| dogsbite.org; How is it that municipalities actually consider dogsbite to be a legitimate source | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Sep 17 2016, 01:44 PM (113 Views) | |
| Editor | Sep 17 2016, 01:44 PM Post #1 |
|
Administrator
|
In spite of the mountains of evidence confirming that both Merrit Clifton and Colleen Lynn are not experts. Nor are they schooled in either canine science or data correlation and/or analysis. They are making a living off killing pit bulls? |
![]() |
|
| lynnf | Sep 17 2016, 08:37 PM Post #2 |
|
I believe most people are not cognizant of the fact that Google is not selective in it's publication of information. When one Googles pitbulls one of the first informational (using the term very loosely) sites that shows is dogsbite. If one has no experience in academic research then you might not know how to discern between good information and biased information. And if that site comes up to the top of the page when googling it could easily be mistaken for one of authority. There is also the issue of lazy journalism. If a reporter cites dogsbite as a source in a story people can be misled. Journalism is no longer responsible and honest, as it once was. Few news sources even carry a full staff. They use free lance reporters and don't verify their sources. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · General Discussion · Next Topic » |



13906768_300609606960163_7743070165171998872_n.jpg (17.4 KB)



12:36 AM Jul 11