THIS WEEK'S NGO BLOG

Alasdair Mitchell, who helps the NGO with its PR, writes:                                                                                      

I wonder what sort of holiday the Royal family will have at Sandringham this year?  

There is an unfortunate tradition of these folk being targeted by the worst elements of the media, desperate for a photograph of them shooting. Until recently, one of the bottom-feeding photo-agencies actually boasted on its website of its ability to provide snaps of the Royals “relaxing on a pheasant shoot”. This was the very same commercial outfit that once sold pictures purporting to be of a fox being kicked at Sandringham – a story that was later proved to be utterly false.  At the time, when I spoke to the proprietor of the agency in question about the way this fake story had been fed to the national media, he threatened me with legal action. How’s that for gut-wrenching hypocrisy? 

Today, however, there are signs that the media are beginning to row back from their worst excesses in terms of the invasion of privacy.  So it will be interesting to see, in the forthcoming weeks, how and in what form Sandringham features in the inevitable media coverage. Why should media companies be able to make money from pictures snatched of people enjoying lawful activities on private property?  Aren’t all decent people entitled to the “respect for family and private life” that is supposed to be guaranteed by the Human Rights Act and which is so freely wheeled out for convicted criminals and the like?     

If (and that’s a big “if) the media are more restrained about Sandringham this year, then don’t for a moment think they have had a change of heart.  More like a change of wallet.  The real reason would be the current public inquiry into the media being chaired by Lord Levenson, which was sparked by the concerns that led to the News of the World being closed down. Losing their jobs is just about the only thing that stops the worst sort of media reptiles. Today, all the media are well and truly in the dock.  And they don’t like it.  Editors and proprietors are fully aware that public tolerance of the more disgusting elements of the wonderful world of journalism is at an all-time low.  And it has become glaringly obvious that the rot goes far beyond the usual suspects at the red top tabloids. 

Gamekeepers are wearily familiar with the way elements of the mass media like to portray game shooting.  True, in recent years the general standard of such reporting has improved hugely – but then, it was starting from a very low base.   I remember, some years ago, having a Force 10 exchange of views with that bastion of leftism, the Guardian newspaper, about a news report that grouse were “reared for shooting”.  At the time, the paper was extraordinarily reluctant to acknowledge that this statement was a factual error. This mulish attitude wouldn’t prevail at the paper nowadays.   

Today, the latent bias against game shooting still exists in many commercial newsrooms and at the BBC, but it no longer has the free run it used to enjoy.  A variety of bodies – including the NGO - are quick to jump on unjustified references of shooting.  This, together with depleted media resources and the Levenson Inquiry, has meant that the massed ranks of hackery are increasingly inclined to search for easier prey.  

Only time will tell if the improvement lasts.  In any case the cost of fairness, it seems, is eternal vigilance.