It didn't take long for the news to leak out that lovers of schadenfreude everywhere, as well as a handful of Pendeen unfortunates wouldn't be seeing photos of the Tropicbird any time soon. My immediate reaction was one of disbelief, I believe I said at the time that this was a "a load of bollocks", and then in a more measured way a few days later that "this wasn't right". I don't begrudge a person trying to make a few quid, not that the money involved was ever going to be earth-shattering, but really? I'm not judging the man (OK, actually I am) but my reaction would have been rather different. If you've just found a complete monster of a bird, even in somewhat difficult circumstances, a natural reaction would be to shout the house down. Look at me! I found it! Me! Me me me me me! Or something like that, but forgetting the personal glory aspect, I felt it was such a great bird, and let's face it, such a great story, that all interested parties (i.e. every birder in the UK except for 40 bitter ones) should have been able to see the pics immediately. We live in the digital age. Me me me, and now now now. It didn't happen like that, and about a week ago Birdwatch dropped through my letter box. Rarity Exclusive! The Truth about the Pendeen Tropicbird. I forced myself to read it, and you know what, it wasn't that different from my account, except with less venom directed towards the finder.... What I understand from this is that the 1,573 people who have so far read my post must owe me a pile of money. So, if that was you, cough up please. A pound each and I can buy another pair of Swaros. Sorry, is that wrong? I thought birding was about making money? No?
I am of course somewhat conflicted. I have been known to make a few quid from the birding mag in question, I wrote a column for a while, and every now and then I still contribute a photo. I have the greatest respect for the editorial team, who I know read this blog every now and then, and whilst I am deeply envious of the jet-setting life of the Azorean founder (!), I also recognise the hard graft that putting together a publication must have been over many years. And as you know, I am a big believer in hard work. Nonetheless, in this instance my personal view is that they have got it wrong, and will lose more in credibility than the extra sales might be worth. Journalism may be all about sensationalism, but surely birding is bigger than that?
I probably just need to wake up and smell the coffee. Birding, or parts of birding, whether I like it or not, are dominated by money. Rarity news, optics, clothing, tours, you name it, and it isn't going to change. But now exclusives? Really? I wasn't ever involved in the halcyon days, but is this the way birding is going? Is this a case of one-upmanship versus the other competing publications, or is this simply red-top advertising to boost sales? I don't know, but I do know I don't like it. I think there are certain aspects of birding, certain moments, that should remain free and accessible, and this is one of those instances. For all its faults, at least BirdForum is free. Of course the finder of this amazing bird is free to choose what he wants to do, I've already discussed that, and I haven't a clue if a bidding war ensued once he'd made his mind up, but it irked me to see what should have been a great tale in UK birding reduced to a business venture. And that's the bottom line really. No, really, it is.
The good news is I was joking about blog readers needing to blow the dust from their creaking wallets and cough up. I write this because I enjoy writing it, and I post photos up because I'm a bit of a show off. Maybe I'm missing a trick? I'd love to be able to bird for a living, but I can't. Am I bitter about that? Not really, I quite like my life, or at least most of it.
PS don't look at the photo below unless you want to be charged.
 |
| Subscribers only. |
We are all ripe for financial milking Jonno, and some people are more clever (or cynical) at it than others. Sometimes I wish it was just as simple as looking out of the backdoor at what flies over and being content with that. The gluttonous mushrooming of 'birding' and it's (recent) adoption of celebrity annoys me. Take me back to the drab 1970s please... at least Yellow-browed Warblers were still rare then.
ReplyDeleteI looked at the picture by accident but I guess it would only be right o cough up. How do I get the money to you?
ReplyDeleteI'll collect next time I'm in Aberdeen. Which is the 16th October. But you have to come to the airport. At a very specific time. And be prepared to somehow bypass security and get airside. With liquids.
DeleteEntertaining as always, Jono, but here are some points worth noting:
ReplyDelete1. Birdwatch has been publishing exclusive stories, and billing them as such, since soon after the magazine's inception in the early Nineties, so exclusives are certainly not 'new'. They are, of course, commonly used by publications of all kinds (including other bird magazines) trying to distinguish their content from that of the opposition, and give themselves the edge. For the same reason, we also use e.g. columnists such as your good self and other devices. There's no problem in doing so, and no one has ever complained about such stories before.
2. Despite the story being exclusive to Birdwatch, an image was also made available on BirdGuides.com which was free to view in the weekly round-up as a small image, and shortly after in the Iris section of the website as a larger file.
3. "Journalism may be all about sensationalism, but surely birding is bigger than that?" Rather than anything to do with sensationalism, the object of the story was for the finder to give his own version of events, to balance the hitherto almost wholly negative interpretation of what might have happened, often related by those who weren't there (not in your case, of course).
4. Importantly, the finder has never mentioned money or even 'selling the story' to the magazine. This is yet another myth fabricated about him and his motives (again, not by you, but it has become common currency). He simply wanted to tell his story, he has known the magazine for many years (we've featured his artwork previously) and he is familiar with our popular Highlights section featuring finders' accounts of major birds. He is perfectly entitled to contact the magazine about reporting his find in this way, like hundreds of others before him, and is not obligated to respond to online forum posts by often anonymous users which - having read some of them - are clearly not based on facts, and in some cases are personally insulting and deliberately malicious.
5. I am not officially a citizen of, or resident in, the Azores, though it is true that I have travelled there in aircraft employing jet-powered technologies :-)
Entertaining as always, Jono, but here are some points worth noting:
ReplyDelete1. Birdwatch has been publishing exclusive stories, and billing them as such, since soon after the magazine's inception in the early Nineties, so exclusives are certainly not 'new'. They are, of course, commonly used by publications of all kinds (including other bird magazines) trying to distinguish their content from that of the opposition, and give themselves the edge. For the same reason, we also use e.g. columnists such as your good self and other devices. There's no problem in doing so, and no one has ever complained about such stories before.
2. Despite the story being exclusive to Birdwatch, an image was also made available on BirdGuides.com which was free to view in the weekly round-up as a small image, and shortly after in the Iris section of the website as a larger file.
3. "Journalism may be all about sensationalism, but surely birding is bigger than that?" Rather than anything to do with sensationalism, the object of the story was for the finder to give his own version of events, to balance the hitherto almost wholly negative interpretation of what might have happened, often related by those who weren't there (not in your case, of course).
4. Importantly, the finder has never mentioned money or even 'selling the story' to the magazine. This is yet another myth fabricated about him and his motives (again, not by you, but it has become common currency). He simply wanted to tell his story, he has known the magazine for many years (we've featured his artwork previously) and he is familiar with our popular Highlights section featuring finders' accounts of major birds. He is perfectly entitled to contact the magazine about reporting his find in this way, like hundreds of others before him, and is not obligated to respond to online forum posts by often anonymous users which - having read some of them - are clearly not based on facts, and in some cases are personally insulting and deliberately malicious.
5. I am not officially a citizen of, or resident in, the Azores, though it is true that I have travelled there in aircraft employing jet-powered technologies :-)