Letter in Dec. 22's SI

I might have to go back and read it again, but that's not the premise I took away from it.

 

As someone who has had two run-ins with deer in his car, I'd advocate year-round hunting of deer anywhere, anyplace.

But back to the story: Ya gotta verify a fiery quote like that with at least one or two other sources. If those people come back with "aw, that's a buncha bullshit" then I'd think twice about the veracity of that quote.

I think we need to know more about what happened behind the scenes here. If SI shit-canned its fact checkers, then you have to believe something like this would eventually happen. If the reporter simply made something up, I smell a family lawsuit.

What's up, SI?

 

It happens. I recall SI had some major problems with an AI story about the infamous bowling alley confrontation.

 

And Mike Price and the strippers.

 

Here's the headline and drop deck that accompanies the online version of the story, which was linked earlier in the thread:

A More Dangerous Game Bears On The Golf Course, Deer On The Windshield, Wolves On The Walk Back Home

How the decline of hunting is changing the natural order of predator and prey

Kind of just pulls you right into the story, don't it?

 

Teague is a good writer. I don't think this instance changes that. I'm very puzzled why there was no comment from the editor. I would like to know if anything is verified.

Living in the rural midwest, where I can hear coyotes howl from my back porch every night, I found the story very relevant and timely.

 

that's not what it said. it said legal hunting is going down and there is a domino effect because of it. it's a basic and easy to understand premise and it's correct.

 

I like Teague's work a lot. Always have. Very talented writer. Was talking about this piece with a friend when it ran and, sadly, we both agreed it would have been better had it run in The New Yorker. Couldn't really put our finger on all the reasons why, but we both felt that way.

Obviously the mom is the only one who knows what's true and what isn't, but I'm a little hesitant to take her word as gospel too. Clearly he should have verified the quotes with her. But I'm not going to assume she's exactly telling the truth here either.

This is the quote in question:

"Oh, yeah, it's a really neat place," he told her about Points North Landing. "There's not a lot to do up here, but some of our guys saw some wolves."

Did he not really mention wolves? Does his mother choose not to remember it that way? Did he say "I love you" and she's upset that wasn't included?

Who knows.

steveu, since Kenton Carnegie is dead, and he's the one quoted, what grounds will a lawsuit be filed under?

 

About what?

Running the letter without any editor's note or further explanation constitutes throwing a writer under the bus in my book.

 

yet getting ripped apart by a pack of wild animals ... probably a bigger deal, what with the whole death thing and all. but maybe that's just me.

 

not a good one.

 

You're exactly right.

I suspect hankschu's interpretation reflects his own views on hunting more than anything else.