The phrase Man bites dog and the related phrase Dog bites man are used to describe a phenomenon in journalism, in which an unusual, infrequent event is more likely to be reported as news than an ordinary, everyday occurrence. This can be explained by the fact that the news media generally consider an event more newsworthy if there is something unusual about it.
On the other hand, a situation which is commonplace is unlikely to be taken as newsworthy. The result is that news items carrying titles such as “Man Bites Dog” occur more often than those such as “Dog Bites Man,” making it seem as though the former event is more common compared to the latter than it actually is.
The phrase comes from a quote attributed to New York Sun editor John B. Bogart: “When a dog bites a man, that is not news, because it happens so often. But if a man bites a dog, that is news.”
Man bites dog (journalism) – From Wikipedia,
no images were found
This particular dog, however, has bitten many people — and yesterday attacked a 7-year-old Scottish girl, as well as the journalist in question. It’s time to put the dog out of its misery and the rest of us out of harm’s way. Enough is enough. Basta.
Couldn’t disagree more:
The (rather small) dog in question has indeed on occasion (for reasons best known to himself) been a little less sociable than might be considered desirable. On the plus side it has to be noted that at least two of his ‘victims’ were ‘journalists’.
Joking aside (and considering – Keane – that in this day and age, if you don’t want to risk having more kids, less barbarous methods for undertaking a vasectomy exist), I would advocate a more reasoned approach: perfectly efficient and (relatively) comfortable devices are available to prevent any given dog from being able to bite someone. At which point, from the strategic advantage of restored personal (intimate) safety, one might endeavour to calmly evaluate the wider context.
Generally speaking, healthy dogs (apart from specific instances when random groups of animals are conditioned by a pack dynamic) do not randomly bite passers-by. Notwithstanding, it may be that some dogs – particularly if constrained by a leash and for reasons ranging from perceived threat, heat, stress, crowded and chaotic surrounding, etc…, may lash out. Invariably the action is intended as warning rather than an attempt to inflict serious injury, even though this may be an unfortunate outcome. If as a society we accept (and I wholeheartedly do) the option of keeping animals as pets, then we must also accept everything this implies – including not only the relevant legislation, but also educating the owners and public alike on the proper handling and management of such pets.
Certainly a reaction such as “It’s time to put the dog out of its misery and the rest of us out of harm’s way†may be an understandable gut reaction; but such an outburst not only is self-evidently inadequate at seriously addressing the problem and therefore proposing intelligent solutions, it also ill becomes a worldly and travelled journalist such as the writer (‘though, ironically, it may go some way in helping us understand the dog’s antipathy towards the category as such). How can we accept on the one hand the validity of in-depth investigation and analysis of almost all of the instances of strife which have beset our world over the past (several) decades, and on the other hand not balk at such a simplistic proposal – paradoxically of the kind which so often has been the undercurrent, if not indeed the cause, of said strife?
Add to this the fact that the owner of the ‘culprit’ is a young lady who in all her dealings with her fellow residents has always endeavoured to ensure that her social ‘footprint’ was as light and unobtrusive as possible and is absolutely distraught by the event itself and the ensuing commotion. Furthermore, ever since a little girl she has been a supporter and volunteer in local animal shelters, and has frequently battled against the callous and despicable ill-treatment of dogs and other animals meted-out by erstwhile ‘right and proper’ citizens. Clearly the fact that her own dog (albeit without malice aforethought and for reasons such as those listed above) was involved in this latest incident is an added and heavy blow.
Given that in effect no long lasting injury has taken place (close shave – hey, Keane?) and that both owner and the animal in question are by nature respectful, gregarious and very sociable, may I take this opportunity to propose a stay in execution while other solutions are pondered – it may be that we can all ensure our safety without the collective shame of being able to do so only at the cost of taking a life.
Anyway … shouldn’t you be off in Georgia or some palace telling us about ethnic cleansing and stuff – instead of commenting the ‘news’ of a dog nipping at the ankles (and other extremities) of your fellow journalists?
Ehh, la vecchiaia ……
Not at all funny, Jack. Your sense of humor is misplaced this time, in every way imaginable. The dog also lashed out at a small girl, and might well have killed her had she not had the presence of mind to push her purse into its mouth. is that what it will take to resolve the problem — a fatal assault next time? Nor is the situation in Georgia, ethnic cleansing “and stuff” especially amusing.
It may not have been a pit bull, but dog bites are never a laughing matter.
“Nor is the situation in Georgia, ethnic cleansing “and stuff†especially amusing”: precisely my point!
Or let me put it another way … I too in the past have suffered dog bites, I have (with perhaps an excess of naivete) separated fighting dogs (remember Osso?) and, as well as myself, so have others here – statistically speaking a town the size of Barga is bound to produce a certain number of such incidents. They do indeed cause apprehension, injury and damage – unfortunately so. However; given that for the very same statistical considerations the apprehension, injury and damage resulting not from bipolar pets but from the very real malice of man – for yes, Barga is not all dining out, concerts in the piazza, art exhibitions and a tipple down at Casciani’s: it too has its dark underbelly with its fair share of battered wives, ill-treated (and worse) children, alcohol and drug abuse with its related crime, together with all the other usual accoutrements of ‘civilised society’ (never mind “Georgia, ethnic cleansing and stuffâ€) – to invest the incident in question with such import and gravitas, bandying about a gratuitous knee-jerk reaction to the tune of â€eliminate (read kill) the animal and therefore the problem†– notwithstanding effective and humane alternatives – instead of (for example) espousing a reasoned proposal for animal (pet) management within the ‘centro storico’ in the interests not just of security; but also (and why not) hygiene, is both reductive and (as I ‘humorously’ illustrated) beneath and an insult to the intellect of (at the very least) the readers of these columns!
Regarding the ‘humour’, consider it a mark of respect: its intent simply to protect the sensibilities by softening the edges of my disappointment in a great writer and commentator for whom I have otherwise always nurtured the highest esteem.
Had I been dealing with anyone else rest assured that the vitriol would have far surpassed being mauled by a dog!
Jack, dovresti imparare la sintesi.
rileggi attentamente e ti accorgerai dell’inerente sintesi in quanto non solo l’intento principale ma tutte le implicazioni e ramificazioni contenute nel discorso sono racchiuse in brani relativamente succinti – per dire le stesse cose te avresti scritto un libro!
Ciao ragazzi
non litigate!!!….. Ho avuto occasione di leggere mi sembra che si stia esagerando da tutte le parti comunque su una cosa sono d’accordo ci abbiamo scherzato più o meno tutti ma: “It may not have been a pit bull, but dog bites are never a laughing matter”.
Ho visto la foto delle “K…e’s Balls†veramente orribili!! Propongo di pubblicarle per cessare ogni ostilità .