tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4450061648126809792.post5694892108687799988..comments2023-09-17T07:15:34.566-07:00Comments on Madison Park Blogger: The rest of the story...Bryan Tagashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04318071838873203382noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4450061648126809792.post-47061676116509191822011-08-08T09:21:16.078-07:002011-08-08T09:21:16.078-07:00It's the city's burden to prove that the d...It's the city's burden to prove that the dog is a "dangerous animal" - the city should've called the victims as witnesses to prove their case, not the respondent.<br /><br />Also, I believe that I've met this dog and her owner while walking my dog (who is considerably smaller in statuture) and she was very sweet and friendly to both myself and my dog. Perhaps the story should focus more on the owner's inability to maintain control of the dog by keeping her on a leash or on private property. <br /><br />Lastly, I question the use of the first picture of the dog. It looks like a "stock" photo and is highly prejudicial.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4450061648126809792.post-6272452696880850202011-08-07T20:54:00.507-07:002011-08-07T20:54:00.507-07:00With regard to criticisms of the pit bull story: T...With regard to criticisms of the pit bull story: There is a good reason for my not disclosing the name of the dog's owner, and readers will just have to trust me on that. Also, as far as journalistic fundamentals are concerned, this is a story about the process the City used to determine whether a specific dog is "dangerous" and, when that process failed in the opinion of our elected officials, how that process was changed. I believe that the story has been covered appropriately.Bryan Tagashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04318071838873203382noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4450061648126809792.post-2512884870620400692011-08-05T22:52:31.574-07:002011-08-05T22:52:31.574-07:00Kudos to Richard and Karen. That lost little bird ...Kudos to Richard and Karen. That lost little bird landed in just the right yard.<br /><br />I tot I saw a puddy tat.....Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4450061648126809792.post-61846813602347416082011-08-05T22:47:23.953-07:002011-08-05T22:47:23.953-07:00So I am confused. Is the dog back in the neighborh...So I am confused. Is the dog back in the neighborhood, or isn't it and isn't drilling down on something like that before writing a "story" a fundamental of journalism?<br /><br />Bryan, your (continuing) shoddy work on this story has now led to the vigilante crowd stepping into the fray. Why don't you either do your job as reporter thoroughly, or don't do it all?<br /><br />First, to inflame people's emotions, you have included (again) a generic picture of a snarling dog that isn't even the dog in question, IF it has returned to the area.<br /><br />Remember, when you first "broke" this story last year, well after it happened, you CHOSE not to make the dog's address public because the owner asked you not to. Your defense at that time was that the story had happened in the past and the dog was gone and was no longer a threat, so life could go on as if a blog posting had not even been required.<br /><br />So now, the dog has maybe been back and running loose at times in the neighborhood for a couple of months. Rather than reporting it when it happened and when you knew all the facts, you wait some random period of time and report that something MIGHT have happened. When you also reported on the City's decision back in June, had you seen the dog back in the neighborhood yet?<br /><br />Aren't the basics of journalism: who (I know, but I am not telling, at least until I feel like it), what (maybe a viscious dog, but not the dog whose picture leads off my story), where (I know but I am not telling. Hint though, it's somewhere in Madison Park and at one of about eight street-end beaches), when (starting this spring, which was quite awhile ago). Why? Because the laws in place allowed it. In fairness, you actually did a fine job on reporting the "why." For the second time since June, for some reason.<br /><br />Put yourself in your readers' shoes (another basic of journalism). You have reported that there MIGHT be a potentially viscious dog on the streets of Madison Park, at times unleashed. You have included maybe one (out of about a dozen photos used) of the ACTUAL dog. You have already said you know many more facts than you are sharing with the public, almost as if to taunt us at this point. Bryan, either there is a story here, and you your should report the ENTIRE story (no maybe or mights), or else not report any of it. Your credibility should be more important to you (another fundamental of journalism).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4450061648126809792.post-28449405635350366252011-08-05T17:13:28.888-07:002011-08-05T17:13:28.888-07:00Since the owners know the names of the victims, wh...Since the owners know the names of the victims, why haven't we disclosed the name and address of the owner of this dangerous dog who is back in the neighborhood and goes UNLEASHED on a public beach?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-4450061648126809792.post-45162281929696977392011-08-05T16:45:02.070-07:002011-08-05T16:45:02.070-07:00It is clear that this vicious dog needs to be put ...It is clear that this vicious dog needs to be put down as soon as possible. If the City of Seattle won't deal with this, why don't a group of get together and do what is necessary to protect our neighborhood? I don't believe in violent solutions, but am wondering what the best solution is given that this vicious dog is still in our neighborhood and off lease! THAT is appalling.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com