Would loving parents let their children go within a kilometre of a pit bull? Definitively not, is the spontaneous answer. Parents often recoil in horror when they spot one of these animals, pulling their children close as if to protect them from this purported marauding super-monster. We all can recount stories we read in the press about savage attacks on small children by these predators.

Our media is duty bound to deliver much more- Fr Joe Borg

This is in sharp contrast with the opinion expressed by Joshua Holland in an article published in the January 30, 2013, edition of the electronic paper AlterNet.

Holland states that for most of the 114 years since the American pit bull terrier was first recognised by the United Kennel Club, the breed was rightly seen as the perfect ‘nanny dog’ for children because of its friendly nature. They were not considered as the best choice for a guard dog since they are extremely friendly, even with strangers.

Holland states that mismanagement of the breed, the purposeful training to be aggressive and the selective and sensationalised media reporting are mainly to blame for the pit bull’s transformation from nanny to monster.

Karen Delise, research director for the National Canine Research Council, US, in her book The Pit Bull Placebo: The Media, Myths and Politics of Canine Aggression (2007) explains the role of the media (among other institutions) in the demonisation of different breed of dogs; the bloodhound, the German shepherd and then the doberman pinscher, are examples.

Since the 1980s, pit bulls became the monster dog par excellence. They are blamed by the press for all types of gore and tragedies even when the ‘offending’ dog is not a pit bull. Many examples of selective and sensational reporting of accidents involving pit bulls abound in Delise’s book.

This long excursus about the morphing of pit bulls from nannies to monsters is just a way of manifesting the power of the media to create moral panic, demonise social classes, stereotype groups or nations, create dangerous or harmless myths or distort people’s perceptions of reality. The Catholics, the Jews, homosexuals, the blacks, Mods and Rockers, women, illegal immigrants, the ‘other’ – whoever or whatever it is – have suffered this fate.

I don’t want to be simplistic. All this was only possible within particular socio-cultural, economic and political scenarios. The media function as part of society, warts and all. The belief in the media as omnipotent organisations independent of the context within which they operate is naïve and mistaken.

Periods of tension and conflicts lend themselves particularly well to such selective reporting. It is said that a first casualty of war is truth but a very close second is people’s desire to know the truth.

Electoral campaigns are generally periods when truth becomes a casualty. Spin takes the place of facts and slogans replace explanations with the result that truth is economised on.

With the scenario of the current electoral campaign, the appeal launched by our bishops in the election pastoral letter symbolically penned on the feast of the Conversion of St Paul, January 25, 2013, should have been given more attention and prominent coverage by the media.

“This is our heartfelt appeal to all citizens so that the electoral campaign may proceed in a spirit of respect towards the truth and towards one another, in order that the people’s verdict will be honoured in all honesty and given the assurance it deserves.”

One legitimately asks why, particularly since respect for the truth is sorely missing. I do not just refer to the blatant lies that circulate with great ease and freedom on the social networks and, on several occasions, also on the mass media. I refer to half-baked reports of the election campaign being carried in many newspapers.

The media’s role is not simply to report. It has a duty to enlighten and to investigate. In the ninth edition of the book by Clifford G. Christians et al, Media Ethics (2012), the reportage about risky foods is discussed at some length. The principles enunciated apply to the reportage of the election campaign. The authors criticise the position that a journalist professionally and ethically fulfils his mission simply by reporting the different points of view.

This is not enough. A journalist should put things in perspective and investigate the subject well to be able to present the audience with a careful analysis which puts things in their real perspective. Journalists can only do this if, as Christians et al note, they themselves have the training and education necessary to deal with complex data and ask tough questions. Barring some notable instances, many examples indicate that these principles are sometimes manifestly missing.

Let me give just a few examples:

The debate is ablaze with references to whistle blowing. The perception is being created that it is the tool to eradicate all corruption from the face of the earth. I will bet whatever it takes in support of my view that many of those who are reporting about it have, at best, only a vague idea of the subject. Imagine how they could write reports that enlighten the audiences!

Much complex technical data was pushed forward during the debate about the energy plans of the Labour Party and then about the proposals of the Nationalist Party. The media reported extensively but investigated minutely.

People were inundated by information, but were they really enlightened about the safety issues, the allegations about the health hazards, the feasibility of the different options and so many other issues?

Great disrespect was shown to the truth and the audiences by the alarmist and incorrect reporting about the effects of the use of Heavy Fuel Oil, as such reports totally ignored the process of filtration being used, which makes it comfortably within the safety guidelines of the European Union.

Did any media organisation thoroughly examine the costings of the electoral programmes of both major parties?

Facts and figures are hardly ever put into their legitimate context even though the context makes a total difference to the meaning of the same facts and figures. Sopra corna (to make things worse) it is hard to sieve comments from facts in some reports.

The nation not only gets the politicians, but also the journalists it deserves. Our media is duty bound to deliver much more. If nannies can be portrayed as monsters, remember that monsters can be portrayed as nannies! The misrepresentation of the pit bull is a timely lesson.

joseph.borg@um.edu.mt