Editorial Credibility

[Salmonsmoker]

It is obvious that there are many points on both sides of the crossbow issue and they have been discussed in infinate detail. However, my feeling - there is a another issue here - The editorial credibility of The Michigan Outdoor News. The following quote - of Mr. Keck - contains the error.

"Eight people showed up at that (first) meeting to testify in favor of crossbows, and five of them were from the crossbow industry," said Jerry Keck, a member of the Michigan Bowhunters Association, as well as the NRC's subcommittee on crossbows. "Twelve people testified with concerns about it. Two of the people in support of legalizing crossbows gave a ... presentation from the Archery Trade Association, and after that presentation Sheltrown said he wanted to amend the legislation and make it all-inclusive."

I was at that meeting. The Crossbow industry did not have 5 people at that meeting. It was mostly regular people like myself who took the time to drive two and a half hous to lansing to testify my position that restrictive Archery Hunting Laws need to be changed.

Now, I can understand Mr. Keck's trying to sway public opinion by spreading mistruths - an obvious move of despiration on his part.

However, what I do not understand is the reporting by Michigan Outdoor News. We subscribe to that publication, and usually look to it for accurate reporting on subjects pertaining to Michigan's outdoors. In it's latest issue, Editor Bill Parker wrote the article (from which the above quote came) without doing sufficient homework to check out the facts presented. This error on his part casts doubt on the Credibility of his publication.

My feeling is that Editor Parker needs to 1. print the truth about this issue in the form of a retraction. And 2. next time he needs to do his homework so as to maintian the editorial credibility normally attributed to the Michigan Outdoor News.

[Michihunter]

A quote shouldn't be edited to correct that persons false claims. I do agree however that MON should have rebutted that quote with the real facts regarding the meeting and the people that were there.

[Terry Williams]

I would suggest that you write a letter to the editor expressing your concerns, I highly doubt that this is the forum to solve the alleged discrepancies. As we all know often the media gets it wrong on both sides of an issue

[TOW]

a quote shouldn't be edited to correct that persons false claims. I do agree however that mon should have rebutted that quote with the real facts regarding the meeting and the people that were there.

ditto....

[Salmonsmoker]

That was a cut and paste from the Michigan Outdoor News online. I sent the editor an e-mail, then posted a comment on their blog. No response to the e-mail and they wouldn't allow my comments to appear on their blog.

[Riva]

That was a cut and paste from the Michigan Outdoor News online. I sent the editor an e-mail, then posted a comment on their blog. No response to the e-mail and they wouldn't allow my comments to appear on their blog.

Speaking of cut and paste; here's a doozy from a Mr. John Eberhart commenting on the same subject:

"I am absolutely certain however that at least 3 of the guys at the meetings were from crossbow manufacturers. If anyone doesn't believe the crossbow manufacturers are at the forefront of bill HB5741 being amended into its current form, well I guess that’s their right."

This, of course, came right here from our own M-S forums just a few days ago. In response, I offered a hefty wager to both Mr. Keck and Mr. Eberhart to prove their assertions. To date, I haven't heard a peep from either. Have any idea why that could be?;)

Furthermore (to your thread topic): I agree the editor should have applied a more "vigorous scrutiny" surrounding the inflammatory words being spewed from an avowed anti-crossbow advocate. Tough to toothpaste back in the tube once out. :rolleyes:

[Swamp Ghost]

Shall we cut and paste some of "facts" presented for full inclusion?:rolleyes:

Tons of BS from all sides of the issue.

[DANIEL MARK ZAPOLSKI]

after reading that very article i can only believe that the very intent was to slant the story in favor of the anti crossbow people. as i have personal knowledge of what exactly transpired that day at the commttee meeting. this article published by michigan outdoors news smells of collusion in the highest regards between mr keck and mr parker to gain public sympahty for the anti crossbow agenda. this is their last ditch effort to lie to the public threw the press. we all know what old newspapers are good for as you can find their issues at the bottom of every outhouse and thats what this article is full of, because it sure isn't facts.:D

[boehr]

Then again I have always stated and is well known that papers write stories to sell papers. Some reporters opinion might be seen from a different light but I agree, this instance of the topic discussed it seems can be substaniated. If this information is purposely false the result is poor reporting and loss of creditability.

