At first glance, one might think that two “Delfi Plus” articles on lynx hunting in Latvia would be considered examples of the best journalism. The article “Don't shoot! I'm Estonian! Peace in neighbouring countries, no safety guaranteed for lynx in Latvia” (authors Laine Fedotova and Laura Dzērve), published on 8 January, is devoted primarily to one issue, namely the idea that if lynx hunting is permitted in Latvia, it may be causing significant harm to the lynx populations of Estonia and Lithuania. It should be noted that lynx hunting is prohibited in both of these neighbouring countries. The text includes the following note: “This article does not contain the views of hunting organisations, as it is about the formation of state policy, namely the lynx monitoring and hunting policy implemented by the state. We will introduce readers to the views of hunters in subsequent publications.”
So far, everything would be clear and understandable; it remains to await an article about the views of hunting organisations, hoping that “Delfi Plus” will maintain objectivity in that instance as well. It must be noted, however, that the first article was published in the portal’s subscription section, with only a portion of the text available to the “average reader”.
On 11 January, the aforementioned article was followed by another – “Influenced by ‘green squawkers’: hunters see no cause for concern regarding lynx”. The headline is quite sensationalist, but that is considered modern fashion to attract “clicks”; otherwise, the article would not be read. The headline quotes Haralds Barviks, a representative of a hunting organisation, who points out: “the decision to reduce the lynx harvest quota this season was made as a result of populist statements by ‘green squawkers’.”
Up to this point, there would be no objections! One article is relatively “green”, the other is devoted to the hunters' point of view. However, there are some significant details that catch the eye upon repeated study of both texts.
Firstly, the first article has no option to comment, whereas the second article has around 260 various comments, of which (at the time of writing “Unmasked! …”) 195 are anonymous. We will return to this issue a little later.
Secondly, the first article mentions various specialists from Latvia and the other Baltic states, including almost all the best-known “ultra-green” leaning characters. Viesturs Ķerus, who has been the Chairman of the Board of the Latvian Ornithological Society since 2007, speaks in the “Delfi” article as a representative of the Environmental Advisory Council (VKP). There is a view from Astrīda Notte, a representative of the association “Latvijas ainavas” (Latvian Landscapes), who appears to have been one of the initiators of the article. Views are also expressed by VKP representative and biologist Lelde Eņģele, as well as two representatives of the Latvian Nature Conservation Agency and Valdo Jahilo, a representative of the Estonian Nature Agency, and Vaidas Balys, an expert from the Lithuanian nature conservation society “Baltijos vilkas” (Baltic Wolf). It must be said: the “Baltic Wolf” association is a rather extremist-leaning organisation in the neighbouring country that categorically opposes hunting as such. The question is: how valuable and correct is the title of “expert” that the “Baltic Wolf” characters appropriate or are attributed with? Facing these individuals are two experts to create a “perceived balance”, namely Dr. biol Jānis Ozoliņš, a researcher at the Latvian State Forest Research Institute “Silava”, and Valters Lūsis, Head of the Hunting Department of the State Forest Service. There are no other experts, and no other view is offered.
In the “green squawkers” article, the situation is slightly different.
The opinion of Artūrs Pencis, a representative of the “Plauži” hunting club, is sought. Let us assume this is offered as the opinion of the “ordinary” hunter, although the choice is very interesting, as a “Delfi” article from 28 August last year, “KNAB fines VUGD chief in connection with use of post for hunting club”, mentions that a State Audit Office investigation revealed how the “Plauži” hunting club used a fire station at the disposal of the State Fire and Rescue Service (VUGD) for its own needs, for which fines were imposed. In other words, a discreditable character was deliberately chosen. Well, let it be; let us write it off as a coincidence! This is followed by comments from Haralds Barviks, Chairman of the Latvian Hunters Association, and Jānis Baumanis, Chairman of the Board of the Latvian Hunters Union. Linda Dombrovska, a representative of the Latvian Women Hunters Club, is also involved. There are no more hunters’ views! Instead, there are repeat views from Estonian Nature Agency representative Valdo Jahilo and “Baltic Wolf” expert Vaidas Balys, once again emphasising fears that hunting in Latvia threatens the neighbouring countries' lynx populations. Furthermore, the conclusion of the article once again cites what Astrīda Notte said and points out: “there is an opinion that lynx hunting in Latvia should be stopped altogether because it is unknown how many lynx there are in our country”.
Yes, speaking of objectivity and the fact that there was supposedly going to be an entire publication devoted to the views of hunters… Where is it (objectivity), or where did it go?
Thirdly, both articles repeatedly emphasise that the State Forest Service and “Silava” offer different lynx monitoring data. Despite the authors explaining in the articles that the data from both institutions are obtained using different methods, and that both sets of data show a uniform trend, doubts about the validity of the data are created again and again in the articles. This is pointed out by both A. Notte and V. Ķerus, who, moreover, to put it colloquially, “attacks” the VMD, saying that, on the one hand, they have very high-quality and potentially very useful data which the service “apparently does not use and does not know how to use”.
Regarding the “Silava” data, J. Ozoliņš notes: “With this study, scientists ‘restore the past’ and also determine the possible number of lynx. It is not an exact number, but a range, for example, in the last season the number of lynx was in the range of 110 to 580.” Meanwhile, the VMD “uses ‘track data’ in its monitoring; the name is given because lynx are monitored according to signs of their presence – lynx tracks are photographed, with the image also including the exact time and location.”
