ESPN taken to task for outdoors column

ESPN's piece: http://sports.espn.go.com/outdoors/saltwater/news/story?id=4975762

One reaction: http://www.examiner.com/x-37128-Charlotte-Fishing-Examiner~y2010m3d9-ESPN-claims-Obama-is-about-to-ban-fishing

 

Maybe I missed it, but where did the ESPN column say "Obama is about to ban fishing?" And, why do we care what some guy on examiner.com says?

 

The righty windbags on the radio have already taken off running with it. Must be on the daily talking points. Funny how that happens.

 

I read the story and couldn't understand what the issue was. More importantly, it gave no insight in to why Obama's Administration would want to ban fishing.

It's banning in some areas to allow for a sustainable level of fishing in other areas.

There is an environmental case and a debate.

I read ESPN a lot, that story was biased towards the sportsman's view I had to double check the source. Extremely slanted, and not well-written.

Essentially it tried to say Obama was banning off shore fishing. Not exactly.

The story needed to be more-balanced and fact based because this is the first most of us are hearing about it. What's the issue?

Edit: The examiner writer seems legit. Are we that much of a snob that we won't read anything that isn't from an old media source? Examiner has credibility issues, but that examiner writer passes the smell test.

 

The right likes to whip its folks up by saying Obama is about to ban something they like or force them to go into some government program. Yawn.

 

Drudge linked to this story yesterday.

 

The Examiner article began by saying the column was the worst in the history of America.

Do you really want to hand credibility to someone who puts that much hyperbole in their work?

 

I don't know. I think the Examiner was closer to the truth than the ESPN article. That ESPN load was a fear-mongering, one-sided piece of crap with virtually no facts and almost all worst-case fears from one side of the argument and should have been spiked.

Does online have spikes?


I am pretty sure folks will still be able to catch a mess of crappie in a couple years.

 

Distinction missed: It was a column. An opinion piece made clear at the top and bottom of the piece. Whatever you think of the opinion is secondary. Just like the opinion of the Examiner piece.

 

The ESPN story was opinion? I don't know about that. That story sure seemed to read like a news story. The examiner story I didn't have a problem with. Hyperbole, yes, but it was a column and it had more cred than the ESPN story. If Montgomery wrote that story on the examiner, it wouldn't have raised an eyebrow.

But, because it was on ESPN it blew up. That story did not meet the standards of ESPN, and it was unduly one sided and ill-formed.

 

It was a load.

 

It actually didn't blow up until it went on Drudge.