Despite what an article by Robin Page in today’s Daily Telegraph may lead you to believe, we’re doing a lot for red squirrel conservation, have been for a number of years and plan to continue with this work. In fact, we hope to do even more, but only in those areas on the front line of red squirrel conservation where practical measures will help boost numbers.
We are quite rightly playing our part, with others, to step up efforts to help recover this much loved and threatened species. Indeed, this is what many people - some in very high places - have been calling on us to do for a number of years.
As a columnist, Robin has the right to be challenging. But I think that his readers also have the right to know the truth. Robin can be funny, disarming but his fiction about the RSPB wears thin.
It is also wearisome to be contacted by people that want information for an article they are writing and then willfully ignore the information we supply.
On the 23 October, our press office sent Robin an email with all the details of the work we’re involved in, after he requested the information in his capacity as a journalist. The information is also on our website for all to see and can be quickly found with a search in Google. That’s why I find it extremely odd that Robin says he received ‘no answers or information whatsoever’ from us and he ‘can find no evidence of the RSPB doing anything to help red squirrels’.
Red squirrel at RSPB's nature reserve at Loch Garton by Andy Hay (rspb-images.com)
His article – as ever designed to cause mischief – also refers to our campaign, Vote For Bob. It’s great that our campaign to get nature on the political agenda ahead of the General Election next year is getting talked about. As Robin rightly points out, Bob has more than 100,000 votes and almost 50 MPs backing him, which we’re absolutely chuffed about! And, thank you Robin for promoting it once again. I hope that it encourages more people to back Bob and urge politicians to develop strong commitments to nature in their manifestos.Unfortunately, that’s the only thing the ‘journalist’ did get right, because again, despite being sent information from our press office and it all being easily accessible online, the Vocal Yokel (as he refers to himself) decided to describe it as a ‘cynical marketing ploy’ – intentionally missing the point of the campaign to make his latest RSPB-bashing feature more salacious.Robin goes on to say that what he finds irritating is the fact that he is having to write about this.The feeling’s mutual.
I suspect that RSPB members who read the Telegraph will just go "pfft", the shooters will say "told you so" and everyone else will just ignore the article. Columnists really only appeal to readers who's opinions they reflect. I'd be disappointed in the RSPB if it wasn't offending some vested interest!
Well said Clare. I too do not buy news papers these days for that same reason, that the reporting and writing in them is so distorted and biased one never knows if one is reading a balanced article or not.
The profession of journalism has a pretty low reputation these days and misrepresentations like this, especially of a charity, just sinks it even lower.
While this type of article may be, initially, a bit dishartening for all those staff and volunteers who work so hard for RSPB, I nevertheless think it is similar to the grouse moor situation where, in the longer run the publicity may well start to work in RSPB's favour.
Clearly RSPB can take satisfaction from the fact that they are being really effective if people like Mr Page feel they need to attack the Society so unfairly so often.
And journalists wonder why their profession is seen as so untrustworthy? This sort of 'journalism' is such a huge part of why I never buy papers.