I was disturbed on multiple levels after reading Dan Rodricks' recent article, "Two years after Maryland court ruling, pit bulls on attack" (April 26). Not only does Mr. Rodricks feed into anti-pit bull hysteria for the sake of sensationalizing a hot-button issue, but his piece can hardly be called journalism due to its questionable methodology.
Mr. Rodricks' "research" for this piece is based upon a "game" that he calls "Pit Bull Google." He writes, "Anyone with access to the Internet can do it." Apparently, anyone with access to the Internet can also be a journalist! That Mr. Rodricks does not conduct research using reputable sources and cherry-picks his evidence to support his ill-informed discriminatory views against pit bulls is alarming when done in the name of journalism.
As the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals has found, dog attacks involving pit bulls gain a disproportionate amount of media coverage compared to attacks involving other breeds. A quantitative study done by the National Canine Research Council found that media outlets overwhelmingly exhibit an anti-pit bull bias when reporting on dog attacks.
As a news source, I would urge you to make it your utmost priority to provide accurate, unbiased, non-discriminatory stories that do not merely feed into this kind of hysteria.
Emily Perez, Baltimore
To respond to this letter, send an email to email@example.com. Please include your name and contact information.