Truthfulness In Gun Publications

[Speedo66]

The attached NY Times article deals with a gun magazine writer who was fired from "Guns & Ammo" because his editorial content re: 2nd Amend. caused a wave of reader and advertiser complaints. He lost a TV program in addition.

What is implicit in the article is the close relationship between the magazine and their major advertisers. All admit that this relation not only colors editorial content, but totally drives it.

A former editor of the magazine goes on to say that there will never be a bad review of an advertisers product. If the gun is found lacking, rather than expose that, it is quietly sent back to the company with suggestions for improvement.

The interviews expressly admit everything that we as consumers have long believed; that the magazines are no more than sales pitches for the advertisers, and that purchasers of the magazine are not getting a fair shake if they're looking for an accurate product review.

Here's the article, look beyond the obvious Times slant: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/05/b...r-questioning-the-gospel-of-guns.html?hp&_r=0

 

[Jason_W]

A former editor of the magazine goes on to say that there will never be a bad review of an advertisers product. If the gun is found lacking, rather than expose that, it is quietly sent back to the company with suggestions for improvement.

That approach is really the only way a gun publication, or really any publication that reviews products can stay in business. All publications live or die by ad revenues.

As long as the reviews that hit stands are truthful, I don't really care about the ones that never materialize because the product is a turd.

 

[itchy1]

The same is also true for autos, electronics, and a whole host of other consumer products. A special interest magazine's #1 purpose is to sell you something. The NYT itself is selling the anti gun notion that the firearms industry is a big, evil empire that cleanses itself of any individuals that do not zealously champion the 2A. Everyone has an agenda.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

It was probably about 2001 when I read a review in one of the gun mags I really found funny. A pistol being reviewed had a significant problem and had to be sent back. Instead of discussing the significance of the problem, the reviewer noted the excellent customer service and fast turn-around time. Mind you, this was a gun provided for testing. The service wasn't for a customer, but for the company to save face for sending a defective product for review.

 

[Cee Zee]

The NYT practically invented the sell out journalism model. They have manipulated their readers into everything from a war to a counter-culture that threatens to overthrow our way of life. The idea that they put down someone else for doing what every product centered magazine does is absurd to the extreme. The Times often reviews cars and the like. They don't print negative reviews of those. The same goes for movies, books and plays as long as they toe the liberal line. They generally just ignore anything that doesn't follow their playbook. For example several well known best selling books never appeared in the NYT list of best sellers because they were books by conservatives. The same will be true of anything that promotes gun rights.

The Times is a rag. I'd be ashamed to line a bird cage with it.

 

[Speedo66]

"The NYT itself is selling the anti gun notion that the firearms industry is a big, evil empire that cleanses itself of any individuals that do not zealously champion the 2A."

While not an evil empire, it's obvious this is just what they are doing.

Without espousing a political bent, I do find it abhorrent that an advertiser influences editorial content in any publication I purchase.


"As long as the reviews that hit stands are truthful, I don't really care about the ones that never materialize because the product is a turd."

That doesn't help the people who bought the first version, while hoping for an objective review.

I'm not trying to vilify gun magazines or the US gun industry, I guess I'm just disgusted with the state of journalism in general.

 

[W L Johnson]

Quite a few big review sites on the internet as well have never met a gun they didn't like. Sent them a hi-point and it suddenly becomes a small light ergonomically design handgun that is so perfect for conceal carry that it will disappear into a pair of skinny jeans and the match grade trigger and barrel ensure .01 groups by even first time shooters.

 

[M2 Carbine]

A number of years ago I stopped buying/reading Gun Digest, and the other gun rags. The final straw was Gun Digest doing a report on, I believe, a Colt. The article was full of problems with the gun but still at the end GD recommended you buy the gun.

 

[Speedo66]

I also love the reviews that upon release of a new version, criticize the old version that they first gave glowing reviews. "You should get rid of your first version and buy the next one."

Hmm, you never said there was anything wrong with the first version when you reviewed it, so how come now it's garbage?

