Comments on: Council Says Media Attacked Rhames’ Dogs

By: Mastiff Dogs Revealed. | 7Wins.eu

Mastiff Dogs Revealed. | 7Wins.eu — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 14:37:44 +0000

[…] Course | About Us | Contact | Privacy Policy Sites you may be interested in Council Says Media Attacked Rhames’ Dogs | Itchmo: News For Dogs & Cats Tags mastiff puppy for sale mastiff for sale mastiff puppy mastiff dog neapolitan mastiff english […]

By: anthony hedayat

anthony hedayat — Mon, 27 Aug 2007 04:12:20 +0000

The media morons are the ones I hope get mauled and are left for dead after the internet takes over as the information and news source as provided by those who do not have a vested interest in creating hype for an automobile advertisment. Just think, if they are unwilling to get this type of story correct; how screwed up all the rest of their alleged reporting is.

Thank you to those who remain faithful to integrity, truth and honor.

By: Lynne

Lynne — Sun, 19 Aug 2007 21:57:37 +0000

This story says more about the state of American mainstream media than anything else. They are no longer reporters of news.
I remember an interview Wolf Blitzer had with President Clinton. At one point, Blitzer actually said, “I’m trying to make news here,” when he couldn’t get Clinton to answer a question the way he wanted. My first thought was, “No! Your job is to REPORT news not MAKE it.”
But then, as singer John Mayer points out, “‘Cuz when they own the information, oh, they can bend it all they want.”

By: wescott20

wescott20 — Sun, 19 Aug 2007 11:27:03 +0000

Yesterday there was an article saying the dogs’ role in the man’s death was “uncertain”. I guess that’s as much as a retraction as we’ll get. If one reads the article, it’s obvious that the medical examiner’s conclusion is that the dogs had nothing to do with any attack on the man….it is even stated in the article that the dog bites are superficial and not on the “attack” areas (neck. etc…). And the article also admits that Animal Control has already given Mr. Rhames his dogs back. Obviously it has been found that the dogs did not attack the man, so why is the headline stating now only that the dogs’ role was “uncertain”? Why can’t they come out with the truth that the dogs did not attack the man at all? I think the media is very dishonest and irresponsible to this end…I’ll bet that the large amount of sensationalized and embellished dog attack stories that the media is spewing out is largely responsible for the sweeping, discriminatory and unfair breed bans that are now in vogue in municipalities across the country.

By: Carol

Carol — Sun, 19 Aug 2007 00:17:23 +0000

Not that it really matters, but I still have yet to see a factual report on just what breed of dog Mr Rhames owns. The footage I saw shows what seem to be Filas, but I know people who still swear they’re mastiffs. At this point, I’m just really curious as to what they are, because like most dog people, I hate not being able to play ‘name that breed’ accurately!

By: Sharon

Sharon — Sat, 18 Aug 2007 13:33:09 +0000

Nothing that comes out of the media can be trusted to be accurate. Fact-checking appears to be a thing of the past. Austin received alot of negative publicity when a man was beaten to death when the car he was riding in hit a child and tried to leave the scene of the accident. Media all over the world made a race issue of it and called it a mob beating because it happened the day of a Juneteenth celebration on the East side of town. The media creates the news, it is designed to sell.

By: Radcliff, Allie, Luna, & Ozzie

Radcliff, Allie, Luna, & Ozzie — Sat, 18 Aug 2007 03:44:46 +0000

They don’t call it the “drive-by media” for nothing.

By: elizabeth

elizabeth — Fri, 17 Aug 2007 23:02:50 +0000

Why, oh why do so many in the media believe they can CREATE news to fit their personal agenda or bias, rather than investigate and report the facts? In this day of the internet they ALWAYS get caught and just look unprofessional and stupid. Rhames should sue!

By: straybaby

straybaby — Fri, 17 Aug 2007 22:16:14 +0000

wow, that last round of headlines is pretty revealing. OY!

i guess nobody will report the results of the further testing? sad . . . .

By: Amanda

Amanda — Fri, 17 Aug 2007 21:30:49 +0000

Well said SKW. I too had said to my parents when the reports about the dogs mauling first came out that I bet he probably had a medical condition and they were trying to help him not attack him like the media was reporting.

Both my parents were angry that the media immediately jumped onto the mauling story without proof of it.

By: Sky Eyes Woman

Sky Eyes Woman — Fri, 17 Aug 2007 21:08:24 +0000

Boy, if there was ever a time I wish I could write to a celebrity and they’d actually read my letter, this is it!

I’d like to tell Mr. Rhames there is at least one person out there who wasn’t so sure his dogs killed their caretaker despite the way several articles I’d read were worded. I have wondered since a day or two after I read about Jacob Adams’ death if he had not collapsed and died for another reason and the dogs nipped him in an effort to “wake him up”. As many dogs as I see on a daily basis at my job (dozens) and as much studying and talking with dog owners as I’ve done, I just never believed that his dogs suddenly decided one day to kill the person who cared for them for over two years. They don’t just snap for no reason.

There wasn’t any mention in the article about whether or not Ving got his dogs back from the county. Anybody know the answer to that?