[Munsterlndr]

Shall we cut and paste some of "facts" presented for full inclusion?:rolleyes:

Tons of BS from all sides of the issue.

Just curious, were you there to see the presentations made by both sides or have you perhaps watched a video of the committee hearing? Just wondering whether you are basing your opinion on first hand knowledge or on second hand sources.

[Swamp Ghost]

As far as a quote being less than factual, it's a quote get over it.

[wally-eye]

I suppose some would feel it was alright "if" if fit their agenda.......

[Munsterlndr]

I've seen the inclusion presentation and I have read the crossbow inclusion claims/opinions in emails from Sheltrown and from his "aid" on this board?


The inclusion presentation was primarily verbal with some accompanying power point graphics used to emphasize some key facts in just one part of the presentation. Unless you saw a video of the entire presentation, it would be inaccurate for you to say that you "saw" the presentation that was made before the house committee. Since you seem to be so quick to accuse others of spouting BS, maybe you would like to amend your above statement to say "I saw the graphics portion, which made up only a small part of the inclusion presentation and I really don't have a clue as to what was actually said by the eight people who testified in front of the Committee in favor of crossbow inclusion."

Now what were you saying about hypocrisy...? :rolleyes:

[Swamp Ghost]

The inclusion presentation was primarily verbal with some accompanying power point graphics used to emphasize some key facts in just one part of the presentation. Unless you saw a video of the entire presentation, it would be inaccurate for you to say that you "saw" the presentation that was made before the house committee. Since you seem to be so quick to accuse others of spouting BS, maybe you would like to amend your above statement to say "I saw the graphics portion, which made up only a small part of the inclusion presentation and I really don't have a clue as to what was actually said by the eight people who testified in front of the Committee in favor of crossbow inclusion."

Now what were you saying about hypocrisy...? :rolleyes:

Power point to emphasize key "facts". LOL!

Maybe you are comfortable with your definition of "fact" and "creditability"

The inclusion "presentation" was nothing more than conjecture, opinion and partial data.

Would you like me to send you a copy?:lol::lol::lol:

I'll be sure to package it with a roll of TP.

[Munsterlndr]

Yeah, please do! Better yet post a link to it so that everyone can see it. ;)

[Swamp Ghost]

Now if I could only find a way to link a roll of Charmin.

[Swamp Ghost]

I suppose some would feel it was alright "if" if fit their agenda.......

Did I say the BS was exclusive to the inclusion "agenda"?

As I have said before, it was ABUNDANT on both sides.

[Munsterlndr]

I sense some weaseling coming. C'mon Swamp you made the claim that you have seen the power point presentation that was made before the house committee and you made disparaging remarks about the contents. Then you offer to send it to me as proof that you actually saw it. Post a link so that everyone can form their own opinion. Either that or admit that you did not actually see the PP presentation (let alone the verbal testimony) and that you don't know what your talking about.

[Swamp Ghost]

The "presentation" contains the same "data" that has been discussed on this forum by some of it's principle players.

I really don't see the need for redundancy.

If you would like to spend the time to convert the "presentation" to a "web" format, have at it.

[Munsterlndr]

E-mail me a copy of it to me at Munsterlndr@yahoo.com and I'll see what I can do to make it available for everyone to see. That is, if you actually have a copy of it. ;)

[Swamp Ghost]

Here is a "parred" down version that is easily linkable:

http://www.tenpointcrossbows.com/images/pdfs/TenPoint_DetailedTruthAboutCrossbows.pdf

[Riva]

You can debate the merit and/or lack of merit of the pro-crossbow advocate's presentation all you want. At last count, I think there have been about eightygazillion posts to that effect so far. The topic of this thread however; is focused upon possible irresponsible journalism (or worse) that was predicated by a big fat fib spewed off by a board member of the Michigan Bowhunter's Association.

