NEW YORK, March 14, 2007
Gun Lobby Bags Famous Hunter
Bloggers Blast Outdoor Magazine For Firing Jim Zumbo After He Said Assault Rifles Have No Place In Hunting
-
Outdoors writer and TV personality Jim Zumbo, posing with a bear he shot in Canada in 2004, lost his job at Outdoor Life magazine after he questioned in a blog whether anyone should even own an AR-15 or other military-style rifle. (CHILANKO FORKS OUTFITTERS)
-
News Tools Blog: Public Eye Inside the news. Inside CBS. An unprecedented look inside the workings of CBS News. Check it out. Tell us what you think.
-
Blog Technology Blog Blog postings on the latest technology news, tips and tidbits.
Gun Lobby Zaps Jim Zumbo
A self-described forester and wildlife biologist for 15 years, Jim Zumbo has written over 1,500 articles for all major outdoor magazines. He lives in a log cabin near Yellowstone National Park, and stars in cable TV shows about big-game hunting.
But it was his comment on Outdoor Life magazine's blog Feb. 16 that has caused his name to skyrocket across the blogosphere.
It all began when Zumbo wrote a blog post after a day of coyote hunting with officials from Remington, the arms manufacturer. He wrote that guides on the hunt told him hunters increasingly were using assault-style rifles in the field.
According to the Washington Post, Zumbo wrote: "Sorry, folks, but in my humble opinion these things have no place in hunting. We don't need to be lumped into the group of people who terrorize the world with them. I'll go so far as to call them 'terrorist' rifles.'"
The result? Despite apologizing and even saying he would use the assault-style rifle on his own hunt, according to the Washington Post, Zumbo was promptly fired as gun editor by Outdoor Life, for whom he'd written since 1962. His television show on the Outdoor channel was also canceled and long-term ties to a number of industry sponsors were severed. The NRA also suspended professional ties with him, despite his 40-year membership.
Was this justified? Many bloggers are outraged at the vitriolic reaction greeting Zumbo.
KTK at Lean Left called it a "shock-and-awe campaign against one of the best-known pro-gun figures." "Literally within hours and with no discussion, a collective decision was made to completely destroy one of their own most admired figures for a far-from-radical statement that other leaders acknowledge was not unusual or out of the mainstream, and that he himself immediately repudiated," KTK blogs.
Steve of the Black Bear Blog even ran his own survey, and 50 percent of responders said "no way" should he be fired. "With the speed of the Internet, Zumbo's 40-some-year career was shredded and discarded with a scary ring of intolerance," Rich Landers blogs at SpokesmanReview.com.
And Steven, an NRA member, says "As much as I support the right to own a gun, I support the right to free speech...While I may disagree with his statement, I fully believe that he has every right to make it. He should not have to fear for his career because he expresses his opinion."
Some bloggers fault Outdoor Life for caving into the NRA and its sponsors. "Not a First Amendment issue? You bet it was. Instead of standing behind Zumbo, no matter what he said on his blog posting, the magazine fell to its knees in the face of the pressure," Allan Gregory writes at Conservation News.
I suspect this controversy won't be over anytime soon.
Blogger V. Journalist
Who is the longest jailed journalist in this country? Someone you probably never heard of. Josh Wolf, a 24-year-old blogger, has spent more than six months behind bars in California for refusing to turn over a videotape he shot of a violent anarchist demonstration in San Francisco at a Group of Eight summit.
Wolf said he had an agreement with the people in the organization he was covering, but as the Washington Post reports, there are no confidential sources involved, and Wolf already sold part of the tape to local television stations.
Wolf also posted some of the clip on his blog, which has some questioning whether a blogger deserves the same protections as a mainstream journalist.
Will Bunch takes issue with a column by Debra Saunders in the San Francisco Chronicle, in which she asserts that Wolf is not a journalist. “Josh Wolf may hold some extreme views, but given the choices, I'd rather see a lot more journalists willing to speak truth to power (and willing to go to jail to protect that right) than journalists who not only are cowed by those in power, but bend over backwards to defend them,” Bunch writes at Attytood.
But some say the whole debate about whether Wolf is a journalist is pointless. “Mark my words: if journalists really want to pick this historical moment to start existential wars amongst themselves, the profession is finished,” Kirkunit blogs.
Howard Owens agrees the debate is an artificial one. "There's no reason this guy should be in jail. There shouldn’t even be a debate over whether he’s a journalist," Ownes blogs. "When the Josh Wolfs of the world can be jailed for exercising his or her constitutional rights, we’re all in trouble, especially those of us who, as paid professionals, believe in the public right to know."
