Matthew Naylor in his Farmers Weekly Mouth of the Wash blog, is urging peace between environmental enthusiasts both in and out with farming, and it inspired me to tackle the British Trust for Ornithology who were quoted in an article in this week's Sunday Times which accused farmers of getting paid to allow bird numbers to decline. Usually I'd have dismissed such a report with a tut and a " typical" and turned the page.
But not this time. It was on to the BTO to request the survey information to which the article alluded, and to make the point that it would be far more productive if we all worked together to preserve the environment and avoid scoring cheap points in the press.
The BTO's response in the shape of Dr. Gavin Siriwardena could not have been more different from that of the RSPB in the previous week. Commenting on one part of the same survey which showed reductions in the number of kestrels, the RSPB engaged mouth before brain, blamed intensive farming practices, and overall could not have been much more hostile.
Dr. Siriwardena by contrast went to great lengths to explain the BTO's research, and forwarded the newsletter which had been produced, which to be fair was far more balanced than the Sunday Times' heavily spun take. Importantly he recognised that too often there is a "them and us" feeling between farming and non farming environmentalists, and stressed the BTO's committment to working in unity.
Things have moved on, and today DEFRA released the BTO's survey results. I see that the RSPB is taking a much more even handed tone, possibly reacting to a barrage of outrage from their previous comments.
And the moral of the story?
What cannot be denied is that the decline in farmland bird populations is worrying to put it mildly. It needs a concerted and unified approach to sorting out the problems, with energy put into solutions rather than sniping. Some, like the BTO, have recognised this.
There are many farmers working diligently to improve the environment. It is time consuming, often financially draining, and usually happens without acknowledgement. Their efforts need to be communicated, but the only people who can spread the farming message are farmers themselves. No one else is going to do it.
Matthew quotes Heather and Phil Gorringe who upon hearing of the RSPB's comments about kestrels orchestrated a Twitter campaign to show what farmers are doing for the environment. Twittering may not be every farmers cup of tea, but the idea of making an effort to communicate the good things being done, and to challenge unfair attacks, looks like a pretty sound one.
4 comments:
In my experience the national media often misquote and misrepresent surveys and press releases from all quarters when it comes to the environment looking to sensationalise the story. I also think that much of the 'hostility' that you refer to with the RSPB is currently designed to flag the issue to government ministers wandering around with axes ready to chop anything that moves. The RSPB are strong advocates of the High Level Stewardship Scheme and wish to ensure that this doesn't suffer from the current cuts.
Thank you for commenting, and for pointing out how difficult it can be to ensure that what is printed is a fair reflection of any conversation/communication. Having an ongoing relationship with key correspondents possibly helps.
No question that one has to tell one's own story. Too often, people with a perfectly fine story to tell are put on the defensive by opponants and journalists and quickly steer away from the very facts that could help create support with the public. The good work gets lost and all that's left is a public battle. The basic rule of thumb in media interviews is tell your story and support it with examples of your actions. You need to deal with the questions, but don't let the interview turn into an interrogation.
Helpful advice, and particularly useful to remember when journalists are pushing for an attention grabbing angle.Thank you for commenting.
Post a Comment