[TOW]

The main question was did Keck just "mistaken" or did he outright lie?

Magazines are very seldom the "truth police".

They isuue whatever the interviewee says.

Granted they should have went for some rebutal, but they didn't

The "antis" keep sayng that the crossbow companies have bought the inclusion and we have yet to see any proof of their statements. To me that is just scare tactics.It is scare tactics to fire up their supporters.

If they do not have any proof then they are basically lying to their supporters to keep them in line.

Now that is a shame,.

Right is right and wrong is wrong. Making such claims, without proof is fead wrong.

[D-BEAVER]

Speaking of cut and paste; here's a doozy from a Mr. John Eberhart commenting on the same subject:

"I am absolutely certain however that at least 3 of the guys at the meetings were from crossbow manufacturers. If anyone doesn't believe the crossbow manufacturers are at the forefront of bill HB5741 being amended into its current form, well I guess that’s their right."
This, of course, came right here from our own M-S forums just a few days ago. In response, I offered a hefty wager to both Mr. Keck and Mr. Eberhart to prove their assertions. To date, I haven't heard a peep from either. Have any idea why that could be?;)

Furthermore (to your thread topic): I agree the editor should have applied a more "vigorous scrutiny" surrounding the inflammatory words being spewed from an avowed anti-crossbow advocate. Tough to toothpaste back in the tube once out. :rolleyes:

The fact that Mr. Eberhart wouldn't name names speaks volumes for his integrity, if you ask me... especially when you consider that he speaks the truth. I know the 3 individuals he is refering to... but I won't name names, either.

[wildcoy73]

Would have been nice to have both side of the story. But with any thing we put in words it is bias and you only get one part of the story.
I can assure you that the croosbow companies did not bring this change to light. It was sportsman like myself that have been doing everything they can to get this issue addressed. I have been on this wagon for 3 years and will be on it till the end.

[Munsterlndr]

This thread is about editorial integrity resulting from the inclusion of mis-statements that were made in an interview. You have made claims that the content of the presentation that was made was BS, if you were not there and did not see or hear the presentation, I'm having a hard time understanding how you can make your own editorial comment about what was said at the hearing with any degree of credibility?

[butter21]

The main question was did Keck just "mistaken" or did he outright lie?

Magazines are very seldom the "truth police".

They isuue whatever the interviewee says.

Granted they should have went for some rebutal, but they didn't

The "antis" keep sayng that the crossbow companies have bought the inclusion and we have yet to see any proof of their statements. To me that is just scare tactics.It is scare tactics to fire up their supporters.

If they do not have any proof then they are basically lying to their supporters to keep them in line.

Now that is a shame,.

Right is right and wrong is wrong. Making such claims, without proof is fead wrong.
You know for a fact that there wasn't that many of them? Or are you just going by other peoples "facts". I'm not saying that Keck is right either, because I have no idea. ;)

[Munsterlndr]

The fact that Mr. Eberhart wouldn't name names speaks volumes for his integrity, if you ask me... especially when you consider that he speaks the truth. I know the 3 individuals he is refering to... but I won't name names, either.

