Thursday, April 29, 2010

Truth in Journalism

The reputation for honesty, integrity and accuracy enjoyed by commercial media doesn't quite match the rectitude of a carnival barker, but it's getting closer every day.  Consider the recent story of Terri Henry who was attacked by her ex-boyfriend, Andrew Townsend, and his new girlfriend, Carly Woodward, both of whom were aided and abetted by a large dog labeled a pit bull.  The story originally was reported by the Indiana News: Pit Bull Used As Weapon In Robbery, Assault.  The story carefully makes no mention of the seriousness of the victim's injuries caused by the dog, but if you watch the video you'll see a number of bruises on Henry's face that are definitely not caused by a dog - unless the dog were a boxer, that is.

NBC picked up the story and now we have: Police: Pit bull used as 'deadly weapon' in Indianapolis robbery. We've gone from a weapon to a deadly weapon.  The site Indy takes it up another notch:  Indy couple charged in robbery with pitbull from which we learn that:


An Indianapolis couple charged with committing a Westside robbery with a deadly pit bull [my emphasis] were held today in the Marion County Jail.

The pair has been accused of taking the purse of the man’s ex-girlfriend while he hit her with his fist and instructed the dog to attack her, police reports said.
The site IndyStar reports Indy couple charged in robbery with pitbull which states that "Terri Henry received a black eye and "significant dog bites" in the attack."  Finally, we have 13 Eyewitness News in a story titled: Police: Pit bull used as 'deadly weapon' in Indianapolis robbery which states that:


Henry doesn't want you to see her face because of her black eye. But that's not the worst of her injuries after what Henry and Indianapolis Metro Police say happened to the 28-year-old at a west side bus top Monday afternoon.
Okay, just how bad are the injuries?  Here's a quote from Henry, "At first the dog scratched me on my lower back. And then he bit me."  Nowhere does anyone state how much damage was caused by the pit bull.  We do know that the victim was discharged from the hospital and that she has bruises on her face consistent with being on the losing end of a fist fight, but the number of stitches needed to keep Ms. Henry from leaking all over the floor is not listed.  Maybe because no stitches were needed.  Here's a clue to the real motivation to label the dog as being deadly, again from 13 Eyewitness News:


Prosecutors are calling that dog a deadly weapon, which makes the robbery and battery charges felonies. It's a first.
Got that?  This is the very first case of its kind in Indianapolis, maybe in all of Indiana, and it kicks the charges up to felonies.  This is a huge deal to any prosecutor.

Compare this "deadly" pit bull attack to one that happened in July of 2009, via the site Indy where the victim Brenda Hill was mauled by two pit bull dogs owned by Lee Carroll:


The Jan. 25 attack on Carroll’s neighbor, 68-year-old Brenda Hill, has left her without most of her left leg. She has had seven surgeries, is still undergoing rehabilitation and has difficulty speaking.
During sentencing, we learn that:

Hill, whose left leg was amputated above the knee, told Brown that she is learning to use a prosthesis.
That's a deadly attack.  Henry didn't suffer anything close to what poor Brenda Hill suffered and has to endure, but the dog that attacked her is deadly - it's a pit bull, and it's deadly dangerous.  If you believe commercial media, that is.

The trouble is, Moonbats believe commercial media.  They believe all the hyperbole and prevarication, they accept opinion pieces as fact and they carefully refrain from asking any questions, particularly those questions that might expose this entire charade for the false mountain that it is.  When the Moonbats read a story like this one they bark at the moon all night, and their howls are carried far and wide by the Moonbat telegraph, otherwise known as the rumor mill.  I've heard other people refer to this as the jungle telegraph, but that term isn't politically correct so I won't use it.

The biggest howl, bar none, is that pit bull dogs are inherently dangerous and will attack people without being provoked and chew their face and nuts off.  This is a lie.  The reason I know this is a lie is that if it were true, police departments all across the United States would have ditched the German Shepherd Dog, the Doberman Pinscher and the Rottweiler in favor of the Pit Bull.  They haven't, and it has nothing to do with control or inherent aggressiveness.  The decision to keep the dogs they have has everything to do with the amount of damage their dog can do to a criminal that the police are apprehending or to the people in a crowd the police are trying to control.

2 comments:

Mesmerix said...

But MadJack, everyone knows! :P

A dog, is a dog, is a dog, and can only be expected to respond to what humans do with a dog mentality.

Mad Jack said...

Yeah, everyone knows... clearly the trolls and mental midgets on another Internet site know all about it and, lucky us, they are willing to cast their pearls before swine. Mardi Gras beads, anyone? LOL!

I've always felt sorry for the dogs that are involved in something like this. The dog doesn't really have a choice in who he belongs to, and the dumb humans never get punished for their bad behavior.