Pro-Bloodsport

August 2011 and parts of England erupt into mindless violence, politicians and the media line-up, quite rightly, to condemn it. Contrast that with the political and media reaction eight years early when sixty police officers were injured policing a Countryside Alliance rally at Parliament. The Daily Mail, for example, defended the violence commenting that, "this explosion of rage by those who wouldn't normally dream of breaking the law."

A few weeks later the Countryside Alliance told a regional meeting that they "had called in some favours from sympathetic journalists to limit the damage." The Daily Mail weren't alone in playing down the violence, in fact almost all pro-hunt newspapers did.

No wonder that at a Countryside Alliance's 'Declaration Day event the speaker announced: "I just want to tell you that we have been very lucky today to be so well supported by the media ... we need the coverage from the media, they are helpful to us. Will you all please join with me and thanking them for their support."

The media interest, and especially that of the BBC, in fox-hunting is considerably greater than its national significance or is justified by the small number who actually part-take in it, which begs the questions, how many favours are being called in?

In February 2004 the BBC reported that "record crowds" had attended the Waterloo Cup. Six months later, after many complaints, the BBC were forced to admit that they were wrong and the information had actually come from Waterloo Cup officials. This not only highlights how the media is prepared to mislead the public but is just one example of their one sided coverage.

On Boxing Day each year the media unquestionably reports 'massive turn out' of hunt supporters based entirely on Countryside Alliance figures not fact.

We know of hunters threatening to withdraw advertisments from newspapers if they went ahead with reports showing the reality of hunting. This has led to instances where a story has made the national press but the local paper will not published it even with both video and photographic evidence. Similarily companies have threatened to take legal action against newspapers if they went ahead with reports linking them to hunting.

The Western Daily Press, with some justification, is considered to be a pro-hunt newspaper. However, when the paper published readers letters that were opposed to hunting the Countryside Alliance (the bastions of Liberty) secretly demanded assurances that the paper would refuse to print them in future. How many newspapers have received similar demands and given into their demands?