This is problematic journalism. The investigator shows a clear bias against BLM in the tone of the reporting. But more importantly, the history is skewed in one way, and independent, objective scientific analysis isn't provided. This is a story in support of BLM protesters, starring those self-same protesters.

I found this article to be quite poor. I felt as though it was just written to bash the BLM and it was based solely on the author's opinion and not on facts. The article was extremely biased against the BLM and only gives the reader one side of the story. Although the videos were quite interesting the article was lacking alot of detail and research. It seemed to me that is was just some sort of propaganda against the BLM, not much of an article.

No, the video is quite biased and one-sided. Furthermore i attempts to play off of one's emotions rather than simply explain the situation. It is in no way quality journalism.

This is very decent journalism, with primary sources of video and interviews from both sides, that being the BLM and the wild horse advocates. The video is really saddening to watch, especially the treatment of the wild horses as they are rounded up, "..deaths of wild horses in the process is inevitable...". When the one former worker for the BLM states why he quit, that being that they would provide only arbitrary reasons for the removal of the horses, so he found it corrupt and "skewed", it seems that the BLM really does have a lot of explaining to do. Obviously the best reason they could come up with is "protecting the quality of the horses' lives" is a great reason to provide the public with. It also seems the BLM thinks the ... More »

This piece was very emotionally charged and biased toward mustang advocates. While the point was to mainly show how BLM skews their numbers and creates myths about the health of the land, there is nothing but opinion coming from the advocates of mustangs. Only a brief segment brought his scientific and historic evidence that supports the mustang. However, while much of the argument is opinion, the strongest evidence for the side this piece takes is that a law was created in the early 70's and is now being completely ignored. It makes one question how this could possibly be occurring and who is really in charge?

The topic of the story caught my eye because I think wild horses are an interesting, under-covered phenom in the U.S. I didn't know where one could find wild horses. I wish there was a citation for the 50 percent figure in the first sentence. Also, I don't know who Craig Downer is. And I didn't know what BLM was until I googled the name. I know I'm an out-of-state reader, but anyone in the world can read internet stories. Let's provide the proper background as one of my j-school profs says.

I didn't like this article because I thought there was not enough research done for my tastes. Even though I wasn't really interested in the topic, I felt like the article was much too short for an extensive look at the gathering of wild horses. The videos provided more insight, but I feel that the actual written story was not sufficient.

I thought it was one sided and didn't have enough facts. For instance the writer often said things like the numbers have grown over the past years, but then didn't give the numbers or statics that seemed reliable. I did think it was a passionate article and that it drew attention and equally passionate responses.

I like the way they formed their argument, It makes you sympathize and feel bad for the horses. One thing I would like to have seen though is an argument from a different stand point. They state that many people don't like the mustangs roaming free and I would have liked it if they interviewed or questioned one of those people.

The article seems slanted against the BLM. It doesn't have a fair, indifferent viewpoint.