This is the backdrop when I read Times articles like one on Feb. 26, headlined “A New Breed of Ring Bearers Trot Down the Aisle.” In it I learned about a furry wedding guest named Major and the barking and growling that “served as background music” to the wedding vows.
A few days before that article, on Feb. 23, there was another one headlined “Play Dead, Act Coy, Roll Over and Upstage the Humans,” which informed us that while “dog stars do not compare with human actors … they can give camera-hogging performances.”
A 45 percent jump in precious newspaper space given to dogs is significant. But check this out. Fifteen years ago, before Abramson had any clout at The Times, there were only 167 references to dogs during a four-month time-frame that I checked. That indicates an increase of more than 100 percent in the attention given to dogs between then and now!
One defense of the Times’s dog proclivities might be that there are more dogs in the city (and nation) now, and that more coverage is warranted. Hmm. Cute. But I don’t buy it.
A Lexis check of The Daily News indicates that its coverage of dogs remained the same over the past 15 years. Back then there were 84 multiple references to dogs (i.e., stories that mentioned dogs at least three times) during a four-month period. There were 89 during an equivalent period recently. (Disclosure: I once was a reporter for The Daily News, and today I read both The News and The Times faithfully.)
Reading Abramson’s book, I learned that her predecessor as editor, Bill Keller, susupected that Abramson was using her position as managing editor to push dogs to the top of the stories list. Keller “told me that he noticed a sudden rise in the number of stories being pitched for the front page,” she wrote.
“To curb the trend,” she continued, “he urged me to recuse myself from any discussion about a proposed story.”
So now the question is this: With Keller no longer the boss, who will watch the watch-dog?
dogs stories are click bait.
Not saying you're wrong to lament the trend.
#1 Posted by edward ericson jr., CJR on Fri 23 Mar 2012 at 09:07 PM
A significant number of the hits on 'dog' in the recent NYT productions has got to be the result of Gail Collins' insane obsession with Seamus, Romney's dog.
#2 Posted by DSchultz, CJR on Sat 24 Mar 2012 at 07:32 AM
So why is a person who evidently does not possess either passion or mastery of her profession elevated to this position? Because like previous societies we have become hopelessly corrupt at this point.
#3 Posted by eric smith, CJR on Sat 24 Mar 2012 at 08:23 AM
I think you'll find that it's not just the NYT that's become obsessed with dog stories. Media all over the country, both print and broadcast, have recently decided to find as many animal-related stories as they can because, in the case of animal abuse stories, they're guaranteed to elicit immediate, and strong, reactions, and in the case of other kinds of animal stories, strangely enough, they're perceived as human interest stories with a built-in audience.
It's purely a matter of journalistic pandering.
#4 Posted by Martskers, CJR on Sat 24 Mar 2012 at 02:41 PM
Just a thought but you might just be picking up a seasonal trend; I'm not sure why more dog stories would be written during winter/around the holidays, but it's possible. The more relevant check of your theory would be to compare the last four months against the same four months a year ago.
#5 Posted by Owen, CJR on Sat 24 Mar 2012 at 02:56 PM
I did a root search for the letter S in the LexisNexis database, and the results were astounding. There's definitely something going on. In the last four months alone since Abramson took over as editor, no other letter was used more in sentence composition and structure in the NYT.
#6 Posted by Wexis, CJR on Sun 25 Mar 2012 at 12:29 AM
This doesn't surprise me one bit, I live in a place (St. Louis Missouri) where there are no jobs and no economic progress whatsoever, in many ways it's the dead zone, the rust belt of America. But on virtually every other corner of the more affluent neighborhoods in this city, there is a dog grooming business. I moved back here about six years ago, and I couldn't believe how many of these businesses there are in this city. With only around 250,000 people in the city itself and maybe 2.7 million in the entire greater St. Louis area there is perhaps 250 these businesses, and I understand they do very well.
Who are these people, that spend $15,000 or $20,000 a year just to keep their dogs and cats looking good. My father is a farmer, and at one time we had 26 cats and 5 dogs, and one year in the 80s when we had a lot of sick animals his veterinary bill just for these animals, not including the farm animals, was around $14,000. But these folks are spending thousands every month to keep their dogs primped and preened, which apparently is an important status symbol in these parts much like owning a high dollar Mercedes or a 18 room house.
I think such phenomena are indicative of the mindset of elites like Ms. Abramson who more and more find themselves isolated from the larger populace in America, people who in fact genuinely see more value in their pets, than they do the human beings they see and talk to every day. Though I'm sure if confronted they would deny it. I think there is a kind of estrangement from humanity happening with many people, that allows them to overlook much of the inequity and awfulness which is becoming ever more common in America. So common that perhaps those who are confronted with it on a daily basis begin to feel that they must separate themselves from these… lesser folk. Perhaps it goes even deeper, perhaps they begin to see all humanity and every human being in an ill favored light.
I also think that the New York Times has made a conscious decision to itself move away from the greater populace, and towards their elite class of readers. After all these other people that their advertisers want to reach, and as we all know those advertising dollars are rapidly vanishing in the newspaper business. So much so that it's becoming an ever more ruthless struggle to corral what's left. So it's only natural that the NYT place less and less value on those of us who don't have $40,000 to spend on a two-week vacation in the Caribbean, or $20K a year grooming our dogs.
Let's hope that some of us are looking close at exactly where this is leading, not only in the press business, but for the country as well. I think we know the endgame here, history is replete with examples.
#7 Posted by Aaron B. Brown, CJR on Mon 26 Mar 2012 at 02:58 AM
Why am I reminded of David Bowie's 1974 song from the album of the same name, "Diamond Dogs"?
#8 Posted by Anton Jolkovski, CJR on Mon 26 Mar 2012 at 08:57 AM
Is this a joke? This silly piece of writing makes a half-hearted effort to build an argument around what seems to be a random and rather meaningless statistic.
Also: Abramson took over in September, not November.
#9 Posted by Thunk, CJR on Mon 26 Mar 2012 at 05:44 PM
For those of you who have access to Bloomberg Terminals, try finding the "Dog Kill Index" which graphs the monthly death of dogs on United States airline flights.
#10 Posted by Mike Robbins, CJR on Mon 26 Mar 2012 at 06:13 PM
Re comment about dogs in St. Louis, the same thing is true here in Brooklyn. I live in a neighborhood that's a mix of fairly well off gentry mixed with struggling immigrants and even hustlers, and it's weird sometimes to see the new, incredibly well stocked new dog shops; one of them is down the block from me to the west, another is a block and a half away to the east. I especially note one on Seventh Ave., Park Slope, that's as big as a supermarket. I love dogs but some of this seems a little strange.
#11 Posted by Ron Howell, CJR on Tue 27 Mar 2012 at 03:19 PM
Regarding the comment by Thunk, they're neither random nor meaningless, those dog stories. They're coming one right after the other, and taken together they say a lot about our evolving (devolving) culture and about the state of journalism.
#12 Posted by Ron Howell, CJR on Tue 10 Apr 2012 at 10:21 PM