Tabloid Journalism and It’s Effect On Our Sport

By Amy Fernandez

Like fine wine and opera stars, the dog show rumor mill has only improved with age. Unlike most Victorian era inventions, this one still runs like a finely tuned machine. Innovations like the telephone, internet, and social media have refined this time honored art, but it doesn’t take much to set the wheels in motion. And dog-related lawsuits are always prime material for the grapevine.

Most exhibitors are familiar with the story involving two noted kennels that we will refer to Jones and Smith. Mr. and Mrs. Jones have bred Siberians under their well-known prefix since 1980. They have finished over 100 champions including several national specialty and BIS winners. The national club awarded them Breeder of the Year three consecutive times shortly before this infamous incident occurred in 2010. The Smith kennel has equally impressive credentials in the sport. Based in the South, they have also bred Siberians for more than three decades, producing over 100 champions, and owner/handling their dogs to more than 30 BIS wins. It’s safe to say that both kennels have made substantial contributions to the breed and the sport. Despite decades of notable accomplishments, most Americans probably knew nothing about them until media sources began reporting on an ostensibly sordid case that seemed tailor made to reinforce every negative belief about purebred dogs.

Back in 2010, both of these kennels were campaigning top ranked specials when they faced off in the ring at one of the year’s last major show circuits. As we all know, tensions can run high as exhibitors scramble for the last points before the end of the show year. In this case, the Smith and Jones dogs were very closely ranked which added another element of drama to the breed judging that morning. Ultimately, the judge opted out of this showdown by awarding Breed and Opposite to a class dog and bitch shown by Mrs. Jones. After judging, the Smith’s special was returned to its crate at the setup of her handler, Jane Doe. At that point, Mrs. Jones left with some friends, but Mr. Jones stayed at the show because he had previous plans to meet someone after judging. While waiting, Jones was seen at Jane Doe’s setup. He later admitted that he petted the Smith’s dog on his way to the men’s room. However, witnesses stated that they saw him feeding something to the dog through the bars of its crate. When this was reported to Jane Doe she approached him with that accusation, which he denied.

She then reported this matter to the AKC rep at the show, adding that she had found a suspicious substance near the dog’s crate earlier that morning. Subsequently, the dog vomited a partly chewed tablet that she took to a local pharmacist for analysis. It turned out to be a prescription drug prescribed to control stomach acid. It’s a delayed release compound which decreases stomach acid production, and it must be swallowed intact to be effective. In other words, it’s inactivated by chewing or crushing.

Back at the show, Jane Doe enlisted a veterinarian to examine her dog. He reportedly found it alert and responsive, but induced vomiting as a precautionary measure. That revealed another partly chewed tablet, a rubber band, and some bait. These are all items that dogs can theoretically find and ingest at a show. Jane Doe then filed formal complaints with the show committee and local police. The club scheduled a bench show hearing to resolve this matter later that afternoon. But, by then, the cops arrived and Mr. Jones was arrested and charged with misdemeanor attempted animal cruelty and criminal property damage. Needless to say, he did not make it to the hearing. As a result, he was found guilty by default and automatically suspended by the AKC for five years and fined $1000.

Regardless of how the dog happened to ingest prescription meds or rubber bands, thankfully it suffered no ill effects. Admittedly, the chain of events raised plenty of questions. But it’s far from the first or worst shady incident to go down at a dog show. The difference in this case was the subsequent media festival. Keep in mind that Mr. Jones had only been charged with a crime at that point. He had not been arraigned or convicted. His arrest was based solely on circumstantial evidence and he vehemently denied the charges. Within days, this story escalated from a local dog show scandal to international news. Even credible major news sources apparently made no effort to verify the facts or use accurate terminology. Many accounts referred to this Midwest show as “The American Kennel Club Show”. Other reports not only misidentified the breed, several of them insinuated that Mr. Jones was deceptive because he had claimed that a dog from his kennel won BOB that day. They obviously didn’t bother to confirm that it was a class dog, rather than the well-known champion mentioned in media accounts. They had made up their minds about this case from the start.

