Animal Hunting -- Yea or Nay?

While glancing through the New York Times this past week, two articles: one about a bill to ban the hunting of sharks, the other about a bill to allow the hunting of cranes, caught my interest.

Photo via Flickr via istolethetv

I was very surprised to see the differences in the way these two stories were framed. Elisabeth Rosenthal's, New York May Ban Shark Fin Sales, Following Other States, published Feb. 21, did not seem like an unbiased, reporting story.  The text contained many quotes from those in favor of the ban, and also several from those who could care less, but none from any opposing party.  The topic of shark hunting has been very controversial for years, so it is hard to believe that everyone would be accepting of such a ban. The lack of this input leads to a very biased-sounding story.

Sandhill cranes-- Mike Siegel/The Seattle Times, via New York Times Article

To contrast, Monica Davey's, Wisconsin Bill Would Allow Hunting of a Once-Rare Crane, published on Feb. 23, took a slightly different approach. Davey's summary lead, while stating what the upcoming story was about, also described the cranes in a very kind and relatable way.  "In Wisconsin, a place where word of dwindling numbers of sandhill cranes set off elaborate conservation efforts decades ago, the birds — elegant, prehistoric-looking creatures that bugle hauntingly — are once more at the center of discussion among state leaders." Davey went on to quote those both in favor and against the bill, only to end with a quote from Mark Berres, an assistant professor of avian biology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Berres is against the bill, and simply stated that more information needed to be gathered about the Sandhill cranes before it could be decided whether open hunting would hurt the species. 


Davey's format -- opening with a summary lead that described the Sandhill cranes as very majestic and lovely creatures, getting quotes from those on both sides of the bill, and ending with a quote from Berres -- is much smarter than that of Rosenthal, who focused solely on how much better the world would be without the hunting of sharks.


The opinions of both writers is fairly clear: they do not want the hunting of these animals to be allowed. The ways that the two went about portraying their opinions however, is very different. By showing both sides of the argument, only to end with a quote from a scientist who disagrees with the bill, Davey did a better job of concealing her bias than Rosenthal, who's entire story points at the fact that she disapproves of shark hunting.

The article can be found at:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/24/us/wisconsin-consider-hunting-of-sandhill-crane.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=cranes&st=cse
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/22/nyregion/bill-in-albany-would-ban-sale-of-shark-fins.html?ref=animals