The Truth about Reporters and Dogs
Part of a kid’s face was eaten off by a pit bull the other day, according to the Chron . Now, we all know that pit bulls like nothing better than to dine on the flesh of young children, but if you look closer at this story, you’ll notice something: the only person saying the culprit was a pit bull is the boy’s father, Brandon Palomo. Even though my pit bull is the most loving, docile creature this side of a kitten, I’ll go ahead and concede the fact that every pit bull in the world is actually an inherently evil, vicious, baby-killing machine, because, you know, that’s logical thinking. But the issue here is: no authorities in this story are quoted as confirming that the dog in this case was actually a pit bull. It may very well be, but all we have is the word of Brandon Palomo. This strikes me as weak reporting. Is Brandon Palomo’s word gospel? When the Chron is working on a late-breaking story on a fire or a murder trial, does the paper seek analysis from Brandon Palomo? Do Chron editors admonish struggling cub reporters with, “Nice job, Woodward -- where’s the fucking Palomo quote?” Are readers satisfied with, “Well, if Palomo says it, it must be true”? I’m really curious. Maybe I should call Palomo and find out. – Craig Malisow
Get the This Week's Top Stories Newsletter
Every week we collect the latest news, music and arts stories — along with film and food reviews and the best things to do this week — so that you’ll never miss Houston Press' biggest stories.