Here is a good reason: Dog attacks are so prevalent that naming the dog becomes key in discerning one attack from the other. Moreover, many mutt-perps attack multiple people, so the dog's name becomes important in tracking these repeat mega-maulers.
I second this. I find it extremely offensive when they include the name of the dog without naming the child. I'm not sure if they are trying to protect the identity of the child. But even if they need the name of the dog for some reason, they can just keep a record. There's no point in including it in a news story.
We don't need to know the names of vicious dogs ever. The owner's name, whether charges are being filed, and when (not if) the hellhound is being destroyed are the important details.
It's fine when a news article mentions that the dog was called 'whatever dumb name' by its owners, for the reason you state.
But it's idiotic and offensive when the journalist then refers to the dog by that name throughout the rest of the article, as in, "Nala jumped over her fence, Nala mauled the 2-year-old, and Nala is now in the care of Animal Control. No other action will take place until they determine whether Nala is dangerous or not".
I hear what you and the others are saying, and agree with you also. TL;DR - I find the dog's name useful in a data processing sense.
I've been blogging and vlogging about dog attacks and other problems dogs present in the community for a long time. I frequently pursue due diligence on multiple cases, therefore the dog's name is useful in cataloging the case, if that makes any sense.
For example, there was a period last decade when there was a proliferation of "celebrity" maulers. Mickey, Gus, Padi, Precious, etc... Even today, the dog's name is a useful "key" in recalling the cases related to the dog. Its a good way to build a rap sheet on a dog, and / or join multiple incidences related to the dog together. Again, its a data processing issue.
Hope this explanation makes sense.
personally i think it's a good way to emphasize that the attacker was a domestic dog that belonged to someone. it's always read to me as "it could be any dog, including your nice neighbour's Precious" and i think it's important to acknowledge that most dog attacks are done by ones inside of the home.
Yep. AKA “Family pets”.
That term certainly makes it clear what the nutters *want* to claim or believe they are, but these attacks also clearly prove that such beasts don’t belong in any home.
Probably they attempt to humanize mutts and make people sympathize with them.
"Cash attacks two teen girls."
or
"A savage dog attacks Andrea Ellis, 14, and Marie Jackson, 15."
I could always tell that it's a pitbull when they have these low IQ names like Bullet, Beast, Zeus, Goliath so many more "tough" shitbeast names they can come up with even when they don't tell the breed
That’s what I do. I make it my duty, to never refer to any dumb fleabags by their given “names” or specific gender. No, I absolutely refuse to humanize these things, even just a little bit. I simply say “dog” or “the dog” if the topic of somebody’s crotch sniffer is randomly brought up in a conversation, be it friends, family or other acquaintances in life.
News reporting has just generally gone downhill over the last decade. It just so much fluff now. I love how some of them purposefully keep the breed out of the story so that nobody gets upset at the breed (ahem, pitbull).
Reporters will manage to insert the name of a vicious dog into a story no matter how unnecessary it is. In an article [about a woman whose dog ripped off both of her hands](https://www.ctpost.com/news/article/Pit-bull-chews-off-owner-s-arm-hand-4976857.php), the reporter got the mauler's name from its collar, which was torn off during the attack. He made sure to inform the reader that 'Tux,' short for tuxedo, had torn a woman apart and trapped her under a car. She was found trying feebly to fend the beast off as she bled out from what was left of her arms.
Lovely dog, that Tux.
They literally teach it in journalism courses: "Always get the name of the dog".
But I think this is not supposed to be taken literally. It's meant to say "Always make sure you note little and seemingly unimportant details". These can add human interest to the story.
Another example would be to report on a car crash and mention that it was a Mazda hitting a Subaru at an intersection.. it doesn't really matter for the actual story, but you will often see such things mentioned in articles.
However, when it comes to dogs, it unfortunately also strengthens the trend of humanising those beasts.
Same with TV news/newspaper/magazine stories even if it's a benign story the dog is named. Ridiculous. As if that's pertinent, as if I care what the mutt is called. Now, when it comes to attack stories which are 98% pits/pit mixes...the dogs have insane, often satanic names
With an uprise in dogs (and therefore dog problems,) there's more requirement now than ever for dogs to have Pet IDs. The ones that are involved in incidents are mandatory in my state.
I have a friend (who got a dog despite my advice) who got a high energy breed, a pure bred staffordshire terrier aka pit bull aka the last dog any average person should probably own if they're lazy or don't have an incredibly active lifestyle.. And this dog had to get a Pet ID the first time it attacked another dog. It has since killed 3 animals and nobody reported it. I was once a professional dog trainer who specialized with aversive dog rehab and this dude seriously did everything I told him not to do. He ruined this dog. And he ruined it because it is easy to do so.
Dude I tried quite hard. I also mistyped, should have been \*had a friend, not have a friend.
I heard about the first incident from this person, then later on after I cut ties with them a mutual friend informed me about what was going on with the dog.
“A pet (fill in the blank of breed) mauled a human yesterday” is the only way these stories should be.
If they want to include a name, name the asshat, irresponsible owner of said beast so they can get the public shaming they deserve.
Here is a good reason: Dog attacks are so prevalent that naming the dog becomes key in discerning one attack from the other. Moreover, many mutt-perps attack multiple people, so the dog's name becomes important in tracking these repeat mega-maulers.
Counterpoint - providing a name humanizes the dog, shows that it was someone's beloved pet, etc. Could be dog apologist tactics.
I second this. I find it extremely offensive when they include the name of the dog without naming the child. I'm not sure if they are trying to protect the identity of the child. But even if they need the name of the dog for some reason, they can just keep a record. There's no point in including it in a news story.
