story:

• A pit bull may not give warning before becoming aggressive
• They’re less likely to back down when clashing with an opponent.
• When provoked, they may become aggressive more readily.
• Sometimes they don’t inhibit their bites, so they may cause injury more often then other breeds.

This is what the ASPCA says, a few paragraphs before it claims that pit bulls get a bad rap because of unfair coverage! To be fair, it claims that the breed was raised to fight other dogs, not people, and that throughout its history, dogs that showed aggression toward people were culled from its gene pool to remove that trait. But these days, that’s not necessarily the case, particularly when unscrupulous breeders out to make money aren’t doing all they can to help ensure the breed’s normal, non-dangerous temperament. The article also rightly points out the need for early socialization, between people and other dogs, to make sure a pit bull puppy stays social rather than menacing.

But wait, there’s more! In the same paragraph in which the organization claims a bias against the breed, it states this:

Sadly, the pit bull has acquired a reputation as an unpredictable and dangerous menace. His intimidating appearance has made him attractive to people looking for a macho status symbol, and this popularity has encouraged unscrupulous breeders to produce puppies without maintaining the pit bull’s typical good nature with people. To make matters worse, irresponsible owners interested in presenting a tough image often encourage their pit bulls to behave aggressively. If a pit bull does bite, he’s far more likely to inflict serious injuries than most other breeds, simply because of his size and strength.

It’s not that the pit bull itself is inherently dangerous: it’s that their human counterparts are sometimes so irresponsible that they raise dangerous dogs that wind up getting attention by doing damage that can’t fairly be blamed on the dogs themselves.

The anti-pit bull bias ignores an important point.

I’m not sure why this wouldn’t occur to anyone as they vehemently defend their breed of choice, but let me go ahead and spill this particular bag of beans: there are people working in the media who own pit bulls.

In fact, I know two colleagues — and surely more than two — who own pit bulls. I’ve met both colleagues’ dogs in person, and I can tell you that in both cases, the biggest danger one might perceive is the possible threat of being licked to death. In one case, I was handed a strip of carrot to hand to the dog as a reward for retrieving a ball, and when I did so, the dog sat next to me and leaned against me for me to rub its head and back as if I were suddenly its best friend.

There was nothing threatening about either dog. The fact that there are journalists who own members of the breed ought to help shoot down the notion that there’s some universal bias against the breed.

Ignoring bites from other breeds? Don’t buy that one, either.

Remember that I said I’d go back to the absurd notion about attacks from other breeds going unreported? Let’s try a little exercise, shall we? If I were to ask you to imagine, other than pit bulls, a breed you considered to be generally regarded as the most friendly, which one would you choose?

Many might place the golden retriever toward the top of a list. Pit bull enthusiasts might be surprised — or, perhaps unnecessarily pleased — to find that when a dog identified as a golden retriever mix fatally mauled a child, the media did, in fact, report that. And in Richmond, there was the story of a golden retriever who had to be put down after it jumped over a fence and attacked a woman walking through the neighborhood.

Then there’s the other side of the coin: positive stories about pit bulls — like any other breed — get reported, too. Consider this report about a pit bull that rescued an injured chihuahua or the pit bull credited for saving the life of a deaf child in a house fire. Why would the media, if it has an ax to grind against the breed, say anything positive about it?

Logically, it’s a much more valid argument to suggest that serious dog attacks from breeds other than pit bulls or pit bull stories that positively portray the breed are more likely to be run in the media for the simple fact that they aren’t what would be generally expected and might, in a grand conspiracy theory, be assumed to get more viewers or more readers.

After all, if we’re going to buy any conspiracy theory that’s dangled in front of us, consider all of them.

The problem is, some pit bull enthusiasts seem to want to have it both ways: in a negative story, if a pit bull is involved, they want to see the breed downplayed, while in a positive story, if a pit bull is involved, they want to see the breed mentioned more prominently.

But that kind of coverage isn’t any more fair than some think the status quo is.