As you know, I wrote this extensive Letter to the Editor about the Media's horribly-biased coverage of the pit bull mauling which is starting to seriously fan the flames for knee-jerk reactions from not just San Francisco residents, but also our Mayor Gavin Newsom.
Here's a extremely shortened published version.
Here's the original letter.

Luckily more and more responsible pit bull dog owners are starting to write in and voice their opinion that not all pits are dangerous creatures, and shouldn't all be punished, however, it's still appalling to me that the press continue to bad mouth all pits instead of doing their research.

Case in point, C.W. Nevius's completely biased and self-righteous rant about how he's said all along that pits are bad news:
Supporters of pit bulls won't let go

When he writes, "No matter how often someone, somewhere is attacked or how high the evidence piles up, they refuse to acknowledge the obvious -- pit bulls are a problem."

Actually they aren't the problem, their OWNERS are the problem. If people would actually research their breeds and behavior these problems wouldn't exist. You'd KNOW to neuter and spay your pets. You'd KNOW not to chain them up in the backyard for hours and hours on end which encourages aggression in dogs. They'd KNOW not to let their precious children pull tails, punch and kick the family dog. They'd KNOW that they need to train their dogs instead of let them run around and jump on people. They'd KNOW that they should breed their pets on their own. And they sure as hell would KNOW that dogs don't flip out for no reason, they're battered, ignored, untrained and provoked into these incidents.

Now granted there are also pit bull owners who train them illegally and viciously to fight in dog fights. These people will never, ever obey the law no matter what you do. So why not crack down on that before you go door to door blaming all dog owners?

I think what makes me the most angry about San Francisco Chronicle and their biased news coverage is the fact that they give the majority of their newspaper space to anti-pit dog reporters -- as with the case for C.W. Nevius. Why in the hell would you allow this comment in print:

"In fairness, I received lots of support, some of it from people who predicted the tsunami of criticism. Several suggested pit bull supporters have a lot in common with the National Rifle Association. They are well organized, have their talking points ready and believe fiercely in their cause."

Now how is it that animal lovers and now in league with the NRA who kill animals for sport?!

Of course, instead of actually thinking that maybe just MAYBE he's being too close-minded and misinformed, he goes on the defensive:

"What is striking is the familiarity the respondents have with the process. They have their arguments laid out, ready to go. Many of them make the same points, almost verbatim. By the time I'd received more than 600 responses to my column, it was clear I was the target of a standard tactic: If someone criticizes pit bulls, mobilize and bury the critic in a flood of responses."

He calls all responsible pit bull owners "apologists." Apparently by giving us a demeaning and defensive nickname, we seem like we're overracting liberals or idiotic protestors. So why not give the anti-pit bull people a handy little nickname as well? Or is objective journalism too outdated a concept for the SF Chronicle?

If you're outraged at C.W. Nevius' little rant that pretty much has zero merit and continues to fan the flames of ignorance and panic, then be my guest and email C.W. Nevius here:
cwnevius@sfchronicle.com.

And don't forget to write both the Mayor and the paper your opinion on pit bulls here:
San Francisco Chronicle: Letters to the Editor:
letters@sfchronicle.com

Mayor Gavin Newsom
Telephone: (415) 554-6141
TDD: (415) 252-3107
Fax: (415) 554-6160
Email: gavin.newsom@sfgov.org

Mood: angry
Music: The Stills