 

[Averageman]

I recently read an article that reviewed a low budget 9mm. The pistol was plagued with problems and in the end the reviewer reccomended throwing the weapon at the target rather than trying to return or repair it.
I nearly fell out of my chair...an honest review???

 

[Speedo66]

I recently read an article that reviewed a low budget 9mm. The pistol was plagued with problems and in the end the reviewer reccomended throwing the weapon at the target rather than trying to return or repair it.
I nearly fell out of my chair...an honest review???

Simple, non advertiser.

 

[tomrkba]

In my mind, any publication that is selling "news" must have a higher standard.

Back on topic: Metcalf was removed because he does not support the right to keep and bear arms; he supports the privilege to keep and use arms according to the laws created by the government. He made it worse by repeatedly demonstrating that he did not understand what he said.

 

[benEzra]

"The NYT itself is selling the anti gun notion that the firearms industry is a big, evil empire that cleanses itself of any individuals that do not zealously champion the 2A."

While not an evil empire, it's obvious this is just what they are doing.

Without espousing a political bent, I do find it abhorrent that an advertiser influences editorial content in any publication I purchase.

You have it precisely backwards. As with the Jim Zumbo brouhaha, this was driven by grassroots gun owners canceling their G&A subscriptions and telling the companies they purchase from not to do business with G&A, not the other way around.

Once the Brady Campaign and other gun control activists started waving the editorial around and shouting that Guns & Ammo was calling for more gun control---which is how the media interpreted it---the backlash by gun owners was inevitable.

https://www.facebook.com/bradycampaign/posts/10151741850869212

Outdoor Life found out the hard way that gun owners don't like being knifed in the back, and their readers (and many more nonreaders) responded to that betrayal by threatening to boycott Zumbo's sponsors. In the current political environment, the G&A editorial was similarly seen as selling us all out to the prohibitionists, and that's certainly the way gun control activists interpreted it.

Edited to add: I should clarify that I'm speaking only of the backlash against G&A for calling for more gun control. I agree that gun magazines tend to gloss over performance issues in reviews, and that is certainly out of concern for advertisers. But the backlash against Mr. Metcalf's editorial wasn't initiated by the advertisers.

 

[SIGLBER]

About all they are good for is to see new guns and get the guns measurements, capacity, and features. It seems like either no gun ever has problems. Or if they do it's a break-in issue, bad ammo, or somone wasn't doing something right. Hardly ever the gun.
And if it's a real turd they send it back to its maker and either it is fixed right away or a new one sent. And all problems are gone. Some are better. SWAT magazine comes to mind. I've seen them not endorse guns for carry because of problems. Ina recent addition of one magazine I did see a reference to the company that claims "Perfection" having ejection problems. Probably afraid of pay back if he called the company by name.
On one of the forums a gun writer got on and addressed this very subject. He said he would write an article about a gun and include the problems. But the final article was the result of his editor cherry picking what went in the article. Things like "a normal break in period" really piss me off.
I've been around guns for 40 years. Used to be you took your gun out of the box, clened and lubed it, and it shot. If it didn't their was something wrong with the gun. Plain and simple.
Todays guns often appear to not come out as finely worked over. Break in periods are baically you finish getting rid of the rough edges on the gun from not being finished properly. Or the gun company putting off having to deal with the gun. Telling you to shoot another 500 rounds and if you still have problems with the gun send it back is b.s.. 500 rounds is not a cheap thing in todays economy and may be 1/3rd to 1/2 the price of the gun! Or they may tell you you have to shoot a certain round for the gun to work. Usually a very expenive round for it to work. It's crap. But it'sthe age we live in. Gun magazines are like movies. Good entertainment but not the real world.

 

[Jason_W]

Out of curiosity, what alternative is there for gun publications? As I noted earlier, all publications live or die by ad revenues. If you run afoul your advertisers by trashing a product, your publication will go belly up. The closest thing to honest that gun publication can get and still stay afloat is a policy of saying something nice or not saying anything at all. Journalism is an ugly business all around.

 

[Carl N. Brown]

Zumbo and Metcalf fell to the wrath of the subscribers.