Just so we are clear on what you are saying, you are claiming that 3 of the individuals who testified in favor of crossbow inclusion in front of the House Committee on Tourism, Outdoor Recreation and Natural Resources, on June 10th, 2008, have ties to industry, meaning they are employed or affiliated with a crossbow manufacturer? That is a pretty substantive accusation as it could impugn the testimony given by those individuals if it was something that they had not disclosed prior to testifying. Are you really sure that you want to make that claim on a public forum? The individuals who testified for inclusion are a matter of public record, the list is available on line. Only one of the individuals, Chuck Jordan, is employed by a crossbow manufacturer and he is also a member of the National Bow Hunters hall of fame and has a long and distinguished affiliation with the archery manufacturing industry. Chuck is open about who his employer is and the committee was aware of his affiliation with the crossbow industry, so you are not going to be revealing anything if he is one of the names that you are "protecting". Dan Hendricks was another of the individuals to testify, he is affiliated with the American Crossbow Federation, which also publishes "Horizontal Bowhunter" magazine. He is not employed by industry but if you really wanted to stretch credibility you could make the case that he is indirectly affiliated with the crossbow industry, although personally I think that is a mis-portrayal of Dan's position. The Committee was also fully aware of his status because he testified as a representative of the ACF. The other 5 individuals who testified in that hearing supporting crossbow inclusion have absolutely no ties to industry. That is a fact. I don't know which "individuals" you think you are protecting but I suggest you look at the public record and make sure you know what you are talking about before you start making public accusations about people you don't even know.

[Riva]

The fact that Mr. Eberhart wouldn't name names speaks volumes for his integrity, if you ask me... especially when you consider that he speaks the truth. I know the 3 individuals he is refering to... but I won't name names, either.

OK, let's see if I got this right...

A person who was not in the room that day (Eberhart), casts dispersions towards people he does not know (the presenters) with no consideration that he should he be held accountable to anyone if/when his assertions prove to be false, indeed speaks volumes to many things. However; "integrity" is certainly not one of them. Far from it.

Now, Beave pipes in with the comment that he also knows who these manufacturers representitives that presented that day are and then, summariliy pins a shiny badge of honor on his own chest by taking a self-imposed vow of silence.

Wow..this thing is getting better by the minute!:rolleyes:

[D-BEAVER]

Just so we are clear on what you are saying, you are claiming that 3 of the individuals who testified in favor of crossbow inclusion in front of the House Committee on Tourism, Outdoor Recreation and Natural Resources, on June 10th, 2008, have ties to industry, meaning they are employed or affiliated with a crossbow manufacturer? That is a pretty substantive accusation as it could impugn the testimony given by those individuals if it was something that they had not disclosed prior to testifying. Are you really sure that you want to make that claim on a public forum? The individuals who testified for inclusion are a matter of public record, the list is available on line. Only one of the individuals, Chuck Jordan, is employed by a crossbow manufacturer and he is also a member of the National Bow Hunters hall of fame and has a long and distinguished affiliation with the archery manufacturing industry. Chuck is open about who his employer is and the committee was aware of his affiliation with the crossbow industry, so you are not going to be revealing anything if he is one of the names that you are "protecting". Dan Hendricks was another of the individuals to testify, he is affiliated with the American Crossbow Federation, a non-profit group which also publishes "Horizontal Bowhunter" magazine. He is not employed by industry but if you really wanted to stretch credibility you could make the case that he is indirectly affiliated with the crossbow industry, although personally I think that is a mis-portrayal of Dan's position. The Committee was also fully aware of his status because he testified as a representative of the ACF. The other 5 individuals who testified in that hearing supporting crossbow inclusion have absolutely no ties to industry. That is a fact. I don't know which "individuals" you think you are protecting but I suggest you look at the public record and make sure you know what you are talking about before you start making public accusations about people you don't even know.

I spoke with two individuals other than Chuck Jordan who represent x-bow companies. They told me directly that they were there.

I have not looked at these "public records" to see whether or not I recognized any of the other names. Why don't you post it up here for us?

[Riva]

I spoke with two individuals other than Chuck Jordan who represent x-bow companies. They told me directly that they were there.

I have not looked at these "public records" to see whether or not I recognized any of the other names. Why don't you post it up here for us?

Me thinks you talk to 3 people who say one factory guy was there versus 1 guy who says that 3 factory guys were there. Big difference, kimosabe.:D

Just rememeber, 9 pregnant women for one month doth not make a baby! :dizzy:

[D-BEAVER]

OK, let's see if I got this right...

