Wanted: Menacing dogs for TV thumbnails

Picture this: You’re scrolling through your news feed when suddenly, a snarling beast fills your screen. Gleaming fangs, narrowed eyes, ears pinned back in pure aggression. This isn’t some thriller poster – it’s how major Indian news outlets chose to illustrate the Supreme Court's recent order on Delhi’s stray dog population.

When the Supreme Court ordered the removal of an estimated 10 lakh stray dogs from Delhi-NCR streets, it sparked a nationwide debate. But here’s the twist: while society was divided on the solution, the media seemed united in one approach – making dogs look absolutely terrifying.

The formula was simple. Find the most aggressive-looking dog photo in your stock library. Bonus points if it’s foaming at the mouth or AI-enhanced for ferocity. Splash it across a story about stray dogs.

Here’s where it gets interesting (and concerning). Research shows that these images don’t just grab attention but actively shape public opinion too. Dr Daniel Mills, a veterinarian and biologist, in a research paper, explains that when humans see a dog’s bared-teeth display, we automatically interpret it as aggression, regardless of the actual context. That “vicious” dog might have been mid-yawn or playing fetch, but once that image hits the news cycle, it becomes evidence of a canine menace.

In Kerala during 2015-16, reports raising alarm about dog attacks coincided with public killings of stray dogs, with bounties being offered for their deaths. 

Delhi has seen a rise in dog bite cases in recent years, but experts attribute this to inconsistent sterilisation, poor waste management, and rapid urbanisation. But the nuance is often lost in polarised debates around the issue. A protester at an agitation against the SC order said the media has portrayed dogs as ferocious. “TV channels have created an atmosphere of fear and panic by portraying dogs as ‘ferocious,’ when in reality, that is not the case,” she told Newslaundry.

Meanwhile, here’s how visuals in major outlets portrayed canines this week. 

NDTV

Most reports and thumbnails on the issue carried images of ferocious-looking dogs. 

The news channel patted itself on the back by labelling the SC’s order as  “NDTV impact” on the thumbnail of a segment uploaded on YouTube. It claimed to have reported ‘every dog menace’ case from across the country, and aired video bites of Delhi minister Kapil Mishra and common citizens thanking the channel for “starting a campaign against stray dogs”. Another segment was headlined “Delhi dogs docked”, the ticker read: “Top court shoos away dog lovers”.

The channel’s campaign, “Dog Dilemma”, had repeatedly “highlighted the rising number of incidents in which stray dogs have injured and, in some tragic cases, killed children and elderly people”.

Republic TV

Republic’s coverage also featured pictures of menacing dogs. 

On his show, Arnab Goswami moved away from the merits and demerits of the SC order to focus on theatrics. Not content with just scary visuals, he launched into a full-scale attack on animal activists, calling them “selfish” and questioning their motives. 

“If they love dogs so much, why don’t they keep them at home. Tomorrow, they ask snakes, mongoose, and all sorts of animals to be on the road. It is a stupid and selfish argument.”

Goswami then speculated whether animal activism has become a business, and proceeded to agree with a panelist’s opinion, who used the words “vested interest”, “nexus”, and “planned conspiracy” to establish a vague allegation about animal activists making money through CSR activities. 

Continuing his tirade against animal activists, he said, “If you tell them [animal activists] that a child died [due to a dog attack], an athlete died, or a young man died, they will say ‘So what?’” 

During the rest of the debate, Goswami occasionally returned to his narrative that animal activists are minting money under the garb of welfare.

India Today

While India Today did not use pictures of scary dogs, at least for the thumbnails of the YouTube videos of their coverage, a video from one of its reports had several pictures of scary dogs and dogs attacking humans.

Times Now

While scary dogs were absent from the thumbnails, a report used several such images throughout its coverage. Across the same report, there were videos of people being mauled by dogs.

CNN-News18

CNN-News18 refrained from using scary dog pictures in its thumbnails, and such images were largely absent from their reportage. However, there was one report that did use a couple of aggressive dog images. 

‘Why dogs bark only at few’

Similarly, online articles from several news outlets also choose to feature pictures of scary dogs. 

After the Supreme Court order on Monday, Hindustan published an article on its website explaining why dogs bark at only certain people and not everyone. The article image was an aggressive dog. 

India Today’s article on the SC ruling featured an aggressive pack of dogs, similar to Navbharat Times. Dainik Jagran’s piece came with an image of a dog baring its teeth and biting a human’s hand, with the words, “Kutton ka aatank (The terror of dogs).” Three of Amar Ujala’s online reports (here, here and here) about the SC order featured furious-looking dogs.

‘Caricatures over analysis’

In the last century, reportage on dogs turning their frustration on innocent victims was not uncommon, notes a paper on media portrayals of canines by the US-based National Canine Research Council co-founder Karen Delise. Nor was it uncommon for humans to unreasonably expect dogs to tolerate all types of torment and still behave amicably, it observes. This article in Perry Daily Chief on May 27, 1905 about a fatal dog attack thoroughly vilified the dog, “yet at the same time presented the details that drove this dog into a frenzy”:

“The owner of a yard with a number of fruit trees purchased a large Bulldog to guard against the stealing of the fruit which are an attraction to the boys of the neighborhood. On an early May morning, Jack, the heavy headed Bulldog, lay crouched beneath a cherry tree, a stout chain limiting the circle of his movement. Boys of the neighborhood saw a chance to get at some half-ripe cherries in a tree near the fence, but found the dog menacing them. They then teased the animal until it was nearly frantic. Nearby, the little daughter of the owner was playing with a rubber ball. The baby’s thoughts were busy on the ball, she did not notice how the wicked little eyes, red with rage, watched her. The child toddled in pursuit of a rubber ball that rolled into the bare spot which marked the limits of the dog’s chain. The baby stooped for the ball, but, before she could pick it up, the dog had seized her by the head.”

A study in 2020 in Bengaluru situated human–street dog relations within urban ecology and resource flows, explaining how incident-centric media narratives can obscure everyday coexistence and the structural drivers of conflict, thereby amplifying a one-dimensional, ferocity-focused image.

That’s why the stray dog issue deserves serious discussion about urban planning, animal welfare, and public safety.

Dr Asher Jesudoss, nominated member of the executive committee at the Delhi Animal Welfare Board, pointed to the perils.

“There are three types of people when it comes to dogs – those who are compassionate, those who are neutral, and those who would go out of the way to hurt them. When the media vilifies dogs, it is the second type of people, who so far haven’t had a problem with dogs, who start to hate dogs. The media needs to start conversations around this issue so that more people are made aware of scientific methods and animal protection policies for controlling the dog population. But when the media itself caricatures dogs into monsters, it becomes difficult for people to objectively analyse the issue and solve it scientifically, legally, and humanely.”

Complaining about the media is easy. Why not do something to make it better? Support independent media and subscribe to Newslaundry today.