Let’s say this happened:
A man, walking with his unleashed dog, happens upon a kangaroo. The dog runs at the kangaroo, who hops away. The dog chases the kangaroo. The kangaroo hops into a pond. The dog chases the kangaroo into the pond.
At that point, the kangaroo stops running and turns to fight the dog, holding it under water.
The man runs over and tries to pull his dog free, and the kangaroo gives him the hind-claws-to-the-stomach trick. The man fights back and the kangaroo hops away.
Now, if that happened, and you had to write a headline, what would it be?
Here’s how the AP did it:
Kangaroo tries to drown dog, attacks owner
And here’s the first sentence:
“A kangaroo startled by a man walking his dog attacked the pair, pinning the pet underwater and slashing the owner in the abdomen with its hind legs.”
Startled? And the kangaroo attacked the pair? That sounds as though the man and his dog were minding their own business, sticking to the path, when suddenly and unexpectedly, POW!
As in: “Oh hey a kangaroo, oh no it’s coming for us, oh god oh god!”
Well, the kangaroo may have been startled, but he was no longer startled when he finally, back against the wall, with no other options, stopped running and fought back.
How about: An unleashed dog attacked and chased a wild animal before being taught a serious lesson. His owner was hurt while trying to rescue the dog from the animal that the dog had attacked.
That sounds about right.
Incidentally, the article also says that kangaroos have been known before to lead dogs into water and defend themselves there. So the writer does at least recognize that it’s defense. I might say that they go into the water and if the dog continues to attack, they defend themselves. Because even then, if the dog stayed on the shore, no one would get hurt.[Link to the article]
No comments yet.