Perhaps it's also a cautionary tale for bloggers. “In the land of the free, blogging can be a hazardous business,” Antony Loewenstein blogs. Indeed.
Justice For Lawyers?
A site called AutoAdmit has come under fire for bad-mouthing some female law students. One woman claims the extreme free-speech policy of the message boards is harming her job prospects and those of her colleagues. Some well-qualified women aren't getting top job offers, they say, because of what would-be employers might read about them online.
AutoAdmit is run by a third-year law student at the University of Pennsylvania and an insurance agent. Some of the messages include claims about women’s sexual activity and diseases, as well as a host of racist remarks. Buried amid a message board full of questions about law school admittance are questions about dating and the "hottest" female law student, just to name a few topics, and many are laced with racist comments.
Should these sites be regulated, some bloggers are asking. The issue has generated much debate in the blogosphere.
"It's true that the First Amendment allows negative and offensive speech to be heard, but it is generally limited in how it can hurt and interfere with other people's rights," Cindy Liou blogs at Cairns .
Still, some say blaming the Internet is misguided. "Too hot to be hired? Come on! What rational employer would deny you a job because idiots chatted about you on line in a way that made if obvious that the only thing you did was look good?," Ann Althouse blogs.
Ilya Somin agrees. "Even if law firm hiring committees did believe the comments, it seems unlikely that very many of them would reject the student's application for that reason," Ilya blogs at The Volokh Conspiracy. "Most big law firms care very little about associates' personal lives outside the office, so long as those associates are racking up the billable hours."
So, what recourse do would-be employees have? "It seems that a job candidate's only recourse is to 'self-Google' and discover negative comments and bring them to an employer's attention on an interview," Carolyn Elefant recommends at Law.com.
"If a firm accepts anonymous gossip as truth over a first-hand disavowal and rejects a candidate, then quite frankly, that firm isn't a place worth working."
But as Anna Ivey at The Ivey Files reminds us, "It's easy to hide behind free speech, but just because something is legal doesn't make it right."
Blogophile RSS Feed
By Melissa McNamara© MMVII, CBS Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Michelle Obama tells how her role as the First Lady has changed her perspective.
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
... - 7
- next
See all 123 CommentsDuring the Clinton administration, my son's friend in the Marine Corps told me that his unit had been polled as to whether they would be willing to force themselves into US civilian homes and remove ALL privately owned firearms. He did not know what the outcome of the poll was other than his own friends (who ALL responded in the negetive).
THIS IS what the 2nd Ammendment is all about.
When I was in high school we were taught that the second ammendment was specifically intended to protect us from our own government SHOULD IT BECOME CORRUPTED (ie. we are no longer in control). Apparently they stopped teaching this when they stopped teaching our children about the constitution (my children never learned about it when they were in school). That's why there is a DCM (Director of Civilian Marksmanship) and surplus US military rifles sold by the government direct to civilians who participate in DCM rifle matches, and the Department of the Army awards certification of Marksmanship to those same participants annually.
"Gun Lobby Bags Famous Hunter
Bloggers Blast Outdoor Magazine For Firing Jim Zumbo After He Said Assault Rifles Have No Place In Hunting"
Comment:
"Gun Lobby" is taken to mean NRA, but it would appear from the blogs that this headline is false.
"Assault Rifles" in subtitle also does not fit with "Assault-STYLE" in body of article. The former are military arms illegal to privately own and the latter are highly inaccurate semi-autos that have the look and feel of what our enemies used against us. Most serious hunters would never consider using them for game as they would prefer to kill the animal quickly with one shot, and many hunters consider their use cruel, hence the comments that caused the conflict.
1. You are an idiot.
-- what does this have to do with the discussion?
2. You hung yourself:
So people should fear criminals in order to be free? Without a means of defense you have to fear crooks and the gov't, one in the same.
-- did you even bother to read my post? so, you are saying that WE the people who are the government are criminals and we should fear ourselves? If we were doing our jobs as citizens, we would not need to "defend" ourselves
3. Sometimes voting doesnt work. Ask any black who could (COULD NOT!) vote thanks to Jim Crow laws.
-- again, WE the people, who are the government (you know, that radical idea of America? SELF-government) are allowing these voting problems.
4. Vote from the roof tops.
-- are you advocating snipers? this is terrorism - is this what you advocate. talk about living in fear.
5. Dont worry ladies, real men will secure your freedom while you sit at home reading Ayn Rand (spellchk).
-- this is blatantly chauvanistic. are you saying women cannot secure their own freedom? also, do you know how to read? (I mean, besides green eggs and ham)
Why don't we just abolish the government and we can all sit on our rooftops with sniper rifles and drink pabst blue ribbon and make catcalls to the "ladies" that walk by...
besides your personal attacks, what have you said? really, what have you said? hmmm...
let's see, I'm a pissant, I have a medical condtion, and you don't think I know anything about the constitution or waco...
so what? what have you brought to the discussion? or do you have anything to bring to the discussion?
if not, go away.
