Lie Like a Dog Narrative

A few years ago, Brewster, a beautiful Saint Bernard puppy, was dropped off by his owners at a humane society. Brewster was nervous and the agency's receptionist kept him at her desk until one day, when a man entered the Society, he misread Brewster's body language, and was bitten. Normally, this
would be reason to put the dog down ... Only it wasn't Brewster's fault. Where could a humane society possibly turn to save a dog
that it would otherwise be forced to kill?

Sounds so sad doesn't it?
But take another look. It may be sad but it's also biased.

1. Dog gets a proper name and physical description.
2. When the dog is called a dog it is only in the context of being killed. Since the narrator cannot envision any situation in which Brewster could be put to death, the narrator resorts to using the word dog to describe Brewster.
3. No action at all was committed by Brewster, all we know is that he was nervous.
4. The man has no name and no description and no emotions. We are only told what he did, like an official police report.
5. Actually this narrative does not even say directly that Brewster bit the man. It says the man was bitten.
6. Brewster has no action, Man only has action.
7. If it was not Brewster's fault, whose was it?
8. How complicated does a dog's body language have to be in order to be misread?
9. Although the dog was dropped of a few years ago, the only image we are provided of Brewster is that of a puppy.
10. Does it really matter how Brewster ended up at the receptionist's desk?
11. Why are we not given any history on the man?

you probably get the idea by now. I love dogs but this is a great example of one-sided story-telling. Obviously I did not have time to incorporate it into my presentation. And I am sorry about going over time.