Radio 5 Anti-angling Report

[GrahamM]

If you read my news report of the Radio 5 Live Drive programme that ridiculed angling you'll know what this is all about. What I want to know is what YOU think about it. Should we have to put up with this biased style of reporting? And if not, what should we do about it?

 

[Stuart Bullard]

I have already sent an email response to the BBC. The whole show was peurile, infantile, childish and more akin to a debate from the Sun newspaper rather than the BBC. It was, in my view, totally unacceptable to ridicule 2 million people, most of whom pay the BBC a licence fee. The presenters should be ashamed of themselves.

 

[Ray Walton]

Doesn't Nick Fisher front 'Dirty Tackle' on 'Five Live' on saturday morning at 6am? What does he think?

 

[nick bennett]

i have emailed the BBC to express my disgust already. it was a completely unnecessary dig at the most participated sport in our country, and i for one found it very disturbing to hear how little the presenters cared about any opposing body's viewpoint.
Nick Bennett

 

[Simon Read]

I used to be a fan of that show, too. But I don't think we'll get anywhere by refusing to admit that there isn't some cruelty involved in fishing. The fox-hunting brigade seem to be trying to justify their pastime - publicly at least - on any basis other than that it's fun.

 

[GrahamM]

I don't agree. We should NEVER 'admit' that there is any cruelty in fishing. Even if we are of the mistaken belief that there is some cruelty in fishing. Cruelty, as I see it, is deliberately causing pain to a creature that feels pain. Fish do not feel pain. If they did they couldn't pull away from a hook in their lip. Could you? No way! You would have to go with it. Would you still be hungry minutes after being hooked and hauled into the water, unhooked and thrown back out to dry land? Fish are, following being hooked and hauled onto dry land and then released back into the water. Many times the same fish are caught again within minutes of being caught. Cruel? Anglers are just the opposite where fish are concerned. We value and care deeply for our quarry. That's why we have unhooking mats, treat them with antiseptic creams for abrasions before returning them. Have an organisation that fights pollution. If it wasn't for anglers many species would be extinct, and every species would be under threat. Cruel? NEVER!

 

[nick bennett]

Well said Graham.

 

[Chris Bishop]

To have an effect you have to complain about a radio show while it's still on air. That way, you stand the best chance of getting some balance or even a correction. Complaining after the event usually gets you a nice letter saying they thought the item was ok, they're there to cover all shades of opinion etc, which will refer you to the Broadcasting Complaints Commission.

If the item was an opinion peace and labelled as such, there isn't much you can do about it. People are entitled to their opinions after all.

 

[GrahamM]

But the letters and e-mails of protest from anglers DID have an effect. Several days later the issue was mentioned again and anglers came out of it in a more favourable light. Not much, but a damn sight better result than if we had done nothing.

 

[David Robichaud]

Why don't we invite the radio 5 team to come out fishing for a day. Then they could see first hand how anglers take pride in their sport, and how we care for the fish we catch. I have an antibiotic solution in my kit that I apply to any fish I catch with a wound or ulcer. Without caring anglers a lot of fish would die from wounds received. Do you think they would or are they all mouth and no trousers, and only interested in one viewpoint.

 

[GrahamM]

They care passionately about one thing in particular - listening figures. If they thought that going fishing with us would boost the figures they'd be there like a shot. Be there? They'd cast your bait in for you and tell you how nasty those anti's are.