Following on from yesterday’s news that DEFRA has conceded the legal challenge from Wild Justice on the annual release of millions of non-native gamebirds (see here), it seems so-called journalists from mainstream pro-shooting papers are falling over themselves to report events inaccurately.
For example, this is how Colin Fernandez (Environment Correspondent!) of the Daily Mail has reported it:


The headline (and the second paragraph of the main text) is wholly inaccurate (and will undoubtedly be the subject of a complaint). Neither Chris nor Wild Justice ‘tried to ban the release of gamebirds into the countryside’ with this legal challenge. On the contrary, Wild Justice was seeking regulation, not a ban. Had the ‘Environment Correspondent’ and the headline writer(s) at the Daily Mail bothered to do their homework and actually read the details of the legal challenge, they would have seen that it was about whether DEFRA was required to undertake assessments of the ecological impact of releasing non-native gamebirds in to the countryside, and absolutely nothing to do with calling for a ban on gamebird releases.
And why single out Chris? This legal challenge was made by Wild Justice, not by Chris alone – why try and vilify him? It’s irresponsible reporting like this that results in death threats.
It’s not just the Daily Mail. Journalist Helena Horton at the pro-shooting Telegraph is also struggling to report with accuracy:


Again Chris has been singled out and again it is falsely claimed that he called for the ‘banning’ of gamebird releases.
And these people are paid to write this garbage?
It’s not the first time the Telegraph has been caught out publishing false information about Wild Justice (see here).
If you want to read an accurate report of Wild Justice’s latest legal challenge, try this account on the Wild Justice blog.