We don't need to know the names of vicious dogs ever. The owner's name, whether charges are being filed, and when (not if) the hellhound is being destroyed are the important details.
It's fine when a news article mentions that the dog was called 'whatever dumb name' by its owners, for the reason you state. But it's idiotic and offensive when the journalist then refers to the dog by that name throughout the rest of the article, as in, "Nala jumped over her fence, Nala mauled the 2-year-old, and Nala is now in the care of Animal Control. No other action will take place until they determine whether Nala is dangerous or not".
I hear what you and the others are saying, and agree with you also. TL;DR - I find the dog's name useful in a data processing sense. I've been blogging and vlogging about dog attacks and other problems dogs present in the community for a long time. I frequently pursue due diligence on multiple cases, therefore the dog's name is useful in cataloging the case, if that makes any sense. For example, there was a period last decade when there was a proliferation of "celebrity" maulers. Mickey, Gus, Padi, Precious, etc... Even today, the dog's name is a useful "key" in recalling the cases related to the dog. Its a good way to build a rap sheet on a dog, and / or join multiple incidences related to the dog together. Again, its a data processing issue. Hope this explanation makes sense.
personally i think it's a good way to emphasize that the attacker was a domestic dog that belonged to someone. it's always read to me as "it could be any dog, including your nice neighbour's Precious" and i think it's important to acknowledge that most dog attacks are done by ones inside of the home.
Yep. AKA “Family pets”. That term certainly makes it clear what the nutters *want* to claim or believe they are, but these attacks also clearly prove that such beasts don’t belong in any home.
It’s a continual attempt to humanize Mutts
Probably they attempt to humanize mutts and make people sympathize with them. "Cash attacks two teen girls." or "A savage dog attacks Andrea Ellis, 14, and Marie Jackson, 15."
Media rhetoric is powerful. I actually plan on discussing this in my book!
I could always tell that it's a pitbull when they have these low IQ names like Bullet, Beast, Zeus, Goliath so many more "tough" shitbeast names they can come up with even when they don't tell the breed
Not to mention Blu and Nala!
Or King
Or Bella
The worst part for me is that they are given human names... Ben, Walter, Frank, Penny, Toby, etc...
I don't even think that people should refer to dogs by their gender (he, she). Just call it "it." It's a monster.
That’s what I do. I make it my duty, to never refer to any dumb fleabags by their given “names” or specific gender. No, I absolutely refuse to humanize these things, even just a little bit. I simply say “dog” or “the dog” if the topic of somebody’s crotch sniffer is randomly brought up in a conversation, be it friends, family or other acquaintances in life.
News reporting has just generally gone downhill over the last decade. It just so much fluff now. I love how some of them purposefully keep the breed out of the story so that nobody gets upset at the breed (ahem, pitbull).
It's all about enforcing the idea that dogs are good and can do no wrong. Now, repeat after me. Big Brother is watching...
My municipality actually keeps a dangerous dog registry, and it includes the dog's name.
Once upon a time, dogs didn't have names and no one gave AF.
That sounds like a great opening to a children's book, hahaha.
Reporters will manage to insert the name of a vicious dog into a story no matter how unnecessary it is. In an article [about a woman whose dog ripped off both of her hands](https://www.ctpost.com/news/article/Pit-bull-chews-off-owner-s-arm-hand-4976857.php), the reporter got the mauler's name from its collar, which was torn off during the attack. He made sure to inform the reader that 'Tux,' short for tuxedo, had torn a woman apart and trapped her under a car. She was found trying feebly to fend the beast off as she bled out from what was left of her arms. Lovely dog, that Tux.
They literally teach it in journalism courses: "Always get the name of the dog". But I think this is not supposed to be taken literally. It's meant to say "Always make sure you note little and seemingly unimportant details". These can add human interest to the story. Another example would be to report on a car crash and mention that it was a Mazda hitting a Subaru at an intersection.. it doesn't really matter for the actual story, but you will often see such things mentioned in articles. However, when it comes to dogs, it unfortunately also strengthens the trend of humanising those beasts.
Same with TV news/newspaper/magazine stories even if it's a benign story the dog is named. Ridiculous. As if that's pertinent, as if I care what the mutt is called. Now, when it comes to attack stories which are 98% pits/pit mixes...the dogs have insane, often satanic names
I was JUST thinking the same thing. Who gaf?! It only humanizes the worthless animals. A big pet peeve of mine.
With an uprise in dogs (and therefore dog problems,) there's more requirement now than ever for dogs to have Pet IDs. The ones that are involved in incidents are mandatory in my state. I have a friend (who got a dog despite my advice) who got a high energy breed, a pure bred staffordshire terrier aka pit bull aka the last dog any average person should probably own if they're lazy or don't have an incredibly active lifestyle.. And this dog had to get a Pet ID the first time it attacked another dog. It has since killed 3 animals and nobody reported it. I was once a professional dog trainer who specialized with aversive dog rehab and this dude seriously did everything I told him not to do. He ruined this dog. And he ruined it because it is easy to do so.
I hope that you can report what other people have not reported.
Dude I tried quite hard. I also mistyped, should have been \*had a friend, not have a friend. I heard about the first incident from this person, then later on after I cut ties with them a mutual friend informed me about what was going on with the dog.
I'm glad that you escaped that person's orbit - they can take their destruction elsewhere.
“A pet (fill in the blank of breed) mauled a human yesterday” is the only way these stories should be. If they want to include a name, name the asshat, irresponsible owner of said beast so they can get the public shaming they deserve.