 

[Old Fuff]

Speaking from experience, it's true that an editor is unlikely to print an article that would likely upset a major (or potentially major) advertiser. In fact, offering some favorable editorial comment in an article may be part of a deal to get the advertisement in the first place.

One exception might be if the writer was so famous among the readers (and a key contributor to the publication’s success) that some leeway might be extended.

But with Internet sites like this one, it’s unlikely that a manufacturer can hide the warts on a new product for long, after it’s released for retail sale.

From a personal perspective, I usually don’t rush out and be first in line when something is introduced. After 6 months or so what’s what should be easy to find out, magazine articles not withstanding.

And do understand that the New York Times is guilty of doing exactly the same thing that they now attack firearms publications over. They have a center-left agenda and often “arrange” the news they pick-and-choose to support it.

 

[buck460XVR]

The latest Phil Robertson debacle is clear evidence that money talks and sometimes the media, being T.V. or the written word, has to compromise or kiss some butt in order to make money. Finding the balance between dishing an advertiser and not being completely honest to subscribers is probably a daily task for most editors of gun rags. This should not surprise any of us, the buddy system(grease my palm)goes on in every form of capitalism, everyday.

 

[JERRY]

there are many gun writers who seem to never come across a lemon; somehow.

 

[Crunchy Frog]

Anyone remember the magazines published by Phil Engeldrum in the '80s and thereabouts? As I recall they were trying to follow Consumer Reports' lead by not accepting T&E guns and did not sell ads to gun manufacturers.

They were not afraid to rate guns as "unacceptable", including some guns from major manufacturers.

 

[Welding Rod]

Pandering to the advertisers is not always necessary. Look at the best motorcycle magazines. For decades they have made their money by performing "shootouts" where all the manufacturers products are reviewed side by side and rated against each other, first through last place.

Even outside of the shootouts they still commonly point out fueling, handling, suspension, or ergonomic problems.

I bought just about all the gun mags for years, and I finally gave up. There just really was no point in reading them as you know what they are going to say before even reading the article.

If you want to find critical comments about a gun, go to the internet and read personal experiences.

If you want to find out about the latest model motorcycle, there are print mags that are still the place to find valuable information and critical comments. Few owners have the skill level and experiences and breadth of knowledge to provide meaningful input anyway.

I think they have been a model for what readers want and expect from a magazine.

 

[TRX]

Dean Spier's web page: http://www.thegunzone.com/

He used to write for one of the gun magazines, and gave it up after they started rewriting his articles to favor their advertisers.

 

[GBExpat]

The same is also true for autos, electronics, and a whole host of other consumer products.

This ...
And it is the thinking reason for many people referring to such "Mags" as "Rags".

 

[Slamfire]

The conflicts of interest Gunwriters have is all too apparent if you just look and it goes back as far as the earliest gun magazines I have read.

Guns Magazine has made vintage issues available, they are a hoot, and you can see Gunwriters shilling for the Colt AR15. These guys "somehow" get fully automatic AR15's to test, they blow off the malfunctions, write extensively (or should I say repeat Colt advertizing claims) about the 223 round being the ultimate lethal round, the AR15 being far better than any Army gun (M14), and the AR15 being the service rifle of the future. They were all part of a concerted advertizing campaign which helped convince the public, and made the case for the DoD inhouse group of advocates for the AR15. Sort of reminds me of Dick Cheney and Judith Miller of the New York Times. In secret, Vice President Cheney told Judith Miller that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Judith published that as fact, but did not mention Dick, and on the Sunday shows, there was Dick Cheney saying, “ the New York Times has verified that there are weapons of mass destruction in Iraq”.

In my opinion, gunwriters killed a lot of good American Soldiers and they should be treated as the shills they are.

 

[we are not amused]

I read Metcalf's article, and heard his interview with Tom Gresham on Gun Talk, and the idiot did himself even more harm there than his original article. As for Gun Magazines to never report on a "bad" gun, so what? We are all adults, if you blindly believe everything you read, you probably shouldn't be allowed to run about unsupervised. especially if you read it in the New York Times which just recently tried to push the fake story about the Libyan Ambassador's murder due to a YouTube video again! So much for journalistic integrity!