# Reader Responses to Online Reporting of Tagged Bird Behavior

## TL;DR

This study examines public reactions to online news about birds removing tracking devices from other birds, highlighting how opinions on wildlife tagging vary by media outlet.

## Contribution

The paper provides new insights into public sentiment toward wildlife tagging through analysis of online comments across different media platforms.

## Key findings

- Most comments focused on personal experiences, species comparisons, and sharing knowledge rather than ethical concerns.
- Only 21% of respondents expressed an opinion on the ethics of tagging, with more negative views in the Daily Mail and Guardian.
- Readers of The Conversation showed more balanced opinions, suggesting audience background influences perception.

## Abstract

This paper explores responses to online reporting of an animal tracking research project. Researchers attached tracking devices to Australian Magpies (Gymnorhina tibicen) via a specially designed harness. The harnesses were quickly removed by other birds in the group, and this interesting behavior was reported on a number of news sites. Reported here is an analysis of readers’ reactions to this story, as expressed in online comment sections. The most common reasons for posting a comment were (1) sharing personal feelings and experiences, (2) comparing the merits of different species, and (3) sharing knowledge and opinion. Only 21% of respondents expressed an opinion about whether tagging was ethical. For newspaper readers (the Daily Mail and Guardian), this opinion was likely to be negative, whereas for The Conversation (where readership is more academic), opinion was more balanced. Public perception can impact conservation success, and affect funding, where this derives from taxation or donation. Though willingness to comment on online stories is low, reactions to this story expose important questions for scientists seeking to engage with, and convince, the public of the ethical and welfare aspects of their work.

This paper explores responses to online coverage of an avian tracking project. Researchers attached novel trackers to a small group of wild magpies (Gymnorhina tibicen). These were subsequently removed by conspecifics, an example of ‘rescue behavior’ that was recounted in several media outlets. Online comments on three articles, from across the political spectrum (the Conversation, UK Guardian, and UK Daily Mail), were selected for thematic analysis. The resulting 680 comments were analyzed qualitatively and quantitatively to uncover predominant themes and the overall balance of positive and negative sentiments expressed about this tagging project or wildlife tagging generally. Topics occurring most frequently were themed into three interrelated areas: (1) sharing personal feelings and experiences, (2) comparing the merits of different species, and (3) sharing knowledge and opinion. Twenty-one percent (21%) of respondents expressed an opinion on the ethics of wildlife tagging. In the Daily Mail and Guardian, this opinion was more likely to be negative towards the use of tags. Opinion was more balanced for readers of the Conversation’s article. Willingness to comment on online news is low, and readers of this story were not asked directly for their opinion. Nevertheless, the data here illustrate some public perceptions of wildlife tagging, and there was a clear negative reaction from many responders. Widening the means through which people can engage with animal science has the potential to advance discussions around research ethics and animal welfare. Reactions to this story expose important questions for scientists seeking to engage with, and convince, the public of the merits of their work.