For instance, a major network news source not only stated that Jones had. “fed drugs to a rival husky in advance of the competition.” News accounts freely editorialized and added speculative motives to the alleged crime with comments like, “Jones went a little too far in trying to gain a competitive advantage.” To them, it was another spectacular example of stupid, vicious, dog show people harming dogs for personal revenge and ego gratification. Multiple sources, including a major British tabloid, played up comparisons to the Christopher Guest film Best In Show, which exaggerated every negative stereotype about dog shows, “dog handlers who will do anything to see their pooch succeed.”

Jones pleaded not guilty and requested that his case be taken to trial. Subsequent media updates were generously sprinkled with red flag phrases like animal cruelty, spiteful competitor, and dog poisoner. Even the notorious Michael Vick case didn’t prompt such incautious, potentially libelous, biased reporting. A popular crimewatch blog posted: “Talk About Dog Eat Dog, Or The Things We Do For Love.” The introduction didn’t mince words belittling Mr. Jones, portraying him as dimwitted and foolish saying that he, “should have known better or at the very least have heard the maxim, “there’s no fool like an old fool.” Seems Ralphie Boy wanted to impress the old lady who had entered her Siberian husky in a suburban Chicago kennel club show. So, what’s he do? Gives the competitors Protonix and Benadryl. His mouthpiece said our hero didn’t do it because he didn’t need to: his gal pal’s dog had already won best in show.” After pretty much saying that he did it, the writer then adds that his lawyer denies the charges. It described the Smiths as his “arch-rival” and concludes by detailing the circumstantial evidence. “Goes to trial in September.”

For Mr. Jones, bad publicity and internet slams didn’t qualify as his major worry that year. Along with his AKC fine and suspension, he faced a year in jail and a $2,500 fine if convicted. Finally, after a three-day criminal trial, he was acquitted him on November 10, 2011. Although that was the best possible outcome, it did not generate nearly as much publicity as the initial events that had put this train wreck in motion. But this story has wings. AKC did not subsequently reinstate Mr. Jones after his acquittal. Some observers have noted that this was contrary to normal AKC policy. So, in late October, he filed a lawsuit against AKC in New York County Supreme Court. Once again, this sordid tale was back on the front page. Undoubtedly, the media will continue covering the case with their usual dramatic flair.

Here’s the thing. There is no question that this was a tremendously bad ordeal for everyone involved. But the ensuing media coverage made it far worse by portraying Mr. Jones and the entire sport in an extremely unfavorable manner. No mainstream source bothered to summarize the substantial accomplishments or long-term contributions of either kennel. Their credentials were omitted or mentioned in passing. Back in the day, AKC, dog shows and important breeders consistently qualified as general interest news and most newspapers regularly featured all aspects of the dog game. Dog shows still generate plenty of drama, excitement, and impressive accomplishments, but you wouldn’t know it from current coverage in the mainstream media.

Today, these subjects aren’t considered newsworthy unless a story has some potential to amuse or shock readers. It seems tabloid journalism has replaced serious reporting about the sport. The sloppy, biased coverage that has characterized this case certainly explains the pervasive misinformation that’s become accepted as fact by the general public. That in itself is frustrating. But it’s not the worst part. This pessimistic viewpoint is becoming a self-perpetuating loop. Consistently negative media accounts discount the contributions and accomplishments of generations of talented, dedicated individuals. That, in turn, has a demoralizing effect throughout the sport. Malicious commentary about this case was far worse within the dog world.

Like every human endeavor, critics and misogynists have been part of this game since the beginning. In spite of their disapproval and dire predictions, purebred dogs transcended the role of a social fad to become an international phenomenon and ultimately the gold standard of the human/canine relationship. Arguably, this concept has worked too well. It’s become normal to take things for granted when they are running smoothly. However, complacency can be fatal when it leads to shortsighted agendas and thoughtless action. Because this party’s over if we lose that precious shared current of creative energy that’s made it thrive for over a century.

Short URL: http://caninechronicle.com/?p=38984

Posted by admin on Nov 19 2013. Filed under World News. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0. Both comments and pings are currently closed.