According to the OED, the definition of "news" is:
"Newly received or noteworthy information, especially about recent events
Information not previously known to (someone)
A person or thing considered interesting enough to be reported in the news
I'd argue that the "news" also has to be relevant and would emphasise your point about it being
new information.
I've got no problem calling South Lakes/Gill on husbandry/zoo management decisions, that's fine, but on occasion is does seem that there's a mob mentality queuing up to be the "righteous people" kicking the "baddie" (see Tw*tter et al).
Examples of this would be:
1. Attacking the guys, admittedly plant-size, ego -it's not news anymore, we all know about it. Can anyone stand up and honestly say there haven't been other over-sized egos, recently and historically, in the zoo sector (especially the privately owned side);
2. His philandering -it's really not really directly relevant to a zoo debate any more than discussing his sexuality might be. Everyone, rightly, criticised him for his homophobic outburst but there's a little hypocrisy in then attacking his own sexual choices. Firstly, when people have affairs no-one really knows the true facts (who's "right" and who's "wrong") and secondly I'd imagine quite a few posters know/have known people who have cheated on partners (or have cheated themselves) and don't necessarily exclude them as friends because, hey, life's complicated. Finally, does anyone out there think that no other, current and historic, zoo owners/staff have done similar things? We don't have to think too hard to answer that and I think we'd conclude that some of those individuals achieved good and great things;
3. Hyperbole -yes it's OK to call out exaggeration and untruths used in the name of publicity but let's not forget pretty much all modern zoos are guilty of this to one extent of another and let's not waste too much time on the trivial examples. In my opinion, questioning their uniqueness re pole feeding is valid but attacking their general claim to "uniqueness" or being the first safari zoo (that's just semantics) is a bit pointless -a large number of zoos claim, mostly incorrectly, something about them is unique. Paignton claim to be "King of Zoos" but most people let it lie.
Also, for the sake of balance, let's remember Gill does have some positive achievements:
1. He had the foresight to set up and develop a medium sized zoo at a time no-one else was doing so (i.e. proved it could still be done);
2. He was an early adopter of free-ranging/walk-through lemurs and large kangaroos. I know there's problems (and yes criticise the problems) but don't we want a few risk takers and innovaters?
3. He went into bears when no-one else was and everyone was moving out of them. I sometimes wonder if he, in some small way, led to bears becoming more common in UK zoos again;
4. As far as I know (happy to be corrected) he pioneered the use, in the UK, of hot-wires to contain bears;
5. He brought a zoo to people a long way from a zoo and has probably brought more outsiders to Dalton-in-Furness than anything else in recent years.
The ying-yang, in all "bad" there is some "good" and vice versa.
In conclusion, I'd like to state I'm no apologist for Gill (his misadventures in mixed-species exhibits are beyond innovation and well into the realm of hare-brained) but would hope information posted is new and relevant to any debate. I'd also wish that people would consider whether he's unique in some of his "wrongful" actions or they're merely kicking a man when he's down for something others have done and not been called on.
Sure criticise him (he deserves some) but try to keep it meaningful, it makes your arguments more rational and strengthens them.
