• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Representation of birding in the media (1 Viewer)

Andrew Whitehouse

Andrew Whitehouse

Professor of Listening
Supporter
Scotland
An interesting article has just been published on Birdguides about how a piece Brian Unwin had written for the Independent was changed to become very misleading. Here's Brian's response on Birdguides (not sure if you can view it if you don't subscribe):

http://www.birdguides.com/birdnews/article.asp?a=498

And the offending article on the Independent site:

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/environment/story.jsp?story=613171

There's nothing too surprising here for those familiar with articles about birding that appear in newspapers (even the 'quality' publications) but it's interesting to see the processes that these articles sometimes go through and that turn a quite sensible piece, such as Brian wrote, into some sort of 'textured' nonsense.
 
Thanks Andrew.

'Dedicated twitchers of the Bill Oddie variety, those prepared to travel thousands of miles for a sighting of a rare Siberian waxwing, may remain in a league of their own.'

Errrrmmm???
 
If I were Brian Unwin the steam would be coming out my ears. That his perfectly sensible piece could be so distorted by what is normally a good newspaper is appalling.

No wonder the rest of the great British public has such an odd opinion of birders.
 
Read it this morning and whilst being a bit irked about it I was not too surprised. The media love to prtry us as wooly hat wearing anoraks.
 
I did think the original seemed a bit specialist for the Independent, and might have needed mainstreaming, but it's clear that this was a last-minute botch job on their part. It's hard to see what the point of the published article was, it being a mish-mash of bits.
 
Psst *whispers* I know where there's a rare Bullfinch close to where I live! PM me for details but don't tell everybody LOL

Can't believe what has been written in the Independent...somebody wants to take a reporter out for a days' birding to show them what it's REALLY all about!
But, as Andrew said, the amount of times us birders get labelled as twitchers....if I had a pound coin..... LOL
I get it myself...soon as I'm introduced to new folk and they hear that I'm 'into' birdwatching they say ''So you're a Twitcher then?'' Eeeerrrrr NO!!!!!!! I try so hard to politely explain the difference between a birder and a twitcher BUT most folk already think we are strange so don't really listen, do they?

GILL
 
But gill i am sure that you get asked that question several times ecpecially on bird forum as your signiture is Aww shucks...dipped again!!! and dipped means to miss a twitched bird
 
Can't see the problem?
I can see why Brian is cheesed off though as altering the article to that extent is a bit below the belt

most birders/twitchers do appear to be list obsessed - as borne out by those year listers on here... and witness the obsession with optics and the amount of money people will pay for a scope

birding is rather nerdy too in my humble opinion. Didn't used to be and i'm not an old fuddy duddy either! It has expanded and 'older' folk are getting into it and can often be seen after more 'unusual' species.... all very good but this appears to be where their interest ends... the last two 'twitches' i've been on, i've had folk who obviously are 'newish' to birding having a go at me for using my brain and fieldcraft and getting good views of the bird in question.... they all crept up behind in the end but none apologised.

the interest in rare birds far overides any interest in actually doing anything interesting or worthwhile in connection to birds

what say you?

Tim
 
It is a general rule of thumb that the media in general seems like a pretty plausible source of information - until they write on a subject about which you know a little bit yourself ie birds and birding.

Then you notice that they haven't got a clue what they're talking about. And you start to think: "I wonder if that's the same when they write about other subjects, things I can't verify so easily because I'm not an expert at everything?"

The sad fact is that as well as being so wrong on birding, they are often very wrong on many many other subjects. Generally it's not their fault as such - they don't mean to be inaccurate, but they have to write on a huge range of subjects every week. They're not experts on everything either, so of course errors creep in, often huge ones.

The answer is to treat everything you read, wherever it comes from, with a healthy and enquiring scepticism (but not cynicism - that is corrosive and negative and something entirely different).
 
robinm said:
If I were Brian Unwin the steam would be coming out my ears. That his perfectly sensible piece could be so distorted by what is normally a good newspaper is appalling.

No wonder the rest of the great British public has such an odd opinion of birders.
Click to expand...
More like, Why the great British public has such an odd opinion of Journalist.