HAHAHAHA...you are a complete and total moron, aren't you???
Oh, c'mon, you can tell us, we won't tell anyone...
Oh, that's right, you have a medical condition. You suffer from the IDtenT virus.
As usual here is another spouting something they have no sense about. Our system was set up with checks and balances, however when one party or another controls all 3 branches, where is the checks and balances. The second admendment is for protection, either self, family, home, and/or govt, or to protect ourselves from govt.
The hospital called, your brain is still delayed and on back order.
Get back in the closet. When you have something intelligent to say, just knock and someone may let you back out.
Thank You, finally, someone who can see the truth behind all the facade
Why not hunt with Bows and arrow? How about a spear. That's more sporting. Hey, run the herd into a ravine and throw rocks down on them.
It was not military weapons, but assault weapons. I am sure the libs remember when their golden boy bubba, and his demo congress, got the assault weapons ban enacted. Two "weapons" on the list were identical in caliber, fire rate, FPS...etc, the only difference was in appearance. One was allowed, one was not.
I feel if you are a hunter, which I am not, you should use the "tool" that is right for the job at hand. As a roofer would not try to nail shingles with a sledgehammer, nor a carpenter use a chainsaw to cut boards.
The main issue here is the use of the 1st admendment. Yes, it is his right to say what he wants about that, but consumers(who buy the products from the sponsers) have the right to protest what is said through these people who hold the contracts.
If you were owner of a car company, and then someone who is closely identified with your company said don't drive the "Car Model"; how long would they stay on your payroll?
sigh... how do you change or abolish it? by overthrowing the "government" which is US by violence - guns ablazing? or do you let your representative form of governing do its job? and by using the 1st amendment.
by the way, you didn't say enough and you didn't address the fundamental argument here.
are you a confederate that's still pissed the confederacy lost the civil war? and so ready to pick up a gun ala waco, tx? or are you an American who is part of "the government"?
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
-- The Declaration of Independence.
ENOUGH SAID.
lose sight of its duty to the people and its responsibility to uphold
the Constitution.
- Where the hell did you get this idea? Our founding fathers
wouldn't have "founded" our nation if they expected it to be
threatened by its own people by violence. Why "found" something if
you expect for it to be destroyed by violence? Why not just start
right off ruling with guns? There is no where in our constitution or
anywhere else I looked that supports this.
7. You are talking out of your arse.
- it seems you don't seem to know anatomy
1. tulcak you are a moron.
- whether I am a moron or not has nothing to do with the points being made in this public discussion.
2. The Gov't protects our rights? Who protects us from the Gov't?
- Yes, the government protects our rights because WE are the government and WE are responsible for doing that. Not some nebulus
THEY out there that "controls" our government.
3. The 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting.
- And it has nothing to do with protecting our freedoms our defending our constitution. It talks about a standing army of
volunteers, not about a rebellious uprising against the government.
4. When people fear the Gov't you have tyranny, when the Gov't fears the people you have freedom. Thats the reason for the 2nd Amendment.
-The reason for the second amendment is to describe a volunteer army. WE are the government, so to fear ourselves is ludicrous.
5. You attack Republican, so tell me this. If GW decides he is going to stay in power and your vote means nothing what do you do? (not that
ignoring votes happens)
- I know its impossible for republicans to imagine any solution other than picking up a gun and blasting away. Ever hear of the civil rights movement? The first amendment is what we use to defend our rights. "peacably assemble" as in peaceful protest. This is something else republicans don't like, but it is fundamental to who we are as a nation and to our survival - not guns.
also, a nation or a people who live in fear are not free. So, you are telling me that if the people fear themselves, then they are free?
I think its you that are talking out of your arse.
What you and the republicans have forgotten is that WE are the government. There is no THEY. WE are the government. And if you and I are not the government, blasting away with guns is not going to help us recover our freedom and our constitution.
The Gov't protects our rights? Who protects us from the Gov't?
The 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting.
When people fear the Gov't you have tyranny, when the Gov't fears the people you have freedom. Thats the reason for the 2nd Amendment.
You attack Republican, so tell me this. If GW decides he is going to stay in power and your vote means nothing what do you do? (not that ignoring votes happens)
Our founding fathers intended for us to to rebel should our gov't lose sight of its duty to the people and its responsibility to uphold the Constitution.
You are talking out of your arse.
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 4
... - 7
- next
See all 123 Comments