Can The Media Learn How To Pronounce...
News0 min ago
Why Is A National Nespaper Printing This Hysterical Garbage?
89 Answers
WARNING - GRAPHIC IMAGES IN THIS LINK -
https:/
I am as much of an animal lover as the next person, but l also understand that nature is often cruel and violent.
But we have to keep a sense of proportion, something which seems to have utterly deserted the Daily Mail in its coverage of the change in the laws governing the shooting of crows.
It's coverage is slanted in an utterly inaccurate and unreal way - no doubt to appeal to the animal lovers in its Middle England readership.
But let's be factual here shall we? Crows are not 'demons', in spite of the picture used to infer that message, neither do they 'torture' ewes and lambs like some species of flying psychopath.
Crows eat to survive, and part of their prey is the soft and easy-to-eat parts of sheep and lambs, and like any creature, they will take what the can find when they can find it.
Yes, lambs and sheep are fluffy and defenceless, and crows look menacing and unattractive, but that is not the crows' fault - they simply do what they do to live - they don't do it for sadistic fun, they do it to survive, as all animals and birds do.
After all, farmers don't want to shoot crows to protect their fluffy lambs and sheep because they love them - they want to shoot them because blind and killed animals represent financial loss, which the farmer recoups when the animals are killed anyway, albeit more humanely.
Does anyone else agree that the Mail's slant on this issue is ludicrously biased, and pandering to the anthropomorphic attitudes of its readers and it should accept that nature is nasty, regardless of how 'appealing' some species are.
https:/
I am as much of an animal lover as the next person, but l also understand that nature is often cruel and violent.
But we have to keep a sense of proportion, something which seems to have utterly deserted the Daily Mail in its coverage of the change in the laws governing the shooting of crows.
It's coverage is slanted in an utterly inaccurate and unreal way - no doubt to appeal to the animal lovers in its Middle England readership.
But let's be factual here shall we? Crows are not 'demons', in spite of the picture used to infer that message, neither do they 'torture' ewes and lambs like some species of flying psychopath.
Crows eat to survive, and part of their prey is the soft and easy-to-eat parts of sheep and lambs, and like any creature, they will take what the can find when they can find it.
Yes, lambs and sheep are fluffy and defenceless, and crows look menacing and unattractive, but that is not the crows' fault - they simply do what they do to live - they don't do it for sadistic fun, they do it to survive, as all animals and birds do.
After all, farmers don't want to shoot crows to protect their fluffy lambs and sheep because they love them - they want to shoot them because blind and killed animals represent financial loss, which the farmer recoups when the animals are killed anyway, albeit more humanely.
Does anyone else agree that the Mail's slant on this issue is ludicrously biased, and pandering to the anthropomorphic attitudes of its readers and it should accept that nature is nasty, regardless of how 'appealing' some species are.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by andy-hughes. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
It happens- occasionally. Where I am in Herefordshire there are a lot of crows around my house, there are also a lot of sheep, we've never found sheep or lambs attacked by groups of bandit crows. Of course it happens, but not nearly so commonly as the Mail is yarping on about, so it's just really another countryside occupational hazard when it does. Farmers will *** and moan about anything and everything and ritually hate conservationists for interfering where they feel they aren't required, so they are spreading their butter thick on this bread. conservationists think all farmers are blood thirty non animal lovers. The truth sits right in the middle somewhere and is mutable and moveable seasonally... and the Mail does no-one any favours, ghastly rag :/
Calicogirl - // conservationists think all farmers are blood thirty non animal lovers. The truth sits right in the middle somewhere and is mutable and moveable seasonally... and the Mail does no-one any favours, ghastly rag :/ //
I think you are right.
Farmers have a very different attitude to animals and birds than do city dwellers, and neither is able to appreciate the view of the other.
For farmers, most animals and birds are either something to make a living from, or pests to be eradicated if possible - no sentiment involved at all.
For city dwellers, most animals are pets, to be treated as non-speaking members of the family - total sentiment involved.
So the Mail pushes the 'sentiment' buttons of its readers by competely distorting the reality of how nature operates, and that is the point I was raising, it's not a valid way to report a news story.
I think you are right.
