CBS Saturday Morning- Hunting/Conservation
- Thread starter nontyp
- Start date
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
Pretty good, I don’t feel like they understand what PR does and kinda muddy the waters. REI pays very little if any PR taxes, they pay sales tax. If you buy a rifle you pay sales tax + PR excise tax.
$0 from REI go into PR, this story would make it seem otherwise.
$0 from REI go into PR, this story would make it seem otherwise.
I agree. I wish they would’ve expanded on that point a little further. Overall it is a positive story about hunting that doesn’t see the light of day very often.
COEngineer
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2016
- Messages
- 1,463
I was waiting for the other shoe to drop, something like, "Some people hate hunting and think it should be banned because..." but it never happened. 7 minutes of positive press for hunting/fishing on national TV. I can't think of another example...ever.
Nick87
Well-known member
Not bad... good for some people who are neutral or on the fence on hunting. Never change the extremists mind, but that goes for everything I suppose. Good to see something well reported for a change.
Dougfirtree
Well-known member
Surprisingly good coverage. Not perfect, but surprisingly good!
I don't think it's an accident that they were interviewing Land Tawney. Whatever imperfections BHA might have, they are changing the landscape and building more bridges between hunters/anglers and the rest of the conservation community than any other organization I'm aware of. This is coverage most other hunting related organizations could never get. They deserve some props.
I don't think it's an accident that they were interviewing Land Tawney. Whatever imperfections BHA might have, they are changing the landscape and building more bridges between hunters/anglers and the rest of the conservation community than any other organization I'm aware of. This is coverage most other hunting related organizations could never get. They deserve some props.
.270Rem
Well-known member
Land was a great choice and speaks well for so many. However, during the sitdown with the USFWS staffer, that woman claimed the license dollars went to the Feds. Don't have any clue where that one came from, but maybe we can yell at them now when we don't get the tag we were destined to have?
The REI comments at the end seemed slightly off. A great majority of the folks walking through their doors and making online purchases benefit from having National Forests, BLM lands, National Wildlife Refuges, state WMA's, and state forests. They don't just visit state and National Parks. And if their market share is such a crazy total, how much/when do they contribute to enhance and grow public access?
The REI comments at the end seemed slightly off. A great majority of the folks walking through their doors and making online purchases benefit from having National Forests, BLM lands, National Wildlife Refuges, state WMA's, and state forests. They don't just visit state and National Parks. And if their market share is such a crazy total, how much/when do they contribute to enhance and grow public access?
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
You mean the head of USFWS and the former director of MFWP Martha Williams.
Yeah her interview was really rough to watch.
.270Rem
Well-known member
Guess she strayed from her notes. Egad!
seeth07
Well-known member
Great storied slightly ruined at the end. I would love to actually see the amount of dollars that REI directly or indirectly puts into conservation
They had a good path, but failed at the end. Didn't really explain the P-R tax hunters/fisherman pay, REI pretty much said they already pay taxes and government should be using that money more wisely, something I think everyone can agree with. They had an opening to explain that we hunters/fisherman ALSO pay that sales tax, PLUS P-R, and if we extended P-R to include more outdoor users, that would bolster the money for conservation with a SMALL increase in taxes.
COEngineer
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2016
- Messages
- 1,463
My guess is that was some bad editing. I assume she knows what she is talking about, but the editors are clueless and cut out the pertinent parts to make it sound like something it wasn't.
my dad gets interviewed by the local news a lot. it's amazing how much stuff gets edited and ends up hugely out of context, rarely with malicious intent, if ever. though, some examples of ill intent definitely come to mind. largely it's just ignorance tho.
PaulRevere
Well-known member
Land was amazing in this piece.
I recall Randy's (CBS?) interview about Yellowstone wolves. He provided a good qty of info though they glamorized his wolves farting rainbows comment and from what randy shared, left out some of the more valuable content.
Is it the media or whom they focus their story towards - the people who watch? Catch phrases FTW...
Is it the media or whom they focus their story towards - the people who watch? Catch phrases FTW...
i say both. i think the reporters have a story they wanna do, that story is largely based on what is determined to be of interest to the viewers.
they come up with a general narrative/structure for their story and then interview the experts.
when the experts say an interesting/relevant thing that fits their (the media) story structure and jives with a point they're trying to make, they clip it out so it fits in. context is inevitably lost.
sometimes their narrative is malicious, oftentimes it's not. more often their narrative just doesn't jive with the true complexities of the subject nor would be comprehendible by the majority of the audience.
that's my opinion on why it all get's so screwy in the news.
It seems like every time you watch or read a piece of media where you are knowledgeable or a subject matter expert on the topic being discussed, you can’t help but notice that there are some serious errors in the reporting. I assume this goes on with other topics, I am just not knowledgeable enough to notice it.
One example, When I was in college, the local news station did a piece on the civil engineering program. The reporter continually referred to it as construction engineering. We corrected her over and over and over and the professor even pulled her aside and emphasized that it is civil engineering. She made a note of it… Civil engineering. We tuned in that night to the news and watched their coverage about construction engineering
One example, When I was in college, the local news station did a piece on the civil engineering program. The reporter continually referred to it as construction engineering. We corrected her over and over and over and the professor even pulled her aside and emphasized that it is civil engineering. She made a note of it… Civil engineering. We tuned in that night to the news and watched their coverage about construction engineering
Last edited:
Ben Long
Well-known member
Thirty years in the media and I can tell you this: the secret to happiness is low expectations. Clearly the producers were way over their waders in terms of understanding excise taxes and license dollars. But the overall pro-hunting, pro-conservation message was rock solid both in words and images. I honestly can't remember better in terms of the mainstream media.
