Demands for stronger laws after autumn sees more than 100 foxes chased by hunts

The Mirror reports League Against Cruel Sports figures on foxes chased by hunts this autumn, names the charity as the source and explains how it gathered the data. In its own voice it describes the charity's 332 reports as hunts "wreaking havoc". It gives no hunt or pro-hunting voice a chance to answer the charge that hunts flout the law. Both problems are minor.

1. Uses a loaded word

   Minor

   “332 reports of hunts wreaking havoc with anti-social behaviour”

   Why this matters

   The Mirror uses "wreaking havoc" in its own voice to describe what the 332 reports allege.

   The impression it gives

   A reader takes it as established that hunts caused havoc on 332 occasions.

   The context

   The article itself says the figures are reports gathered by the League's confidential service, its field operatives, hunt saboteurs and hunt monitors. They are complaints logged by campaigners, not findings. "Wreaking havoc" passes a verdict that the sourcing described in the article does not carry.

   How we know

   • Elsewhere in the article“incidents reported into its confidential Animal Crimewatch service”

2. One side gets the space

   Minor

   “hunts are continuing to flout the law whilst at the same time claiming they can police and control their hunters and supporters”

   Why this matters

   The Mirror quotes a Labour MP accusing hunts of breaking the law and of making false claims. It follows with a campaign chief executive and a government spokesperson, all on the same side.

   The impression it gives

   A reader is left to assume that hunts have no answer to the allegation and to the League's figures.

   The context

   The article quotes no hunt, hunting body or rural group. It does not even say that one was asked. The people accused appear only as the subject of others' charges.