June 9, 2008

Our bad! It was a shepherd mix, not a pit bull

Poor kid — I suspect his parents should be hit over the head with a board. This is from the innermost pages of the Los Angeles Times:

Dog attack: An article in Thursday's California section about a 2-year-old boy attacked by his family's dog quoted authorities as saying that the dog was a pit bull. The Los Angeles Department of Animal Services said Friday that the animal that bit the toddler was a shepherd mix.
At least the Times bothered to print a correction.

4 comments:

Brent said...

Details, details. "pit bull, shepherd mix -- they're the same thing right?

Yeah, I'm really curious about the other 30 news sources that picked up this story how many will print a correction. My guess is just the Times.

Thanks for bringing this to light! You did get your scoop yesterday :)

Luisa said...

Heh! Thanks, Brent!

Caveat said...

Hey Luisa, have you gone squirrely?

Looks good.

As for the 'breed' references in the media, they are totally worthless and unnecessary.

How can we be sure it was a 'shepherd mix', is my point?

Dutch Shepherd, German Shepherd, Bouvier, Aussie or? Malinois, Collie, Kelpie, Beauceron, Siberian, who knows?

I'm so sick of the media's reporting style about dog bites.

We'll use it, though :>)

Luisa said...

Amen. Worthless, unnecessary, irrelevant, unscientific, hugely stupid, oy, don't get me started.

[Load faster, little squirrels, load faster...! Still working on page-load speed...]