All the News That's Fit to Print?

Normally it is unwise to issue complaints about a specific activity only to engage in such activity in the process. Unfortunately, circumstances require that I do so in order to state my case. Any consumer of mass-market media should be familiar with "shock" stories included only for their gruesome details regardless of the actual content. Case in point: a story went out across the AP wire about a week ago (March 15th) about a gruesome incident in Minnesota involving a kidnapped dog and an as-of-yet unidentified kidnapper who returned the dog to its owner in terrible condition (to say the least). Because the story has been published in many news outlets, including a few touted as "family-friendly", I will hesitantly share the available details of the case. A 17-year-old girl in St. Paul, MN lost her 4-year-old Australian Shepherd about five weeks ago. Two weeks later, she received a package on her front doorstep that contained the severed head of her lost dog plus Valentine's Day candy. Batteries were attached to the package with a "clever" quip about batteries being included written on an attached note. The girl was understandably not pleased by her discovery. Fortunately, she seems to have recovered from her loss and gotten a new puppy. Authorities are searching for the perp to make sure he poses no further threat to the girl, her family, or anyone else.

Can anyone explain to me the reason for running a story like this in any news venue, much less sending it out over the AP wire? The whole incident reeks of dismaying stalker behavior, yes, but why does the public have to be made aware of one ugly episode in what may be the life of a dangerous stalker? Perhaps this was a sign of more to come, or maybe it's an isolated case. Either way, the story has no real merit on its own. It isn't news. Somebody's dog died. I feel terrible for the girl, but the death of a dog, no matter how awful, is not newsworthy unless it is a part of some larger story, which this story is not (at least not yet, and possibly not ever). Pointless reporting like this going out over the wire only publicizes the exploits of one very sick, twisted individual who has yet to be apprehended. He (assuming the perp is a man) is probably enjoying the exposure his work has received. Whether or not the publicity will egg him on to commit other crimes is a matter best left to criminal psychologists to debate, but it does seem clear to laymen such as I that the exposure can do no good. The police already have most (if not all) of the useful leads available and will likely receive no further help from the public despite the wide distribution of a news story covering the crime.

The story was printed for no reason other than its sensational contents. I have complained about this before, and I find myself complaining about it again. The death of a dog is not news; it does not affect our lives; and it does not aid in our understanding of the world in any way, shape, or form. We can not force news outlets to censor themselves to satisfy those of us upset by coverage of inconsequential gore and mayhem, but it would speak well of them as institutions if they would (or even could) self-censor to a degree. Common sense should dictate that running a story like this outside of Minneapolis/St. Paul could do no good and could possibly cause harm. However, in this modern era of shrinking subscriber bases and shortened attention spans, deliberate avoidance of graphically violent non-news stories could spell doom for publishers and broadcasters alike. Even though I openly decry the practice, I expect to find stories like these in papers all across the country. Even the TFP carried it in their Friday edition, though to their credit, they buried it on the back page. Why they even ran the story in the first place, I do not know, but that is a question only Griscom and crew can answer.

Sadly, by even discussing the dog mutilation case, I am drawing further attention to it even as I attempt to criticize the practice of reporting sensationalized gobbledy-gook. In a way, I am no better than the publishers, editors, and reporters who ran the story sans commentary. There is no way to comprehensively critique their reporting without first calling attention to it, which in turn generates publicity for them. These days, any kind of publicity is useful, even the bad kind.