Here's a quote from a 2009 study that might be of interest in the ongoing vicious dog debate: In any event, there is no scientific evidence that one kind of a dog is more likely to bite or injure a human being than another kind of dog. Clicky. NCRC
If a dog bite happens, and it's described as a "pitbull," the chances of it being reported on in the media are magnified, even if the injuries sustained are equal. Sometimes pitbull stories are newsworthy. Locally, we had a pair of them get shot by state troopers recently, and IMO, it was worth reporting, as cops had to discharge their weapons.
Still, take equal dog attacks on the same day, one is from a husky, the other is from a Pitbull, guess which one leads on the nightly news? Heck, I work for the media, and believe that most (but not all) media are biased when it comes to over-reporting pitbull attacks and under-reporting non-pitbull dog attacks. Think all these news reports shape public opinion? You bet.
Great point TBird about the doberman and german shepherd thing. Those were gnarly, vicious dogs when I was a kid, never to be trusted, tear your face off kind of dogs. . .
Haven't heard anything bad about them in years. . .