Farmers have a very different attitude to animals and birds than do city dwellers, and neither is able to appreciate the view of the other.
For farmers, most animals and birds are either something to make a living from, or pests to be eradicated if possible - no sentiment involved at all.
For city dwellers, most animals are pets, to be treated as non-speaking members of the family - total sentiment involved.
So the Mail pushes the 'sentiment' buttons of its readers by competely distorting the reality of how nature operates, and that is the point I was raising, it's not a valid way to report a news story.
andy-hughes
/// I'm sticking to the thread point - you are welcome to join me - posts made about anything else will be ignored. ///
Well obviously not, since you continue to answer me.
/// Nothing, which is why I am not entertaining a debate about them ///
Then why did you first find it necessary to bring them into the debate?
/// I'm sticking to the thread point - you are welcome to join me - posts made about anything else will be ignored. ///
Well obviously not, since you continue to answer me.
/// Nothing, which is why I am not entertaining a debate about them ///
Then why did you first find it necessary to bring them into the debate?
Coming back to this thread with a clear head, I think I now see the fatal flaw in the question. The Daily Mail is not a 'national newspaper' in either sense.
1) It does not represent the nation or belong to it. It is a business and exists to make money. It is often hard to distinguish between supposedly serious news stories and the click bait stories that surround them, even appear to contradict them on occasions.
2) The story might well be in the print copy but the link is to the online version. The story will likely be well received in a country that places the right to shoot anything that moves above the right of children and other citizens to live. It is no surprise that the funding for organisations that seek to restrict human choice and dignity in so many other ways are funded from such a country.
1) It does not represent the nation or belong to it. It is a business and exists to make money. It is often hard to distinguish between supposedly serious news stories and the click bait stories that surround them, even appear to contradict them on occasions.
2) The story might well be in the print copy but the link is to the online version. The story will likely be well received in a country that places the right to shoot anything that moves above the right of children and other citizens to live. It is no surprise that the funding for organisations that seek to restrict human choice and dignity in so many other ways are funded from such a country.
This all to do with Chris Packham..
https:/
//... the licensed shooting of crows has been halted after a challenge by [Packham's] Wild Justice campaign group.//
The Mail is just pitching in on the side of those that oppose the above action, ie farmers.
https:/
//... the licensed shooting of crows has been halted after a challenge by [Packham's] Wild Justice campaign group.//
The Mail is just pitching in on the side of those that oppose the above action, ie farmers.
"I don't believe that anmals and birds 'make decisions' because I don;t believe their brains are developed enough for such a sophisticated concept."
There are programmes showing how animals work out how to use objects around them as tools in order to achieve a goal. I believe crows are one of the smarter bird species that can do this.
There are programmes showing how animals work out how to use objects around them as tools in order to achieve a goal. I believe crows are one of the smarter bird species that can do this.
O_G - // There are programmes showing how animals work out how to use objects around them as tools in order to achieve a goal. I believe crows are one of the smarter bird species that can do this. //
That's not the same thing at all.
Chimps cane be trained to obey commands, and octopi are reckoned to be as intelligent as dogs, and can be taught to do tricks, but that is a million miles away from making decisions about 'torturing' another species, it simply doesn't happen.
Foxes don't 'kill for the pleasure of killing' and cats don't 'torture their prey before killing it' - one is taking advantage of a food source, and would bury all its kills for later if undisturbed, and cats hone their hunting skills by letting prey run a little before re-capturing it.
These are basic survival actions, and do not indicate that any animal or bird has the mental capacity to think in terms of hurting another animal or bird 'for the fun of it'.
That's not the same thing at all.
Chimps cane be trained to obey commands, and octopi are reckoned to be as intelligent as dogs, and can be taught to do tricks, but that is a million miles away from making decisions about 'torturing' another species, it simply doesn't happen.
Foxes don't 'kill for the pleasure of killing' and cats don't 'torture their prey before killing it' - one is taking advantage of a food source, and would bury all its kills for later if undisturbed, and cats hone their hunting skills by letting prey run a little before re-capturing it.
These are basic survival actions, and do not indicate that any animal or bird has the mental capacity to think in terms of hurting another animal or bird 'for the fun of it'.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.