Hunt Talk Radio - Look for it on your favorite Podcast platform

Matt Rinella knocking it outta the park

Ben Lamb said:
It was a good plenary. I think @Nameless Range's estimation of Matt is spot on.

Randy and Matt had a tense exchange at the end about gatekeeping hunting but more importantly the rec land managers for the BLM, usfs were interesting and Beth Shumate from FWP did an amazing job talking about fwp is working on the issue with their properties.

The person who was far & away the most impressive was Malou Anderson-Ramirez from the Tom Miner Basin talking about grizzly coexistence on a generational cow-calf operation. She said something that really resonated with me & several others I spoke too afterwards: "We found out that we had to learn how to speak the language of agencies, and they had to learn our language "

I think if folks like Matt R adopted that philosophy, he'd go farther.

Actually, if we all did that, it would be a much better world.
Click to expand...
Sounds like there was a problem with the videographer. For those of us who weren't there we won't get to hear the talk.
 
Last edited:
Hilljackoutlaw said:
How did the randy and Matt battle Royale go?
Click to expand...

Not much I can add to @Ben Lamb ’s summary. Not a video but here is a photo. I think there is more common ground among all these panelists than Matt realizes. He just comes across (IMO) negatively/accusatory and uses too many “I believe” statements while expecting others to then accept said beliefs as fact and adopt his ethos. Randy is certainly the senior and experienced/better speaker. Had Matt been a bit more factual, less inflammatory/accusatory and avoided the tangent about the OnX owner purchasing private land I think he would have done better for himself. I might be misquoting but the exchange Ben referred to ended with Matt responding to Randy speaking against anyone becoming a gatekeeper/barrier to entry (i.e. Matt Rinella) to those not brought up hunting by stating “I spit on that idea.” Certainly woke a few folks up and I appreciate honest dialogue.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_1467.jpeg
    IMG_1467.jpeg
    1.1 MB · Views: 64
Big Sky Guy said:
Not much I can add to @Ben Lamb ’s summary. Not a video but here is a photo. I think there is more common ground among all these panelists than Matt realizes. He just comes across (IMO) negatively/accusatory and uses too many “I believe” statements while expecting others to then accept said beliefs as fact and adopt his ethos. Randy is certainly the senior and experienced/better speaker. Had Matt been a bit more factual, less inflammatory/accusatory and avoided the tangent about the OnX owner purchasing private land I think he would have done better for himself. I might be misquoting but the exchange Ben referred to ended with Matt responding to Randy speaking against anyone becoming a gatekeeper/barrier to entry (i.e. Matt Rinella) to those not brought up hunting by stating “I spit on that idea.” Certainly woke a few folks up and I appreciate honest dialogue.
Click to expand...

I agree with @Big Sky Guy. There is a lot of common ground and I think most of the panelists had some interesting thoughts on that. Common ground frightens some people.

I thought I'd laid out some places for Matt to take the ball and run when I talked about every piece of media having the possibility to create negative consequences for at least some people; that the goal is to try make the positives outweigh the negatives in the bigger picture.

Since the HQ mission is to get people to drop social media and quit following "influencers" (still not sure what that term means), I thought my comments about algorithms would give him a place to hit a home run with the HQ efforts to get people to stop watching, commenting, liking, linking on other platforms, or sharing.

Here is the algorithm part of my presentation, verbatim.
Within outdoor media, the barriers to entry have dropped to nothing more than an iPhone and a YouTube or Instagram channel. Pretty cheap compared to my first season on TV that required over a half million dollars to produce and get aired on a cable network.

With these low costs of entry and easily accessed distribution platforms, the volume of media around every part of life has exploded; with outdoor media being no exception. And with low barriers of entry, there is little throttle or constraint to what is produced and published. The audience, via algorithms, determines what will be popular and what will not, whether good or bad.

With only audience-driven sideboards and low barriers to entry, what’s to keep any media platform within the respectful and helpful boundaries we are discussing today?

Not much, other than their own motivations. Mostly they operate within the boundaries incentivized by algorithms. You, the audience, are the algorithm. You, the audience, drives the content. It’s that simple.

