Post image for Media Bias: Not Just in Politics

Just prior to the time I first wrote this article, all hell broke loose when Gizmodo, a design and technology blog, reported that Facebook routinely suppressed news stories that would be of interest to conservative readers.  It was further disclosed that editors at Facebook had been manipulating topics that “trend,” a top-ten list of the most talked-about subjects on the social media platform, something Facebook always maintained was determined by an algorithm. Far from being a mildly interesting “popularity” list, “trending topics” are used by businesses and organizations to shape marketing strategies, affect public opinion, identify target audiences, and use as a means to insert their brand into the national conversation about an issue. It’s an important tool.

Facebook vehemently denied all of it, so it was particularly awkward for the social media giant when the British daily newspaper, The Guardian, published internal guidelines leaked from Facebook that revealed the company had been doing precisely what it said it hadn’t been doing. 

One might ask, “So what?”

It is one thing to determine newsworthy topics seen by millions of viewers by using a neutral calculation, but critics pointed out that Facebook had been positioning itself as a passive transmitter of noteworthy news when, in fact, it was an active participant in shaping the news. That is why there is talk of a congressional inquiry into political bias at Facebook at the time this article is being written. 

adopt-don’t-shop,anti-breeder,breeder,purebred dogs,Facebook,media bias,manipulation,trending,

There are greater ramifications to consider here than just the revelation that a social media platform tinkered with its data.  Sixty-four percent of American adults use Facebook (Pew Research), and an astounding 88 percent of Millennials (Media Insight Project) get their news from Facebook regularly.  When adults make decisions with far reaching consequences based on information they trust to be unbiased, this stuff matters.  It matters when a small group of people affects public opinion because of their own biases, and that is why this is of particular import to purebred dog enthusiasts.

I share an experience that recently happened to a Facebook page administrator whom some of you know. 

Following the “verification” of the administrator’s Facebook page (an application process that designates a page as authentic), the page’s performance numbers unexpectedly plummeted. The number of people the page “reached” dropped 52%,  “post engagement” dropped 56%, and page “likes” dropped 85%.  Posts were only sporadically appearing in news feeds, and some page fans had assumed the page had been discontinued altogether.  When the administrator complained to Facebook, a representative told her that the drop in numbers was the result of a “system upgrade. Sorry.”

The administrator was skeptical. The process of verification puts a page under greater scrutiny.  Was it possible that employees sympathetic to animal rights or an unyielding adopt-don’t-shop message didn’t take kindly to her Facebook page that extolled the virtues of purebred dogs and breeders?

Puli,Beast,Mark Zuckerberg,facebook,purebred dog

Mark Zuckerberg’s Puli, “Beast”

When Facebook’s duplicity in the dissemination of news was disclosed weeks after the administrator’s complaint, it was no longer  out of the realm of possibility that biased employees may have tinkered with the exposure of the page which included “purebred dog” as part of its name.  Cynics may point out that the founder of Facebook, himself, is the owner of a purebred dog, but how likely is it that Mark Zuckerberg attends to the daily minutiae of overseeing millions of Facebook pages?

We may be too quick to think “politics” when we hear the term, “media bias,” the grown up version of peer pressure. We are bombarded with skewed messaging in ways our predecessors never were, information that covers a gamut of topics, including dog ownership.

Consider the constant drumbeat of the “adopt-don’t-shop” message, the “fact” that shelters are filled with purebred dogs there only because of a breeder, that overpopulation exists because of breeders, and that a shelter dog dies when a purebred dog is bought from a breeder.  Has there ever been an assault on law-abiding citizens to rival this character assassination of our demographic?

Sometimes, media bias is an obvious attack on a topic, but more often than not, the omission of opposing viewpoints is more damaging than an open discussion inclusive of various points of view. One can’t debate what one doesn’t see.  We are assailed with reports of pet overpopulation, for example, and yet little is said of the 300,000+ dogs imported into the United States annually from Europe, Mexico and the Caribbean (Center for Disease Control, 2009). The public is guilted over owning purebred dogs when mixed breeds are “so much healthier, “ but we rarely see mentioned the results of a five-year study conducted by the University of California at Davis and published in 2013 that disproved this.  One popular post making the rounds maintains that breeders have ruined breeds, and to prove the point, the author compares photographs of today’s breeds with photographs of the same breeds from 100 years ago.  There’s no arguing the point that the breeds of today look different than their 19th century counterparts.  The average reader of the blog, however, lacks enough knowledge of canine structure to recognize that “different” isn’t always better.  To an educated eye, the majority of photographs of “yesterday’s dogs” show weak top lines, unbalanced front and rear structures, broken down pasterns, and dogs that likely never knew a day without some pain. And that was better? 

