#1- Except for 1 biologist and 1 veterinarian, the "environmentalists" and "critics" are never identified. The author might as well have invented them for all I know.
#2- The headline could just have well read: "Anglers and Hunters: Cormorant cull saving fish and shoreline." Except that the person who wrote it obviously preferred to bring the focus to those mysterious "environmentalists".
Do I get my milkbone? 
You get half a milkbone, but I'll let you have the whole milkbone anyway, because the headline point is valid.
The unidentified "environmentalists" are actually members of the Peaceful Parks Coalition, a group dedicated to stopping any hunting or fishing in provincial parks. This has pretty obvious implications re their motives, but was omitted from the CP story.
The other half of the milkbone is the unasked question: how is cruelty, the cited concern here, an "environmental" issue? Pollution, habitat loss, biodiversity ... those are environmental issues, in that they have to do with the environment. Cruelty is an animal rights issue. One of the ways animal rights groups seek to advance their agenda is to present themselves as "environmentalists" when advancing concerns unrelated to the environment per se.
That misrepresentation goes unchallenged because of the media's love of the middle ground fallacy. If the reporter was to ask pointed questions, why, that would be bias!
The same thing is probably at work in most cases when a reporter fails to point to the links between a pundits and a group such as the American Enterprise Institute.
Nice one. I hadn't thought of that angle at all.
Most readers, including myself, would make the logical jump that environmentalism also encompasses animal cruelty issues too easily.
Thanks for the milkbone and explanation.
Well, Skippy, it isn't going away either. This one's from CTV.
So do you have a theory?
From that report:
"A recent report in The Globe and Mail claims prisoners captured in Afghanistan are not subject to the protection of the Geneva Convention, because Canada does not consider them to be legal combatants.
Defence Minister Gordon O'Connor refuted the reports this week, however.
"When they take prisoners, they will always follow the rules of the Geneva Convention, no lower standard than that," he told the Commons."
From that, I'd be inclined to conclude that Janice Mackey Frayer isn't actually familiar with the Geneva Conventions -- something that isn't surprising, given that most people aren't familiar with them.
The story isn't going to go away, because Canadians are rightly and justifiably sensitive about whether prisoners our forces take will be treated humanely.
The "Geneva Convention" aspect of it isn't going to go away either, simply because people don't understand what the conventions actually say.
I note, however, that the Globe and CTV are the same animal....
How did they know those cormorants' injuries were all due to gunfire or otherwise the result of humans' actions?
Commenting by HaloScan
