Liam Stokes

Animal rights groups fail to rally outside of social media

From our UK edition

Another attempt to bring animal rights activism off social media and into the real world has faltered. Nothing changes, does it? But before we move on past another small march in Westminster, it might be an idea to stop and take stock of the irregularities. There are lessons to be learned for politicians, for the media and for the BBC in particular. If you missed it, and you probably did, there was a march in Westminster this past weekend. There may have been more than one for all I know; small protests in London are not uncommon. But the march in question was led by the BBC’s own Chris Packham, with a supporting cast of animal rights organisations.

Britain’s countryside is about far more than ‘good versus bad’, or ‘us versus them’

From our UK edition

Last month, an article appeared in The Telegraph under the headline ‘Head of Wildlife Trust faces call to resign over hunting past’. An alternative headline could have been: ‘Anti-hunting activists have whole worldview turned upside down’, because that is really the only story here. The hunting past of Mike Bax, head of the Kent Wildlife Trust, is simply proof of what every pragmatic conservationist already knows: that hunting, shooting and fishing go hand in hand with conservation. Mr Bax has been a dedicated member of the Kent Wildlife Trust for 30 years. During that 30 years he has also hunted with a pack of beagles, which, if you don’t know, are small hounds that prior to the hunting ban would gamely hunt hares.

Is factual accuracy too much to ask from BBC presenters like Chris Packham?

From our UK edition

On Sunday evening, the BBC presenter Chris Packham took to social media to tell the world that they should support his anti-shooting campaign because declining populations of lapwings are ‘still being shot’. Unfortunately for him, this is utter tosh. No one is shooting lapwings, as Packham acknowledged five hours later in an apology on Twitter. 12 hours after that, a similar retraction appeared on his Facebook page. Yet even now, almost 48 hours on, neither of the original posts have been deleted. This fixation with the passing of mere hours may sound petty, but in the context of social media 48 hours is a lifetime. Packham has 48,608 followers on Facebook and 175,000 followers on Twitter, all of whom have had 48 hours to see these posts and react.

How can the BBC be allowed to break their own editorial standards?

From our UK edition

I recently had the misfortune of featuring in a BBC documentary that repeatedly breached the corporation’s own editorial standards. I happened to be at the gym when word reached me that BBC Inside Out London wanted to interview me the following day. It was late in the evening, and I was told that the documentary was looking at game shooting and game meat, and the growing popularity of both in London. Not an anti-shooting piece at all, I was assured. Arriving at Regent’s Park for the interview, the team from the Beeb were decidedly furtive. There was much fiddling with phones and muttered conversations between interviewer and producer, in which I clearly heard someone say: ‘Surely he needs to see it in order to have right of reply?’ ‘See what?

When it comes to online petitions, facts should speak louder than clicks. Sadly, they don’t

From our UK edition

Do we live in a ‘post-truth’, ‘post-factual’ political era? A small part of the answer has been provided by Welsh Assembly Member Mike Hedges, who said recently that ‘factual inaccuracies are a matter of opinion’. Oh dear. I’d say that is fairly clear evidence that at least in some corners of our political discourse, we are indeed post-factual. But what is even more worrying is the context in which Hedges made this extraordinary comment, because it marks the meeting of two new trends in our democracy: post factual politics, and the petition. The rise of petitions as a factor in our public life is not an inherently bad thing.