I read in the Sunday People about the Malamute that attacked 4 people before being destroyed. Iam in no argument at all that the dog should have been pts it did do some terrible damadge.
What did annoy me about the article is the dog was described as a Husky twice. One of the comments being Huskies are very loyal to owners but can be very ferocious to other people and animals.
Not everyone knows that these are 2 different breeds. Why cant they get their facts right before writing the articles.
Did anyone else read this.

Also, it was an EXTREMELY one sided report . You can take it from me that there was an awful lot more to this than was reported in that paper :(

Oh and the dog has been described as a Husky on TV as well as in various papers

Newspapers will use terminology that their readers are familiar with; most of the GP are familiar with Huskies as a "group", malamutes or any other sled/siberian etc terms/breeds etc will not be as easy for readers to relate to (or spell)! :D

This is no different from stories about any other subject. 

Newspapers of this type, get their revenue from sensationalism, rather than cold hard reporting of FACTS! :rolleyes:

Typical are there no journalists that can write a balanced article these days!

At this rate I won't be reading any newspapers or magazines, most of them are full of rubbish!

What gets me though is how many children are savaged by mongrels and other breeds every other day and nobody bats an eyelid.
I am sick of explaining myself when I tell people I have 2 SBT's.
The first thing I am met with a lot of the time is......'Oh I dont like them dogs, they're dead nasty'
They are not 'dead nasty' at all,all dogs can be nasty if they are made nasty by their stupid owners
I know of 1 Malamute and he is absolutely adorable.
Yet brainless owners making them viscious is going to give this breed (and any other breeds which are given negative press) a very bad name.

When are people going to realise that it is the owners fault if a dog is nasty or not.
I know some dogs have a more aggressive nature than others which is why they should only be owned by people who know the breed and how to handle them. :rolleyes:

'One of the comments being Huskies are very loyal to owners but can be very ferocious to other people and animals.'

thats a lot of rubbish as well.  huskies generally tend to be very friendly and would quite happily go with anyone who offered them a treat. they are generally NOT guarding dogs and should definatly not be aggressive towards people.  neither should mals be.

papers are always one sided arguments. how do we know it wasnt poor upbringing that turned the dog into a biter?? some dogs are just bad but thats very rare, most things can be traced back to how the dog has been raised or treated, of course, ruling out any medical reasons.

Thats the comment I was really annoyed at. Having Huskies myself I know just how too friendly they are. Ive never met 1 that isnt.
I dont know as about Malamutes but Im sure they are not a nasty breed Its the 1st time Ive heared of 1 biting.
Im not making excuses for the dog but 1 person it bit said they were leaning over the fence to it.
Just a thought but could this dog have been teased.

>Typical are there no journalists that can write a balanced article these days!

Speaking as someone "in the business", the answer is yes, of course there are. But actually you get the most balanced reports from local newspapers whose reporters have to "slant" their articles but don't usually have to turn in a slant that reflects a political stance or the perceived understanding and expectations of the readership. Hence the "red top tabloids" run tiny little news articles (in amongst the nekkid girls and the revelations about Z list celebrities) which consist of dumbed down information. Thus Malumutes will be "huskies" in the same way that attractive young women are "stunnas"!  Staffies seem to have replaced dobes at the top of the tabloid "devil dog" league but pretty much any breed that isn't a collie or a chihuaha tends to get lumped in together and given some generic category. It's sloppy, stupid stuff but it sells papers and that's basically what newspaper proprietors are interested in.

Glad that I'm not in that kind of business then. I think that I'd be able to drink my Horlicks at night though :d  Sorry, couldn't resist!

Yes we know that a lot of things are fabricated but am I one of the few that doesn't even bother reading any of these pathetic papers?

Well I'm delighted to say that I never "succeeded" in having to work for the tabloids! 

(Other than sending them invoices for the pictures they have a habit of trying not to pay for, that is...)

;)

Nope I read my local free paper, and the dog papers.