On Dog-Killing Rats and Spotting Fluff
How to tell a news story is about, er, not news. But not in a bad way! Ugh just this is gonna take some words.
If you haven’t seen the article in The Washington Post about vigilantes using their terriers to kill rats, I urge you to read it (though be warned it’s a bloody process). It’s a cool article, with fantastic pictures (by Jabin Botsford, gorgeous job, dude. We do not appreciate the work photographers do for news nearly as much as we should).*
Anyway it’s a cute story about this group of people who go out at night with their dogs to let the dogs hunt. These dogs are rat terriers. They hunt rats.
Where do you get that done? Adams Morgan, obs.
Of course some people don’t like this. It’s bloody. Rats die. Dogs kill them. As I’ve written about before, we modern Americans are truly, remarkably divorced from physical death and suffering. This is especially true of us, our pets, and what we EAT. We hate the idea that a chicken might live in horrible conditions…but most of us still eat chicken. We love our dogs, but hate the idea that those dogs were bred, many of them, to do a specific job, and that job is murder of a specific kind. That’s another story (maybe another book? IDK).
But I was more struck by the number of people who linked me the piece and said “wow, this is such a great solution to the DC rat problem!”
It is nothing of the kind. And what comments like this reveal is not just that people really don’t understand how rats work (which, understandable), but also that they don’t understand the difference between news, and a fluff piece.
I do get it. There are no classes in high school on how to be a really good consumer of news, and even if there had been, most people who are adults now would have been reading vastly different kinds of news then! The media landscape is changing so fast it’s a miracle any of us can keep up.
But just as we know when we’re reading history, and when we’re reading historical fiction, we need to know when we’re reading news that is focused on giving information, and news that’s focused on giving, well, vibes.
This piece about dogs hunting rats in DC is vibes. And it’s good at its vibes! But it’s not a solution to the rat problem, and if you read it with a news reading eye, you can spot it.
Here’s what to look for:
What does the story CLAIM it is going to do?
On one side of the alley wall in a tony part of Northwest Washington, young people are drinking espresso martinis. On the other, a rogue group of dog owners is taking the city’s rat problem into their own hands, and their dogs’ mouths.
(First, I hate the word “tony.” Retire it. It’s awful).
This is the part of the story journalists call the nutgraf. It’s where we tell you what this story is going to do. When reading a news story, the story might say hey, wastewater could be used to track lots of diseases! Or, a new study shows wolves might be able to detect CWD in deer before humans do. The rest of the story will elaborate on that point, showing you WHY we are making that claim, what the scientists or politicians or wolves did. Whatever.
That’s not what this story is doing. This story says hey, look at these dog owners and what their dogs are doing. That’s what the story is about. It did NOT say “these dogs are putting a big dent in the city’s rats, and this technique could be a new key to the rat problem.” Because 1. It isn’t. and 2. That’s not what this story is for. This story is a portrait of rats and dogs. That’s honestly it.
Is there any data? Numbers? Effects?
In the Washington Post story, you can hunt down the numbers. DC has a rat problem, as expressed by the increase in 311 calls about them to the city. 13,000 last year.
The dogs kills rats. On this night, 25 of them.
But those numbers are not connected to each other. They can’t be. I mean, 13,000 calls is so many calls. I promise it reflects many, many more rats. When I was reporting my book about pests, rodentologist Bobby Corrigan told me for every rat HOLE you see? Multiply the number of rats by 6. The average city will have hundreds of thousands of rats, if not millions. We will never ever see most of them.
Compared to that, 25 rats? When these dogs are only going out on a weeknight? Cute.
If this WERE a data story, it would talk about, for example, how many rats might be exterminated by poison or mitigation, it might provide evidence that when dogs go out to kill rats, those rats leave and never come back.
There’s none of that. You get a claim from one of the hunters that the rats leave. But…that’s a claim. There’s no evidence. There’s no records saying in a single night they reduced said rat population from 500 down to 1 and it didn’t recover six months later. The math isn’t mathing.
As we say in journalism: Trust, but verify. If your mother says she loves you? Get a second opinion. Which leads me to…
Are there experts quoted in the story? What are they saying?
In a story where there’s data and science, you’ll have at least one expert in the story, usually if it’s good you’ll have more than two. One will be an expert who participated in the science, saying hey, here’s what we did, why we did it, and what the data mean. Other experts will be there as “outside commenters.” People not involved in the study. Their quotes might provide context, but I promise that the journalist who called them had them read the study, and asked “hey, is this any good?” And if the expert says no? We want to know why. Usually if the outside commenter says they don’t agree with the study or its findings? We put that in there. For the drama if nothing else. But usually its to say, hey, not everyone agrees, and here’s why. Maybe the study isn’t so good! Maybe the evidence isn’t there!
In this case we have an expert:
The dogs are not a part of its rat regiment, says Brown, adding: “The department does not support, participate in or endorse the hunting and killing of rats with dogs.”
Well then.
Later on, the story notes that actually…hunting rats with dogs in DC is ILLEGAL.
There’s loads of other things to watch for. Who gets the most time in the story and why? What gets the most lavish description? You can pick nits all the way down to the atomic level if you want to.
All this is not to say the story isn’t good. It’s good. It’s adorable. It delves into the partnerships between the people and their dogs, and how people on the street react.
But just because a story is good doesn’t mean its important. And there’s nothing wrong with that! Loads of relatively non-important things happen every day, and they can give us good or bad feelings! Vibes are GREAT. Just don’t mistake vibes for solutions.
When you read a story, have your antenna up. What is it really about? Is the claim supported by data? In what way? Are there sources? Who are they? This doesn’t just go for rats. It goes for new treatments, for politics. For everything. We know we need to be skeptical of politicians, of spam calls, of the stuff our friends share on FB. News? It’s no different.
Where have you been?
Is it spotting the ecosystem effects of beavers FROM SPACE? I love this story, showing the cool effects of beaver restoration in dry areas, and how they could help with lots of the effects of climate change.
Is it reading about cat curfews in Australia? I know it’s something the country has been thinking about for a while, and I am glad to see Sarah Legge’s research highlighted, because while yes, feral cats (they call them moggies) definitely kill the most wildlife…owned cats are not lying down on the job.
Is it reading about whether or not we should be smushing invasive species? I’m very glad to see this issue is getting more play. Because I’ll be honest. “Invasive species”? Is a nice, science-backed word. For pest.
Where have I been?
Prepping for the National Association of Science Writers meeting which is coming up in Boulder! Not only will I be moderating an AWESOME plenary session on trauma-informed reporting which might be the best plenary session in the history of the conference, nay, the world, but I’m helping to organize the Science Writer 4 Hire meet and greet, which will be both VIRTUAL on Tuesday and in PERSON on Sunday! If you’re a writer? Just show up, no pitches needed! If you’re an editor? Sign up for Tuesday, or just show up on Sunday, and we’ll make you wear a funny hat.
*I admit I’m jealous, they assigned this feature (or perhaps it was pitched) to a features reporter who usually writes about food. I’m RIGHT HERE!!! Humph. I would have gone HAM for the science.
Thought provoking piece.