What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
New review items
Latest activity
Forums
New posts
Search forums
Gallery
New media
New comments
Search media
Reviews
New items
Latest content
Latest reviews
Latest questions
Brands
Search reviews
Opus
Birds & Bird Song
Locations
Resources
Contribute
Recent changes
Blogs
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
ZEISS
ZEISS Nature Observation
The Most Important Optical Parameters
Innovative Technologies
Conservation Projects
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
BirdForum is the net's largest birding community dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is
absolutely FREE
!
Register for an account
to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
Forums
Birding
Conservation
Mad Guardian Article
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="John Cantelo" data-source="post: 1521313" data-attributes="member: 2844"><p>Actually, having finally got round to reading the original article I found it not nearly as bad as postings here suggest. The writer did acknowledge the damage introduced species do and seemed most concerned about what she saw (in this instance wrongly, I believe) as the use of 'loaded' terminology to describe threats. As I understand it the real concern was that words like 'overseas' and 'foriegn' were so routinely linked to "threats" that they become a shorthand for a xenophobic world view. The examples cited were poor and the agrument badly thought through in this case, but one doesn't have to read too many 'red tops' or the 'yellow press' in general to discover examples of the type of journalism being attacked in this article,</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="John Cantelo, post: 1521313, member: 2844"] Actually, having finally got round to reading the original article I found it not nearly as bad as postings here suggest. The writer did acknowledge the damage introduced species do and seemed most concerned about what she saw (in this instance wrongly, I believe) as the use of 'loaded' terminology to describe threats. As I understand it the real concern was that words like 'overseas' and 'foriegn' were so routinely linked to "threats" that they become a shorthand for a xenophobic world view. The examples cited were poor and the agrument badly thought through in this case, but one doesn't have to read too many 'red tops' or the 'yellow press' in general to discover examples of the type of journalism being attacked in this article, [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes...
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Birding
Conservation
Mad Guardian Article
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more...
Top