However, I read the article from the newspaper. Nine-tenths of the article dealt with the violation of the dog and how it suffered. If that doesn't give us a clue about the moron media, nothing ever will. What about the violation of those little girls??-I guess a dog is more important than children.
Priorities, deary.
*Must* have priorities if you're to keep your marbles *these* daze. :o)
...*nice* 2 c u, scholar. ;^)
Again, for those who don't understand.....
The rape of the girls occurred last YEAR.
The stories on those horrible incidents would have been written THEN.
The dog happened RECENTLY THIS YEAR.
Recency is a news value....something that is recent will get more coverage than something that happened last year. I am sure people who read their local paper saw the stories last year about the rapes of the girls. There would be no sense in rehasing all the horrible details again.
Since they don't know the details of the dog incident, yes, it gets more attention because it is recent.
They don't ignore the girls, even putting it very high up in the lede to make sure people don't think he just raped and murdered the dog.
But, why would a reporter cover something with the same depth they did a year later and ignore the latest thing, the dog?
The reporter did fine here.
I just don't think some of you understand how news works. If something new happens, you write about the NEW THING.
You don't write about the old thing.
You are just upset because the story is focusing on the animal rather than the people. That doesn't mean the reporter thinks the animal's suffering is more important than the girls. It just means that because the dog is latest and people *don't know* about that story, it will get most of the space.