"Avian predators terrorising the countryside" (1 Viewer)

[Andy Hurley]

Doesn't matter whether he cares.
Easy to be a whining whinging minority and unless a few try to correct this view it will relegate us to the sub-class "keyboard warrior"
I doubt my letter will make the "letters to the editor" page but it felt compelled to write, nonetheless

The trouble is, any comment or correction to the editor will most likely see you blocked for daring not to agree with their "official" line.

 

[Egret]

"Correcting" the Daily Mail

Doesn't matter whether he cares.
Easy to be a whining whinging minority and unless a few try to correct this view it will relegate us to the sub-class "keyboard warrior"
I doubt my letter will make the "letters to the editor" page but it felt compelled to write, nonetheless

People fought for years to correct this rags views on vaccination. They failed and children died. The DM and its readership are not interested in the truth, just what reinforces their beliefs.

 

[Sangahyando]

People fought for years to correct this rags views on vaccination. They failed and children died. The DM and its readership are not interested in the truth, just what reinforces their beliefs.

As are so many newspapers, unfortunately...

 

[Nutcracker]

As are so many newspapers, unfortunately...

The Mail is (along with the Daily Express) particularly bad though.

 

[alcedo.atthis]

This was published in several papers. I suspect that business was slow. How do you get more work. Advertise!!
Ahh, but business is slow, and income is low and advertising cost money. Reaction, then, make up a story which the press will "believe ??" and it will do the rounds. It's free advertising.

 

[John Cantelo]

Good rebuttal of Page's tripe in the Guardian - see http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/may/12/should-we-drop-protections-for-birds-of-prey

This quote rather sums up Page's position - "When asked by the Guardian why he had not cited any science to back up his assertion that raptors were suppressing native birds, Page replied: “I don’t want to, why should I?” A lifetime observing the countryside was enough for him to know what was going on .."

 

[Robin Edwards]

Its a difficult one, but I feel that there should be some kind of body that regulates newspapers. Not of course the political stuff because that is opinion, but on things like this the newspaper has a duty to provide some balance. Another example would be the use of dodgy weather "forecasters" by the Express to predict extreme weather. That again is irresponsible and they should be pulled up on it. Similarly the health scares eg MMR triggered by the tabloids. When an article is about something science-based then it should surely be required to be balanced not report the views of some fruitcake as fact?

I guess we could all vote with our feet and never buy comics yet I have some good friends who are keen birders yet buy the Mail and believe what they're fed. Maybe I am under estimating the power and influence media propaganda has on our thinking and politics. There is a view that Rupert Murdoch has just won the election although not as a result of any wisdom shown from the electorate.

 

[JDatchens]

Good rebuttal of Page's tripe in the Guardian - see http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/may/12/should-we-drop-protections-for-birds-of-prey

I rather like this too:
"BBC wildlife presenter Chris Packham said Page’s article was “an idiotic, ill informed rant” by someone with “no qualified understanding of even basic ecology. All, repeat, all the science proves that this sort of naive proposal is utterly unfounded.”"

30 years ago I was on a boat in the Isles of Scilly when Robin Page (along with Josephine Buchan) was filming an article for the lunchtime "Pebble Mill at One" TV programme. If I'd known then he was going to turn out the way he has I swear I'd have tried to push him overboard.... :storm:

If only the avid swallowers of the hate "Mail" would read the Guardian piece as well but common sense and cold facts are no match for sensationalism.:-C

 

[Amarillo]

I guess we could all vote with our feet and never buy comics yet I have some good friends who are keen birders yet buy the Mail and believe what they're fed. Maybe I am under estimating the power and influence media propaganda has on our thinking and politics. There is a view that Rupert Murdoch has just won the election although not as a result of any wisdom shown from the electorate.

Yes in an ideal world we would just vote with our feet, but if as you say some keen birders fall for it, how can you reasonably expert ordinary non-birders to recognise that the opinions in the article are nonsense?

This is why articles which are fact based should be regulated somehow. By all means have someones opinion on something, but it should be qualified with what the recognised experts say. Then of course if what the recognised experts said completely contradicts the opinion piece, then they wouldn't publish it anyway.

 

[Robin Edwards]

I don't think I can Amarillo http://www.birdwatch.co.uk/channel/newsitem.asp?cate=__15938

Correcting National Newspapers for factual content would mean there wouldn't be many pages published.

 

[Amarillo]

Correcting National Newspapers for factual content would mean there wouldn't be many pages published.

or maybe they could actually fill the papers with factual stuff rather than unqualified opinion?

 

[Farnboro John]

Back in the day newspaper journalists used to discover and report facts and newspapers confined spin to their editorials.

Now journos have no morals and the newspapers are all as bad as each other in respect of blurring fact and opinion.

John

 

[string boozel]

I believe that most newspapers should be printed on absorbent paper so that we can treat them with the contempt that their content deserves.

James.