Let us explain for those who still do not understand! Since the methods for obtaining these data differ, and since different indicators are evaluated, the absolute numbers in both monitoring sets differ, but the most important thing is one – these data do not contradict each other and point to the same trends.
Despite the fact that in both articles the authors try to explain why these data are so different, the final conclusion of the “squawkers” article is nevertheless: “True, it is expected that the discussion about lynx hunting will continue. Astrīda Notte, a representative of the association “Latvijas ainavas”, believes that lynx hunting in Latvia affects the overall population of this predator in the Baltics, so it must be stopped, especially if there is no clarity regarding the number of lynx.”
It is clear that neither Ķerus, nor Notte, nor Eņģele have understood or listened to the explanation of why these data are so different, and they continue to question the results of the lynx monitoring again and again. The question is: why is this advantageous for them? The answer is simple – the European Commission will not launch an infringement procedure against Latvia while the lynx population has a favourable conservation status. Does that answer the question?
Let us return to the “firstly” of this article and the term used in Viesturs Ķerus's Twitter account – “PR concept”. How is public opinion formed? Nowadays, it happens by choosing a special strategy, passionate headlines, relevant word combinations, sensational (alleged) information, and commentators both under articles and on social networks. If the “public” is incited and an intense, emotional discussion is “created”, decision-makers may follow from the sidelines, and their opinion will or can be influenced too. Well, one wouldn't go against the “stream of public thought”, would one?
Now let us open the front page of the “Delfi” portal, where daily news can be found. There is a lot of information there, and on 13 January, there are very few articles with more than 260 comments – exactly one article with 277 comments about the Ukrainian plane shot down in Iran. Is anyone really prepared to argue that the fate of the lynx in Latvia is of more interest than Latvia's problems in attracting investment, more than Kristaps Porziņģis, more than a vote in the Saeima, or more than Nils Ušakovs' comments on the situation in the Riga City Council?
On the one hand, the “green squawkers” article never mentions the word combination that evokes negative emotions, “to shoot a lynx”, in any of its forms! Yes, this “depth charge” of the PR concept is not used! Instead, very cunningly, the headline creates the impression that “those hunters are terrible louts with a ‘certain’ level of education”.
The article was published at 10:42, and already at 10:50 the first anonymous comment appeared: “The headline says everything about the level of hunters,” which was followed, as if from a machine gun, by a series of comments confirming the first, namely, at 11:01 from “Šaurpierītes IQ” (Narrow-minded IQ), at 11:38 “Asais” (Sharp) joined in, then at 11:40 – a simple “Yes,”, followed by “And also,” which added the painful topic of forest cutting, which will be current in almost every second comment from anonymous opinion-givers. Events do not end there, as the attack by 195 anonymous commenters continues. At 10:56 “Izle” joins the conversation, starting from nowhere to talk about forests being cut down, while the main thing for hunters is to shoot; at 10:58 “Tims” goes on the attack with the conviction that hunters are alcoholics who drive thick jeeps; at 11:03 “Neesmu zaļais” (I am not green) appears with the assertion that a hunter cannot see further than a cutlet for himself and “his dull family”. Do you think that will be enough? Not a bit of it! At 11:06 “Porno” claims that this is a sign of the nation's stupidity – to shoot everything; at 11:15 “Aigo” starts up, convinced that the information provided by hunters cannot be trusted; at 11:17 – “Kursa” starts to press on the ZZS and bloody entertainment. The next comment at 11:18 was deleted, the writer must have overdone it a bit. Then at 11:20 “Arvis” – hunting is a neurological disease. Shall I continue?
At 11:22 “Dzīvnieki” (Animals) appears, claiming that lynx are beautiful, so why hunt them. “Dzīvnieki” also continues at 11:27 with whining about values and how lynx in movies bond with humans. In between, finally, some opposing opinion about crazy greens and inciting the nation slips in, but “rekā” joins at 11:34 with the opinion that little lynx cubs would not be able to survive without a mother. It continues in this vein for about an hour, when the “machine-gun burst starts to quieten down”, but enough filth and mud have been thrown into the internet environment that those who have been “drawn in” by the comments and are now expressing their own opinion can now safely wallow and slide in it.
A similar situation exists in the section for registered commenters, where, although with less intensity, the same topics about murderers, alcoholics, shooting, etc., are still being spun.
Honestly, “scrolling” through the comments, it seemed that there was one, maybe two people sitting at the computer, who, having typed one comment, press “enter” and create the next: with a different nickname already. The time between comments varies, depending on the length of the previous comment. “Dzīvnieki” needed five minutes to write their second long text about lynx cubs.
Yes, judge for yourself how objectively the portal covered the topic of lynx hunting and how correctly the various opinions were expressed, and what are the expressed conclusions! In whose name are such efforts made to essentially try to turn the so-called public opinion in the desired direction? Apart from the problems mentioned here, there are many more contradictions in the articles, which have also been discussed on the portal la.lv, but that is not the point this time…
260 comments on an article with hunters' arguments, but no comment options for the article where the “correct” view was expressed? That says everything!