When Journalism Stops Seeking Truth

When Journalism Stops Seeking Truth: A Response to the Mountain Daily Star

When Journalism Stops Seeking Truth: A Response to the Mountain Daily Star

Yesterday, The Mountain Daily Star published a story about our petition to ban the use of hounds in the recreational hunting of bears and mountain lions in Arizona. While we welcomed the opportunity to engage with the press, what resulted was not journalism — it was a one-sided defense of the very system we are trying to reform.

The article uncritically parrots an absurd claim from the Arizona Game and Fish Department (AZDGF): that “allegations by the petitioners that hunting with dogs disrupts ecosystem balance, represents a public safety hazard, is a risk to nontarget and protected wildlife, and violates Arizona’s laws and regulations are unfounded and not supported by information in the petition or anywhere we could find in the scientific literature.”

This is patently false — and logically incoherent. Our petition included dozens of references, including studies on carnivore behavior, landscape fragmentation, wildlife harassment, and legal frameworks under the Endangered Species Act. More importantly, the department’s logic is circular: by implying that hounding can’t be risky unless already proven in the peer-reviewed literature, they set up a false standard that conveniently excludes any evidence they choose not to acknowledge.

And let’s be clear: with only a handful of jaguars and ocelots returning to Arizona, the very idea of demanding peer-reviewed research specifically documenting the impact of hound packs on these rare species is laughable. By the time there is a large enough sample size to satisfy their arbitrary bar, it will likely be too late. In conservation science, precaution is not optional—it’s fundamental to ethical decision-making.

Our petition’s references, from peer-reviewed articles to government records, clearly document the ecological, ethical, and legal concerns associated with hounding. Notably, AZDGF presented no peer-reviewed science of its own in defense of the practice, a point that went unchallenged by the reporter. 

That a state agency charged with wildlife protection and a news outlet supposedly committed to public service could overlook this basic truth is both irresponsible and telling.

Most frustratingly of all, the Mountain Daily Star, AZDGF, and the Commission have all ignored the central legal argument of our petition: that recreational hounding violates Arizona’s own fair chase standard. And what’s telling is that the Commission has used that argument to ban unsporting practices in the past. 

Arizona law defines fair chase as “the ethical, sportsmanlike and lawful pursuit and taking of free-range wildlife in a manner that does not give a hunter or an angler improper or unfair advantage over such wildlife.” That webpage goes on to define what that improper advantage looks like. Unleashing packs of GPS-collared dogs to run down a terrified animal for hours—often while the hunter is miles away—is the definition of improper advantage.

Rather than engage with this argument, the department and Commission dismissed it without explanation, and the reporter failed to mention it at all. That’s not just lazy journalism or bureaucratic evasion—it’s a deliberate refusal to grapple with a serious legal and ethical question at the heart of this debate.

Maybe more telling is that, despite multiple phone interviews and email exchanges, both Dr. Michelle Lute of Wildlife for All and Russ McSpadden of the Center for Biological Diversity were selectively quoted. This came as no surprise given the series of increasingly combative emails from the author to Dr. Lute where it became clear the intent of this piece was not to contact our organizations for information but instead to discredit our viewpoint. The story shows this bias clearly in the components and structure: simply review the amount of space given to the houndsmen, Arizona Game and Fish Department’s, and Commission’s arguments to discredit our petition—without scrutiny for their positions, we might add.

The lack of journalistic rigor may not be surprising given the background of the author. According to publicly available information, the reporter (who is also the paper’s editor-in-chief) has no formal training or professional experience or training in journalism, wildlife policy, or investigative reporting. While credentials aren’t everything, the resulting article fails to meet basic journalistic standards such as presenting multiple perspectives with as little bias as possible, independently verifying claims on both sides of an issue, and perhaps most especially, to serve as a watchdog against harm by critically interrogating the statements of those in power.

The story’s final paragraph erases any remaining boundary between reporting and blatant pro-hounding promotion. The writer recounts her personal day in the field with a houndsman where they treed one bobcat, positioning herself as a character witness for the very practice under public challenge. She uncritically describes the hounds as “practical tools” and includes a link to Lionheart—a promotional film produced by the pro-trophy hunting group Blood Origins—as a resource for readers. This is not a neutral offering of information: it’s propaganda posing as news. And this news outlet isn’t an unbiased community service, it’s a partisan blog positioning a singular worldview. 

This story also illustrates a broader media trend identified in a recent Media Matters report: right-wing narratives are increasingly dominating online platforms, including in spaces traditionally viewed as neutral or apolitical. This piece is a textbook example—it launders ideological talking points from state officials and hunting interests under the guise of local reporting. By masquerading advocacy as journalism and omitting key voices and facts, the Mountain Daily Star’s story helps normalize and amplify a narrow worldview that undermines both democratic process and ecological truth.

This kind of slanted reporting isn’t unique to Arizona. A 2020 study on media coverage of wolf reintroduction in Colorado found that news outlets often gave outsized attention to a vocal minority opposed to wolves—especially those worried about impacts on livestock and hunting—while downplaying the broader public support for reintroduction. In other words, media outlets regularly amplify anti-wildlife talking points, even when they don’t reflect the views of most people. Sound familiar?

In the end, this article is less journalism than it is an endorsement of the status quo — one written with a clear ideological bent and a flimsy understanding of the actual issues at stake. It regurgitates agency spin, fails to engage with the core legal argument about Arizona’s own fair chase statute, and completely erases Indigenous and non-hunting perspectives.

Real journalistic research isn’t spending one pleasant day with a handful of calm hounds who treed a single animal before heading home. That’s actually the perfect embodiment of the right-wing mantra ”do your own research”—as long as that research is anecdotal, comfortable, and confirms the narrative you were always going to write.

This story is a case study in how the media can fail the public and in turn, seed bad-faith public discourse. By echoing agency talking points and dismissing dissenting voices, it reinforces a system that sidelines ecological integrity, democratic input, and ethical hunting standards. 

Wildlife deserve better. The public deserves better. And Arizona deserves a media outlets willing to ask hard questions — not just fronts for right-wing talking points who pose as journalistic entities.

The good news is that no amount of biased coverage will stop the movement that’s building to reform wildlife governance in Arizona and across the country.

We’ll keep fighting for policies rooted in science, ethics, and democracy. And we’ll continue to welcome fair-minded journalists who are willing to ask tough questions of those in power and who want to challenge the status quo, not just those defending it.

Read the full article. 

Monday, April 21, 2025 Update: In a stunning twist that further undermines the credibility of the Mountain Daily Star’s coverage, the houndsman featured prominently in the story — Chris Watson — resigned from his position with the Arizona Working Dog Alliance (AWDA) over the weekend. Even more troubling, he now lists himself on Facebook as working for MKO Investigations, the private investigation firm owned by none other than the reporter and editor of the piece, Molly K. Ottman. That’s not just a red flag — it’s a glaring conflict of interest. Readers deserve transparency, and this kind of insider relationship calls the entire piece’s objectivity into question.