The News Needs an Expert Filter for Stories on Dogs

When you have expertise in a specific topic, reading newspapers or listening to the radio can be a cringe-inducing event. I can chuckle and shake my head when my local paper misidentifies agility obstacles or reports on the "prettiest" dog being chosen in the conformation ring. But other missteps in news coverage are more serious.
There was a recent report of a "mauling" by dogs in a paper. For those converse in dog behavior, the report made no sense. The dogs were reported to be "scratching and biting" the victim, and immediately stopped when called away by others. A serious attack doesn't involve scratching, and a dog in attack mode isn't called off unless very highly trained. This read far more like rough play gone awry.
But the report that really got me steaming was on Paul Harvey. With no sign of disbelief, and in fact, what sounded like awed acceptance, it was reported that a dog in South Korea was so phenomenally good at sniffing out cancer than the Koreans were cloning the dog to repeat such excellence. And yet there are so many things wrong with that short report!
First, a variety of dogs have been trained to sniff out various cancers, and they seem uniformly good at the task. But more importantly, the idea that cloning will result in dogs of precisely equal ability is ludicrous. Cloned animals in general have not proven to be healthy or to enjoy normal lifespans. But the main problem here is that cloning merely produces an animal with the same genetic structure. So the dogs will look like the cloned dog. But as far as their actions, there's far more involved than their genetics.
This should be obvious to anyone who has known a set of human twins. They carry the same DNA, but hardly ever exhibit the same personality. It's no different with dogs or any other animal. It's that old nature versus nurture effect. You may start with the same blank slate, but experiences write on each slate differently.
I know news agencies aren't going to be employing canine specialists any time soon, but what really bothers me is that they fall down so badly on this subject I know so well, so why should I believe that they do a lot better on other subjects? I'm sure there are experts out there in photovoltaics or forestry or whatever who cringe just as much when their subject hits the news.
At least with the subject I know and love -- dogs -- please take news reports with a healthy grain of salt.