3 ms·

Are you accusing the headline of being sensationalist?

• airgun_torture 7y ago
  Actually, I'd like to exchange one form of sensationalism for another. It's a particularly egregious atrocity to harm animals like orangutans, even if that sentiment represents a blind spot that neglects less charismatic portions of the environment and glosses over comparable human tragedy. But the headline sounds like a bank heist with high powered firearms, and that conjures different imagery than the facts of the story. Slingshots, bow and arrow, air rifles and hunting knives are a different class of weapon. Getting "shot" is an entirely different injury that can shatter bones and rip internal organs to shreds. To say that an animal was "shot" 74 times creates an impression of a body so mutilated that it might be unrecognizable. 74 bullet wounds also usually don't trickle in over years. If an animal gets shot 74 times it's probably going to happen in less than a minute. It's also rare to little more than only blinded by a small caliber bullet wound to the eye. Often the bullet tends to enter the skull and destroy the brain, making it impossible to climb trees. I'd rather see the headline communicate that human activity is a constant threat to these animals, and that protection needs to endure decades. These animals aren't just vulnerable to poaching, but also pranks and the malign entertainment value that idle humans derive from antagonize them is seriously harmful ways. The headline fails to capture this sentiment. With the shocking treatment, it suggests that one person heinously abused one animal in a single incident of overkill with a hunting rifle, and that maybe there's an effort to capture and prosecute one poacher for one particularly improper killing.