A person who was not in the room that day (Eberhart), casts dispersions towards people he does not know (the presenters) with no consideration that he should he be held accountable to anyone if/when his assertions prove to be false, indeed speaks volumes to many things. However; "integrity" is certainly not one of them. Far from it.

Now, Beave pipes in with the comment that he also knows who these manufacturers representitives that presented that day and then, summariliy pins a shiny badge of honor on his own chest by taking a self-imposed vow of silence.

Wow..this thing is getting better by the minute!:rolleyes:

Let's set something straight right now. I'm not looking for recognition(you can keep your shiny badge). If we're being honest (which I am), I consider John Eberhart to be a friend of mine. When I see him being bashed and belittled for providing misinformation(which I happen to know is THE TRUTH), I take offense to it. I call it like I see it... nothing more, nothing less.

[D-BEAVER]

Me thinks you talk to 3 people who say one factory guy was there versus 1 guy who says that 3 factory guys were there. Big difference, kimosabe.:D

Just rememeber, 9 pregnant women for one month doth not make a baby! :dizzy:

I have no idea of what you are trying to say to me. What part of "I spoke with two crossbow representatives, besides Chuck Jordan who admitted to being there" don't you understand?

[Michihunter]

Guess how many people say they were at the Bob Segar concert during the taping of Live Bullet? More than Cobo Hall could contain in a year of concerts.:lol::lol::lol: Not saying you you are lying Beav but it wouldn't be the first time someone said they witnessed something that wasn't even there. ;)

[Swamp Ghost]

That is a "paired" down version of a crossbow power point presentation that has been used in a number of other states. Neither the document that you linked to or the larger presentation that it's a part of, were the PP presentation made at the House Committee hearing in Michigan.

The vast majority of the presentation made in Michigan was original content that is not contained in the document you linked to. Even if you have looked at the PP presentation that was made to the committee, without the verbal portion that went along with the slides, you would have no idea what the presentation contained.

This thread is about editorial integrity resulting from the inclusion of mis-statements that were made in an interview. You have made claims that the content of the presentation that was made was BS, if you were not there and did not see or hear the presentation, I'm having a hard time understanding how you can make your own editorial comment about what was said at the hearing with any degree of credibility?

Original content?

If you say so Munster.

This crossbow forum is the "presentation" regurgitated.

Unless the "presentation" contained some earth shattering "fact" or conclusive "data" (which it doesn't or it would have been trotted out by now) it is based on the ATA crossbow presentation.

Just because someone calls something a "fact" doesn't make it so and spinning data doesn't make it original.

[D-BEAVER]

Guess how many people say they were at the Bob Segar concert during the taping of Live Bullet? More than Cobo Hall could contain in a year of concerts.:lol::lol::lol: Not saying you you are lying Beav but it wouldn't be the first time someone said they witnessed something that wasn't even there. ;)

I can believe that to be possible, but for the life of me can't understand what these reps would have to gain by being dishonest with me.

To please my own curiousity, I'd like to see this "list" of attendees. Does anyone have a link... or would someone be knid enough to just name them here?

[Munsterlndr]

Original content?

If you say so Munster.

This crossbow forum is the "presentation" regurgitated.

Unless the "presentation" contained some earth shattering "fact" or conclusive "data" (which it doesn't or it would have been trotted out by now) it is based on the ATA crossbow presentation.

Just because someone calls something a "fact" doesn't make it so and spinning data doesn't make it original.

So what you are saying is that you are admitting that you have not seen either the power point graphics or a video of the presentation that was done at the hearing?

The ATA presentation is vastly different then the presentation that was used in Michigan. The Michigan presentation was tailored for concerns & issues that relate specifically to our State.

Instead of speculating on what was presented, why don't you talk to someone who was there and find out exactly what the presentation entailed? I'm still trying to understand how you can voice the opinion that the contents of a presentation that you have never seen are "BS" and expect to have any kind of credibility on the issue?

