At 03:13 PM 5/10/98 -0700, Martin J. Muller wrote:

>I could rant and rave on about individual parts of the article, but I won't
>bore you with that. For me it was the first time my words were taken out of
>context and that I was quoted in an article so diametrically opposite to
>what I had been led to believe it would be about. Freedom of the
>press...101.

This article is one of the most biased pieces I've read in a long while - at
least since the Oregonian dropped Alston Chase :) The approach is similar
to Alston's, come to think of it...

OK, now you're mad, whatta y'all gonna do about it?

Some suggestions...

First thing, study the article and learn, not about eagles, but about how
one can twist quotes and facts around to back any bias held by a writer. For
the article doesn't lie directly, it lies mostly by selective use of facts,
by quoting out of context, etc. It's a very effective technique. It is also
the antithesis of ethical journalism.

Second, you Seattlites (I'm from Portland), especially those of you quoted,
might
want to put together a statement and get tweeterfolks to append their names
to it.
Circulate it to newsgroups like rec.animals.wildlife, rec.birds, mailing
lists like
birdchat, etc. Send it off to the WSJ, and also to all sorts of other
venues. Who
knows, one of your Seattle rags may pick up the story. Possibly you might
simply
ask if you can write a guest op-ed piece for one of the dailies. If the
WSJ has
e-mail, I'm sure you can quite easily wrangle up a bombardment by pissed off
conservation, wildlife, and birdlovers via the net. Last spring, Box Elder
County
in Utah bladed two sides of the entrance road to Bear River NWR after flood
waters
receeded, after promising to only blade the center. They wiped out 60
stilt and
avocet nests being staked out by a photographer friend who lives in Brigham
City.
He put word out on photo.net, the photography forum at MIT I help moderate,
and
within days the County Commission was bombarded with e-mail from nature
photographers
from around the world. They met with USF&W in a mea culpa/we won't repeat our
offense again, specifically mentioning their surprise at the blitz of
e-mail they'd
gotten.

So - who knows? Circulate complaints along with a relevant WSJ e-mail
address and
get a couple thousand folks to respond, and WSJ may get the hint.

>I'll spare you the trouble, Don; "Welcome to the real world Martin."


One of my basic spins on politics is that well-meaning folks like us tend
to fight
fair, tell the truth, respect the opinions of others, etc - which means
we're seriously
impaired. I don't intent to every stop holding those values, but there's
still a lot
of room within those rules to be a hard-bitten fighter. Sort of like the
NFL - hit
clean and within the rules, but make their head ring while doing so.

Yes, but living in the real world doesn't mean necessarily letting right-wing
bullies kick sand in your face. It's perfectly fair to kneecap them when they
do, after all self-defense is a legal basis for doing so!



- Don Baccus, Portland OR <dhogaza at pacifier.com>
Nature photos, on-line guides, and other goodies at
http://donb.photo.net