Spectator has blurred vision (1)

Mark 3 Comments
hen harrier
Here is the proportion of harrier nests started that fledged at least one chick for grouse moors in red and other moors in blue. Note that harriers on grouse moors bred much less successfully with evidence in many cases that the nest contents had been destroyed by people. This isn’t just a geographical difference between different parts of Scotland because a difference between the two types of moorland was seen within all five regions. Data from Green & Etheridge (1999) Journal of Applied Ecology 36: 472 – 483.

 

You may remember (or you may not, which is why I am reminding you) that I contrasted the view of Hen Harrier biology of Charles Moore, Spectator columnist and grouse shooter, with that of published science by the RSPB (Compare and contrast, 23 August)(see the data above and Mr Moore’s comment at foot of this post).

I have tweeted this post to GWCT, BASC, Moorland Association and the Countryside Alliance, and also the Spectator, Shooting Times, The Field and probably a few other people asking which is the correct account – Mr Moore’s or the RSPB’s?  I notice that no-one, no-one at all as far as I can see, has leapt to defend Charles Moore. And there is not a single response on this blog which does either.

That is hardly surprising because Charles Moore was wrong: he was either mistaken or he told a lie. I expect he was mistaken.  Even the best journalists get things wrong sometimes. When they do, the best journalists, to protect their reputations, quickly admit error and correct their honest mistake. I haven’t seen that happen yet – has anyone else?

When a magazine publishes, presumably in good faith, a falsehood, a factual error not a matter of opinion, then a magazine should publish a correction. I have not seen the Spectator do this – has anyone else?

Next stop IPSO – except that there is more to be said about the Spectator coverage of grouse shooting (watch this space).

 

 

Charles Moore in the Spectator, ‘It would be wearisome (not least because Matt Ridley’s piece last week set it all out so well) to go through how most such accusations about the killing of hen harriers are false, how hen harriers do better on kept moors than on unkept ones…‘

 

[registration_form]

3 Replies to “Spectator has blurred vision (1)”

  2. ‘Best’? As you suggest, he’s had the chance to make emends so true colours now flying?

    Guardian article …. bring it on? They’ve tried sling mud they can’t expect some not to stick to those throwing?

    As is oft the case in such organisations they will gag the complainants by the size of the pay-offs and a compromise agreement.

    BASC aren’t a Charity per se, but they did set up a charity to get round the grant conditions to apply for funding for ‘conservation work’ see https://basc.org.uk/blog/press-releases/press-releases-press-releases/basc-launches-new-independent-conservation-charity-2/

  3. That’s a fascinating story about the BASC, Emma. It sounds like a number of staff from that organisation could soon be sacked or, perhaps more appropriately, ‘disappear’. And presumably this will happen somewhere in the vicinity of a large grouse-shooting estate.

Comments are closed.