Whatever happened to reporting the news?. Its now trying to make amd manipulate the news. Can you actually believe anything any of them report?.
 
alan_rymer said:
More like, Why the great British public has such an odd opinion of Journalist.

Whatever happened to reporting the news?. Its now trying to make amd manipulate the news. Can you actually believe anything any of them report?.
Click to expand...

A mate of mine is a very good journalist for the Italian State Broadcasting Company (RAI). I (jokily) told him I thought journalists were low-life scum-bags (following some rough treatment at the hands of a cub reporter) and he said: "Please don't tell my mum I'm a journalist - she thinks I'm a backstreet abortionist!"
 
if u want good journalists, don't buy the crap papers

to be serious for a minute, the best investigative journalists are the people who uncover the truth for us. There just aren't enough of them.

Tim
 
hornet said:
It is a general rule of thumb that the media in general seems like a pretty plausible source of information - until they write on a subject about which you know a little bit yourself ie birds and birding.

Then you notice that they haven't got a clue what they're talking about. And you start to think: "I wonder if that's the same when they write about other subjects, things I can't verify so easily because I'm not an expert at everything?"

The sad fact is that as well as being so wrong on birding, they are often very wrong on many many other subjects. Generally it's not their fault as such - they don't mean to be inaccurate, but they have to write on a huge range of subjects every week. They're not experts on everything either, so of course errors creep in, often huge ones.
Click to expand...

You're absolutely right, Hornet....

I've had a couple of experiences of things being written up that I knew all about... in my experience it's not only a question of not being experts, they can't even be bothered to get simple matters of fact right either, like names and ages for example!!

All that seems to matter is selling papers - truth and accuracy come a very poor second...
 
I didn't mean to point a finger of blame at journalists. It's too easy to blame journalists - like all of us making a living at anything in this life, they respond to demand. Journalists are just people, no more corrupt, lazy, imbecilic or unpleasant than the rest of us.

People like rubbish, they consume rubbish, so they get rubbish. People can't be bothered applying rational thought, working through complicated issues, considering both sides of a debate, applying empathy in considering another person's views - so they get ill-considered summaries and stupid news stories. If newspapers printed fully considered scientific articles and serious world news stories, properly researched and presented in a balanced manner, they would quickly go out of business. Only the BBC stands a chance (and they often get it wrong) simply because they are state funded and don't have to bow to market pressure.

I wish I could remember who once said: "I know what is wrong with this country - it's me".

I for one would prefer to shoulder my share of the blame than point the finger constantly at others.
 
I stopped reading news? papers when out of the 34 or so pages most were taken up with the intricies of someone kissing a certain member of the royal families feet! I've never bought a paper from that day to this and reading articles like this reinforces my belief that I'm doing the right thing.
 
I'm inclined to go a long way with Marc. The relatively few journalists that I have known have, without exception, been very concerned to get things right. But that cannot be said of the editors and sub-editors and that can result in pressures on the journalists. In that respect it's no different to any other big business. I know a woman who used to have a regular column on the Daily Mail. She threw up this very highly paid job because of these sorts of conflicts; she wasn't prepared to compromise her principals to the extent required. Good girl, I say. On a more mundane level, a local reporter here is always moaning about how his (invariably brief) reports are mangled in order to fit the space available. Last time he complained he was told, "It's a lottery".

Local papers seem to be considerably less unprincipled than national ones, but even then I can think of one or two that have gutter aspirations. And I am quite unable to view paparrazzi as anything higher up the evolutionary chain than the slime at the bottom of ponds. So my sympathy for journalists is strictly limited.

Here's some advice I was given about journalistic writing. Prioritise what you want to say. Put the vital stuff at the top of the article; leave the discursive stuff till last. Construct your piece so that it can be cut from the bottom up. It won't necessarily happen quite like that, but it does reduce the risk of something important being edited out.
 
Warning! This thread is more than 19 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Similar threads

Ruff
The girl who gets gifts from birds
Replies
0
Views
2K
Ruff
Ruff
U
The Birds And Wildlife Of The Staffordshire Moorlands
13 14 15
Replies
297
Views
16K
Upland Birder
U

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top