THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1994, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Saturday, July 23, 1994 TAG: 9407220015
SECTION: FRONT PAGE: A10 EDITION: FINAL
TYPE: Letter
LENGTH: Short : 39 lines
The report ``Lucky dog: Bullet wound wasn't fatal'' (news, July 13), while warm and fuzzy, certainly stretches the imagination of this reader to apply the term ``responsible and objective journalism.''
The report was loosely based on actual events concerning two dogs and a dog shooting. Not only were the events not depicted accurately; the report contained a pervasive tilt toward ``Bart''-bashing. The injured dog, Dodie, was described as 16 pounds of flopping ears and swishing tail who couldn't resist exploring the neighborhood and was shot by accident (instead of the notorious ``Bart'') on her first ``solo'' run.
While Dodie is certainly cute (she has visited my home numerous times, unescorted, to play with Bart), the day she was shot exploring her neighborhood was not a first solo for Dodie. However, your report practically celebrated the wonderment of this dog being unlawfully at large, while denigrating Bart as ``notorious,'' ``running at large'' and ``running loose.''
Does your reporter think readers would assign blame for a rifle shot to a dog? In actuality, Dodie was at large exploring a neighbor's trash can. When the neighbor noticed Dodie in his trash, he grabbed his 22-caliber rifle loaded with a deadly hollow-point bullet. Then he fired and seriously injured a defenseless dog. This is the real problem. The person who fired the rifle is the one deserving of denigrating descriptions.
By the way, as Bart's owner, I attest that on the day of the shooting, Bart was neither tearing up trash, shooting a dog in the trash or writing it. He was home.
CHARLOTTE WORLEY
Chesapeake, July 13, 1994 by CNB