[Riva]

Let's set something straight right now. I'm not looking for recognition(you can keep your shiny badge). If we're being honest (which I am), I consider John Eberhart to be a friend of mine. When I see him being bashed and belittled for providing misinformation(which I happen to know is THE TRUTH), I take offense to it. I call it like I see it... nothing more, nothing less.

The onus of proof is you, Beave. YOU are the guys making the assertions that of the eight (actually seven) people who presented on June 10, 2008 advocating full inclusion that were/are representives of one or more of crossbow maunufacturers. It was NOT the other way around. Read my lips .."YOU". Is there any part of the word "YOU, that you don't understand, Beave?:rolleyes:

Keck is quoted that five of the seven were . Eberhart states that he is "absolutely certain" that three of them were. Then, you chime in with, "a friend of a friend of my uncle's sister in law" baloney. :dizzy:

Beave, you can take all the "offense" to it you want. The fact remains that unless and until you boys can substantiate your accusations with FACTS, it's nothing more than hot air-- fear mongering in its most shallow and most cowardly form.

Some advice, Beave..You guys better quit while you're behind.;)

[Michihunter]

I too would like to locate the minutes from that meeting. So if anyone has them available, Beav wouldn't be the only one grateful for them. All this subterfuge is getting a bit boring. Someone post the participants already so we can let the badge of ethics honor become worthless to it's wearers.

[D-BEAVER]

The onus of proof is you, Beave. YOU are the guys making the assertions that of the eight (actually seven) people who presented on June 10, 2008 advocating full inclusion were representives of one or more of crossbow maunufacturers. It was NOTthe other way around. Read my lips .."YOU". Is there any part of the word "YOU, that you don't understand, Beave?:rolleyes:

Keck is quoted that five of the seven were . Eberhart states that he is "absolutely certain" that three of them were. Then, you chime in with, "a friend of a friend of my uncle's sister in law" baloney. :dizzy:

Beave, you can take all the "offense" to it you want. The fact remains that unless and until you boys can substantiate your accusations with FACTS, it's nothing more than hot air-- fear mongering in its most shallow and most cowardly form.

Some advice, Beave..You guys better quit while you're behind.;)

Where do you come up with this stuff? I said, plain and simple, that I spoke with two individuals (x-bow representatives) who claimed to be there. Nowhere did I say anything about "a friend of a friend of my uncles sister in law". Stop putting words in my mouth.

And for the record, I find it amusing that you expect us to name names when you will not...

[10PtCrossbow]

I have no idea of what you are trying to say to me. What part of "I spoke with two crossbow representatives, besides Chuck Jordan who admitted to being there" don't you understand?

Who are they and did they speak?

[D-BEAVER]

Who are they and did they speak?

I'm reluctant to name names and since I was not there I can't be certain as to whether or not they spoke. I didn't ask them, but asumed that since they made the trip, they would have spoken.

I shouldn't assume and should have asked them point-blank if they spoke, I guess. I'll own up to that mishap on my part.

[10PtCrossbow]

Thanks for the clarification. And remember, lots of reps that sell crossbows sell compound bows too. (Since they are both archery)

[NoWake]

I can believe that to be possible, but for the life of me can't understand what these reps would have to gain by being dishonest with me.

To please my own curiousity, I'd like to see this "list" of attendees. Does anyone have a link... or would someone be knid enough to just name them here?


Do a google search. The minutes are available.

[Riva]

I'm reluctant to name names and since I was not there I can't be certain as to whether or not they spoke. I didn't ask them, but asumed that since they made the trip, they would have spoken.

I shouldn't assume and should have asked them point-blank if they spoke, I guess. I'll own up to that mishap on my part.

"Ready"


"Fire"


"Aim!"

:dizzy::dizzy::dizzy

[Kelly Johnson]

Just embarrassing.