The Huffington Post, HSUS and dissent

One of the things I do when I'm not blogging is cruise the net looking for stories and blogs about hunting, and when writers or commenters misrepresent hunting, I'll often jump in and post comments to make the case for what we do.

Typically, I'll pass on commenting on Humane Society of the U.S. blogs because I see little point - their loyal readers have already made up their minds about hunting.

But when HSUS Executive Vice President Michael Markarian posted a blog last week on the Huffington Post, I saw it as fair game, because the Post has a mass-market audience. I dove in and commented. And I was very surprised what happened next. Read more...
Let me back up for a minute, though - this takes a little explaining.

It all started on May 29 when HSUS CEO Wayne Pacelle blogged in response to the Center for Consumer Freedom's crusade against the HSUS (long story short, CCF blasts HSUS for conducting fundraising that emphasizes its work on pet rescue and animal shelters when relatively little of HSUS's enormous war chest goes to pet rescue and animal shelters).

I was familiar with that whole story already, and I don't care a great deal about it because my goal is not to discredit the HSUS in its entirety, but to counteract its propaganda about hunting.

What struck me about Pacelle's blog, though, was that he talked about how HSUS's opponents attack caricatures of the orgnization - they "try to set up a straw man caricature of The HSUS and then knock it down."

That cracked me up because I'd just done comment battle with a vegetarian whose blog in the San Diego Reader did the exact same thing to hunters: set up a vile caricature and knock it down.

I laughed at the coincidence, and moved on.

But then, less than a week after Pacelle bemoaned the straw man attacks, Markarian posted a blog flogging one of HSUS's very favorite straw men: Internet hunting.

Let me explain: "Internet hunting" is a practice in which someone sets up a remote-controlled gun and a webcam and allows computer users, for a price, to kill an animal with this set-up. The carcass is then processed and shipped to the "hunter."

The problem is, Internet hunting isn't happening. Some moron in Texas set up such an operation in Texas in 2004, and his friend tried it out once, and there was a huge uproar, and he never, to anyone's knowledge, sold any more Internet "hunts." Seriously, I've researched this, and haven't found a single reference to any subsequent Internet "hunts."

(For the record, the guy from Texas said he saw Internet hunting as an opportunity to help disabled and elderly hunters, which - if sincere - is a noble goal. But I've seen plenty of folks use technology to assist disabled hunters in the field, where they can see the entire landscape and connect with the game, not to mention prove that they have hunting licenses.)

But the HSUS saw an excellent opportunity here to wage war, pushing for Internet hunting bans state-by-state, and now in Congress.

Why would HSUS waste money and energy trying to ban something that's not happening? Here's where my background as a politics reporter kicks in. This is what we call a "press bill" - a bill designed solely or primarily to get media coverage. And this bill always gets a lot of coverage - typically by harried reporters who don't have time or don't make time to do a little research, so they pick up HSUS's suggestion that Internet hunting is a clear and present danger to American morality.

Most hunters are horrified by the thought of Internet hunting. But more importantly, non-hunters absorb this as yet another negative image of what hunting has come to. Find a non-hunter who has a negative impression of what we do, and there's a very good chance he (or more often, she) will cite this.

Voila - mission accomplished!

This brings me back to last Friday, when I found a Markarian's piece in the Huffington Post promoting HR2308, a bill in Congress to ban Internet hunting and ban the transport and keeping of "exotic" animals so they can be hunted.

"(A) federal response is critically needed," he wrote.

There was one comment on the blog, from a guy who said he grew up hunting in Alabama. "I must admit that I've never heard of this internet hunting travesty--but that doesn't keep me from being thoroughly disgusted by it now that I know," he wrote. "I always thought much less of hunters who baited feed plots and sat waiting in tree stands to slaughter deer, but this is a far more disturbing and truly sick enterprise, and should be banned altogether."

Look, they duped another one! I couldn't let this go unchallenged.

So I crafted a response, hit "Post a comment," noticed the fact that my comment was pending approval - the Huffington Post moderates comments - and went about my business for the day, which was to get ready for our hog hunt that weekend down at our friend Michael's place.

When I got back Sunday night, I thought I'd better check in to see if other commenters had been beating up on me all weekend. But when I went to that website, I found my comment had not been posted.

That's weird, I thought. I could've sworn I'd hit all the right buttons. So I recrafted my comment, posted it, and saved a snapshot of the screen.

Click to enlarge

I checked back Monday morning and again, there was no trace of my comment.

I checked the Huffington Post's comment policy. It stated that the site doesn't censor comments based on point of view, and it listed offenses that could get your comment deleted - none of which I had committed.

I emailed Huffington Post tech support:

I've tried posting a comment TWICE on a piece by Michael Markarian - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michael-markarian/putting-a-stop-to-pay-per_b_211156.html - once Friday morning and once last night, and it's not showing up.

My comment is critical of Markarian's piece, but not disrespectful or uncivil.

Please let me know what the problem is.

-Holly

And today - Wednesday - there's still no response, and my comment still isn't on the site.

Now, honestly, I have no idea what happened to my comment.

I do know hundreds of other comments were being approved on the Huffington Post in a timely manner during this period.

I do not know if guest bloggers such as Markarian have the ability to moderate their own comments. (I do know that when Boyfriend is a guest blogger on Simply Recipes, he does get to moderate the comments.)

I also know that in nearly two years of posting comments on general interest news websites, this is the only time my comment hasn't made it online. (There was one other time I left a comment that didn't post on a blog, but I expected it. The blog was Vegan Soapbox, and the blogger's "discussion policy" prohibits: "anti-animal and anti-human discussion, for example, no pro-meat, pro-dairy, pro-eggs, pro-hunting, racist, sexist, homophobic, ageist, abilist or otherwise hateful comments." For real.)

So, was I censored by the Huffington Post? Or is this merely a case of a highly unusual technical snafu?

Well, I suppose it could be a snafu. But it sure doesn't look that way to me.

Update: It's Wednesday night, and lo and behold, two comments have been approved on that Markarian blog. So what do I do? I go and try to comment again. I know. Crazy optimist.

I've got to pack for an early-morning flight, so I won't have time to monitor whether my comment gets approved. But just in case, I saved another screen shot...

Click to enlarge. And note the Orvis ad on the right.

© Holly A. Heyser 2009