Content that destroys what we love only exists because it has an audience. Content that respects and benefits what we love only exists if it has an audience. You, the audience, are the algorithm.
Click to expand...

That is a lot of common ground with the HQ message. This is one of the places where I think HQ is on to something good. If there is bad content, quit consuming that content. It will go away for anyone dependent upon content as their livelihood. It's that simple.

If the audience votes that our YouTube content is bad, the algorithm will tell us so and nobody will advertise in it. If nobody consumes our content, it will only be produced to the level I can/will continue funding the WHY of our business. Oh well, so be it, the audience will have spoken via the algorithm.

Any engagement with content on YT, IG, or FB, whether commenting positively or negatively, scores points with the algorithm. That's why I often scratch my head when folks post links to IG or videos they don't like. Just linking somewhere helps with the algorithm. Watching the video or photo scores more points. Commenting in any way, scores more points.

If HQ and their followers want bad content to go away, they should continue their push to get hunters to stop engaging with it. That is one of the things I think many find common alignment with. Most consumers won't stop; the temptation is too much
 
Halfway thru: Cammie Cam Juice is trotting out the same tired old conspiracy theory that hunting rights are being chipped away at thru government efforts to create more complaint citizens because "hunters are capable, confident, ya know. They have a skillset. You can't control people like that."

CCJ is the only proof I need that self-promotion will always get a person further in life than competency. We do not live in meritocracy.

Yes, I know I'm petty. I know I'm a hater. I don't care.
 
NR_Hunter said:
same tired old conspiracy theory that hunting rights are being chipped away at to create a more complaint citizens because "hunters are capable, confident, ya know. They have a skillset. You can't control people like that."
Click to expand...
This is the first time I've heard of this conspiracy theory, and it is truly ridiculous. Thanks for suffering through that podcast so the rest of us don't have to.

To @Big Fin's point earlier, it's probably best we just stop giving our attention to this kind of content, and try to promote the stuff that moves the conversation forward and helps our cause. Controversy and counterpoint in and of itself isn't always bad and can help move things along. But conspiracy is crossing a line.
 
Woooowwwwww Steve just dropped Randy's "wolves shit rainbows" line and gave ZERO credit. BUT he did mention Randy as having eaten a wolf.
 
NR_Hunter said:
Halfway thru: Cammie Cam Juice is trotting out the same tired old conspiracy theory that hunting rights are being chipped away at thru government efforts to create more complaint citizens because "hunters are capable, confident, ya know. They have a skillset. You can't control people like that."
Click to expand...

i wouldn't trust half the hunters out there to re find their rifle leaning on a nearby tree after taking a dump.

some skillset :rolleyes:
 
Elky Welky said:
This is the first time I've heard of this conspiracy theory, and it is truly ridiculous. Thanks for suffering through that podcast so the rest of us don't have to.

To @Big Fin's point earlier, it's probably best we just stop giving our attention to this kind of content, and try to promote the stuff that moves the conversation forward and helps our cause. Controversy and counterpoint in and of itself isn't always bad and can help move things along. But conspiracy is crossing a line.
Click to expand...

I think we have a little HT bias going here though on this point.

Certainly there are members here that revel in the trainwreck of that content that should give it up so the algorithm doesn't promote it, but the biggest consumers of crap hunting content aren't your typical HT member.

I've never seen a minute of most of these bums on youtube, but the masses eat their content up. It's like reality TV. Anyone who steps back and takes an objective look at it should see that it's all fake B.S. but people looooove it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Irrelevant
Eastern hunters are overly defensive over spatial distribution!
3 4 5
Replies
88
Views
6K
Dave N
Dave N
M
Big Montana bull
2 3
Replies
40
Views
5K
The Hedgehog
The Hedgehog
Irrelevant
Bitterroot bass
2 3 4
Replies
63
Views
4K
sclancy27
sclancy27
BenP
Game changer
Replies
7
Views
840
ShootsManyBullets
ShootsManyBullets
Doublecluck
Bear spray, handgun, or kick em in the ribs
Replies
3
Views
544
Hammsolo
Hammsolo

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
111,283
Messages
1,953,453
Members
35,109
Latest member
Jjoner

Share this page

Back
Top