Identifying a Pit Bull Hack
Does it “reset” the debate back to the 1980s or 90s?
Does it use a red herring or “For or Against” title?
Does it fail to contain any useful new information?
Does it invent or perpetuate a “fake” controversy?
Does it sink to include Petey or the Nanny Dog myth?
Is it from a Pit Bull Hack source? (a writer or entity)
Is it blatantly biased or perpetuating misinformation?
A “Pit Bull Hack” is generally a pit bull protectionist given a media platform to spread misinformation to the public. A Pit Bull Hack can also be a lazy journalist who reuses circular or red herring arguments (“Are Pit Bulls Dangerous?”) that have been around for three decades. A Pit Bull Hack can be a “pet writer” too or dog lover journalist sympathetic to pit bulls, sometimes recklessly so. The term “Hack” usually involves deliberately using polarizing language to “generate” page views or social media shares while knowing the piece does not contribute to reducing the number of maulings and deaths routinely inflicted by pit bulls. A Pit Bull Hack can also refer to an entire news group, such as the Toledo Blade and Huffington Post, who indisputably advocate for pit bulls and promote false myths about them. All in all, a Pit Bull…
View original post 1,082 more words