There is no better solution to media bias than to challenge it and outnumber it.  For every article, blog or opinion piece that bashes purebred dogs, there must be a wave of responses that counter it. For every anti-purebred dog or breeder page on Facebook, or account on Twitter or Instagram, there must be two that outweigh it.  There needs to be more of “us” in editorial positions than there are of “them,” and if that means starting one’s own blog, writing for a local newspaper, promoting one’s purebred dog as the next “star” of Instagram – so be it.  Media bias works both ways, and in our case, it would simply balance the scales.

This piece was written for Dogs in Review and appeared in their July, 2016 issue 

{ 0 comments }

Cracks in the Armor

June 7, 2016
Thumbnail image for Cracks in the Armor

In a fight we didn’t invite, dog fanciers have made a few errors in judgment that we’re now acknowledging. Chief among them has been a failure to effectively communicate to the general public who we are, and why dedicated breeders are the best hope for the future of sound canine companions. Early on, too many […]

Read the full article →

Making Ourselves Relevant to the People We Need

January 18, 2016

It may have started with the Baby Boomers, but it is a rare generation these days that isn’t somewhat narcissistic in its youth. Most young adults get over themselves as they get older, but the challenge facing dog fanciers is how to reach these potential fanciers while they’re still young. There are six living generations […]

Read the full article →

Now in the Rearview Mirror: Eukanuba 2015

December 16, 2015
Thumbnail image for Now in the Rearview Mirror: Eukanuba 2015

Don’t it always seem to go/ That you don’t know what you’ve got/ ‘Til it’s gone From “Big Yellow Taxi” by Joni Mitchell The 2015 Eukanuba National Championship is now in the rearview mirror, and Joni Mitchell’s epic “Big Yellow Taxi”  (in which we don’t always appreciate what we’ve got until it’s gone)  reminds me […]

Read the full article →

Wow! You have a Great Face for Radio!

December 10, 2015

The conclusion that I have a great face for radio is something I came to determine on my own after having worked with a phone app named, “Periscope.”  What can you do. Aging comes to us all, and in the dog game, a weathered face should be regarded as evidence that the wearer has earned his […]

Read the full article →

Does This Bring You Joy?

November 12, 2015
Thumbnail image for Does This Bring You Joy?

When I learned that a competitor from the group ring recently won her breed’s National Specialty, I was hardly surprised. In my view, her dog is the complete package: Sound, exemplary of breed type, showy – and a moving fool. That said, a National Specialty draws out many great dogs, and presumably, such was the […]

Read the full article →

Performance Anxiety in the Ring: The Great Equalizer

September 16, 2015

The Best in Show ring had seven marvelous dogs handled by seven experienced handlers, but one, a friend, was in trouble.  She was uncharacteristically sweaty and grim-faced, and her intensity was throwing her off her game. This was a new and unexpected look for a person who had as many Best in Show rosettes at […]

Read the full article →

It’s Not About the Donald

August 30, 2015
Thumbnail image for It’s Not About the Donald

I don’t know if Donald Trump is the solution to this country’s problems, or if he’ll even win his party’s nomination, but whether he is the solution or isn’t, wins the nomination or doesn’t, neither is my point, anyway. At this moment in time, Trump’s unexpected success is revealing something about the electorate, and trying […]

Read the full article →

The “Better Than Average Effect”

July 29, 2015
Thumbnail image for The “Better Than Average Effect”

It’s maddening to know someone who refuses to change their mind about an issue even when presented with evidence proving them wrong. Social psychologists call this “cognitive dissonance,” and as infuriating as it is for the rest of us, being wrong is so psychically uncomfortable for these people that they’ll avoid any situation that heightens […]

Read the full article →