Non-fiction
Recognising bias 5.1
Explore bias
Fox hunting is a controversial issue. Many people believe that it is a cruel and
barbaric sport. Others think that it is a great British tradition and that foxes are pests
anyway. The two pieces of text below are biased. One is from the RSPCA, who
disapprove of this practice. The other is from a web site called ‘Leave Country Sports
Alone’, which agrees with fox hunting.
 Use the analysis grid that follows the articles to explore how each text is biased.
Copy and paste examples from the texts into the grid and fill in the box below
each example with a comment of your own.
 You might not find an example for each technique in both texts but try to find as
many as you can. When you have finished, print your grid out.
 Which text do you think is most biased, based on your study? Is it easy to tell, or
are the differences blurred?
 Compare your answers with those of other students. Did you find similar or
different examples?
 For each text, decide which technique is most effective in making it biased.
RSPCA text
In 1997 the new Labour government agreed that it would not obstruct a bill to ban
hunting. The RSPCA produced leaflets backing the bill and this one appeared in
several newspapers.
“Whatever you think about foxes, you have to admire their guts.”
Today, MPs will be asked to vote for one of the following
options in the Government's Hunting Bill:
1. Hunting with dogs can continue, with voluntary selfregulation.
2. Hunting with dogs can continue, under licence from a new
hunting authority.
3. Hunting with dogs is banned.
It's vitally important MPs vote for a ban on hunting with dogs. A
vote for 1 or 2, which might appear to curb hunting, would in
fact allow the cruelty to continue. The RSPCA believes that
only a ban is acceptable. It is the only one that prevents the fundamentally cruel
practice of chasing and killing wild animals. The others allow this practise to continue.
We are in no doubt that hunting with dogs is cruel. In our view the most significant
finding of the independent Burns Inquiry, which heard evidence from both sides of
the debate, was the conclusion that hunting with dogs 'seriously compromises the
welfare' of foxes, deer, hare and mink. Where control is absolutely necessary, we
believe that shooting is the most humane method.
Hunting dogs are trained to kill hares, mink and foxes, but in the field there's no
guarantee that's all they will attack. A deer, one of the latest unintended victims of
hunting, was savaged by four dogs from a pack that ran out of control during a hunt
just a few weeks ago.
An eyewitness told us, "The deer was trapped...in the middle of a thick hedge. The
dogs had pinned it down and were biting and snapping at it. I saw one pull its tail
right off. All the time the deer was making this terrible noise. We shouted and tried to
pull the dogs off, then we heard a hunting horn from the woods and the dogs ran off.
I'm a countryman born and bred...but to see this terrible incident made me see why it
should be banned." An RSPCA officer was called and took the injured animal to the
local vet where it had to be put to sleep to end its suffering.
Pets and farm animals have also suffered similar attacks. The Burns Inquiry
acknowledged that attacks on pets clearly do cause unnecessary suffering to the
animals concerned and distress to their owners.
We don't believe that voluntary self-regulation (1) or a licence from a new hunting
authority (2) would prevent such appalling tragedies from being repeated. The
RSPCA will continue to work for a ban on all hunting with dogs. Independent polls
have consistently shown that most people in this country agree with us. The Prime
Minister himself has publicly stated, "It will be banned." With three choices available
we urge MPs not to vote in favour of cruelty but to vote for a ban.
Today MPs can make a difference.
Leave Country Sports Alone (LCSA) text
50 years of direct lobbying by animal rights activists, and more recently by the
League Against Cruel Sports, the RSPCA and the International Fund for Animal
Welfare (whose annual joint income amounts to around 66 million pounds) in schools
and other institutions has ensured that two generations of our urban and suburban
population, with no direct contact with country life, believe that some or even all field
sports are cruel. Quite simply, they have been misinformed.
Hunting with hounds, when properly organised, is the method of managing the fox
population that causes the least suffering. It is possible to kill a fox cleanly by a
skilled marksman with a rifle.
However, in reality few farmers possess a rifle, nor is it proposed that the
government should provide a squad of trained marksmen for this purpose. Most
farmers will employ a shotgun and, out of public gaze, take available opportunities to
shoot foxes, seldom at close range and therefore causing wounding followed by a
slow and painful death.
In 1949 the Labour Government appointed an independent Committee of Inquiry to
enquire into Cruelty to Wild Animals, including the issue of hunting. The Committee
concluded:
‘Fox hunting makes a very important contribution to the control of foxes, and involves
less cruelty than most other methods of controlling them. It should therefore be
allowed to continue.’
To livestock farmers and others, foxes are a real pest, killing poultry, piglets, lambs,
ducks and game and other ground nesting birds. The move to more extensive (free
range) farming and increasing fox numbers has exacerbated these problems. Foxes
therefore have to be and are controlled. It is a fact that over two thirds of sheep
farmers control foxes.
Some 250,000 foxes are killed every year by one means or another. Labour cannot
legislate to change the predatory instincts of foxes or the views of farmers or
gamekeepers who seek to protect their stock or game. If hunting were abolished the
fox population would be managed by snaring or shooting, largely with shotguns.
Techniques used to make a text biased
Copy and paste examples from the texts into the grid and fill in the box below it with a
comment of your own. You might not find an example for each technique in both
texts but try to find as many as you can.
Emotive language
RSPCA example
How is this biased?
LCSA example
How is this biased?
Use of facts
RSCPA example
How is this biased?
LCSA example
How is this biased?
Use of opinions
RSPCA example
How is this biased?
LCSA example
How is this biased?
Making other groups sound unreliable
RSPCA example
How is this biased?
LCSA example
How is this biased?
Use of statistics
RSPCA example
How is this biased?
LCSA example
How is this biased?
Quotations to support point of view
RSPCA example
How is this biased?
LCSA example
How is this biased?
Use of dramatic or exaggerated language
RSPCA example
How is this biased?
LCSA example
How is this biased?
When you have finished, save your work to your work folder using Save As in the File menu.
To print out what you have done, click Print in the File menu, click on Pages and type in the
page numbers (e.g. 4–5), then click OK. To return to the CD-ROM, close Word by clicking
Close in the File menu.