Would you go on TV?

[Gordon Fink]

Usually, the “reporters” are the ones presenting the anti-gun position, so the game is rigged.

~G. Fink

 

[GEM]

So just hide. This thread is quite annoying to me. Even if reporters are XYX, if one tries it is conceivable that the message gets through some of the time.

Better to have masturbatory fantasies like Unintended Consequences (as a view in American Handgunner) once called it.

They better not come to my house as I'm scared to be on TV.

 

[WayneConrad]

GEM, It's all about trust. The producer has an enormous amount of power. You have comparatively little. Walking into the lion's den and putting your head in its mouth and hoping it isn't hungry isn't the kind of bravery that will do us any good.

Is it really hiding if you refuse to enter the fray on ground of the enemy's own choosing? Or could it be that you are waiting for a producer with a history of integrity and honesty? They do exist, but it's foolish to assume that John Random Producer is one of them.

(Edited to add):

"Better to have masturbatory fantasies like Unintended Consequences (as a view in American Handgunner) once called it."

This borders on being inflamatory. Did anyone in this thread actually say anything that calls for this statement?

 

[Desperado]

I wouldnt just cause that stuff can be edited to make you say or look however they want. Id go on with good intentions, then theyd edit it to make say something like "I love guns! I love to shoot!" and make me look like some gung ho fanatic idiot.

 

[f4t9r]

sure , It would give us lots to talk about and tell what went wrong and how we would have done it different. Hey maybe could produce our own show !!

 

[Waitone]

You are at the producer's mercy regardless of what the talent or booker says.
TV is not your friend.

 

[Correia]

I would do it. Not a problem. Sometimes the local media just needs somebody from the gun side of the debate. Some of us volunteer for this. No biggie.

If you don't do it, somebody less qualified will.

 

[Nitrogen]

It's like jury duty.

Everyone's afraid of how it'll go down, so you get the lowest common denomator.

I see the same problem here: Everyone's afraid of how it'd go down, so nobody will do it, leaving the lowest common BUBBA to do it.

Therefore, I'd go on. My younger sister is a news producer, and she's talked about how this game really works.
I'd be very careful with what I'd say. I wouldn't feel pressured to say anything, and would take as much time as I need to think about my answers. I would answer in short sentences that could not be edited to change meaning.

If good people don't come forward, the rest of the ignorant masses will just have an easier time being ignorant.

 

[Harry Paget Flashman]

It is said that "TV adds on 10 pounds". No matter how thin or how bright you think you are, there is some silver-tongued lizard out there who can make you look like an idiot.

I got questioned by a defense attorney once while in the witness box. He was a real pleasant guy. He put me at ease right away. To make a long story short, he had an agenda and after a series of well thought out questions he got came full circle and at the end he had me dancing like a puppet on a string screaming obscenities at him. The judge called time out and got me aside to admonish me and said that the only reason he wasn't going to find me in contempt was that he saw it coming...the lawyer leading me like a lamb to slaughter...and he should have stopped it.

I have seen that fictional "cocky rube" on television in court dramas get ripped to shreds by a DA and was amused. I thought...what a bozo!

If you decide to go on TV, please realize what I learned...No one is as clever as they believe. (I speak for myself. YMMV)

 

[AJ Dual]

I'd be leery as all hell, but I'd do it.

The rationale is that I'm a clean cut, "Mr. Average" guy, who's unlikely to ever be caught in public wearing anything lower than a polo shirt and cargo shorts. If they don't get me on camera, they'll just go hunting for the biggest inarticulate beer-gut inadequately contained by surplus camo BDU's they can find.

I expect to be edited into absurdity, but I can at least present a decent and normal face for RKBA.

 

[Pat McCoy]

Have alreeady done that for the statewide public TV system. Funny thing was the producer's problem of getting someone for the "anti" side in Wyoming.

 

[Monkeyleg]

AJ, I'll keep your willingness to go on camera in mind. In the past, I've always called Jim Fendry if a station wanted a pro-CCW spokesman.

I don't do TV interviews, but not for the reasons expressed in previous posts. In my field--advertising--there are a lot of anti-gun liberals. With the number of photo assignments shrinking, I don't need to give liberal art directors another reason not to work with me.

I've done plenty of radio and newspaper interviews. Most of the radio hosts and newspaper reporters have been fair. A couple have not. One was downright hostile.

Still, being misquoted or perhaps humiliated is a risk that has to be taken in order to get the message out.

Jim March's experience, though, is the worst I think I've ever heard of.

 

[Chrontius]

Three conditions: Shot in silouette, I consult with the writers, and get final veto on the segment. IE, I see the final edit, and then decide whether they use the footage of me.

Gem's right. If we all hide our opinion, it will be taken for agreement.

Identities... well, I've stalkers enough as is.

 

[harrygunner]

Waste of effort

Back in the late 1990's Bill Kurtis of A&E did a
"documentary" on guns.

The response was a flood of comments on A&E's web
site that were so pro-gun and heated that A&E shut
off the forum.

I recall Mr. Kurtis saying something to the effect that
our guns will be gone, it's just a matter of time.

To this day, I avoid all his "documentaries" when
I saw the amount of objective facts they contain.

I don't think a regular person has any hope of having
a controversial view properly presented on TV.

Easier to walk though a room full of vipers without being
bitten.

 

[American By Blood]

Yes.

I've been on TV more than once. It's just a matter of learning to speak in careful soundbites.

If your statements are too short to be edited down convincingly they'll remain intact.

 

[Jim March]

The stalker I picked up from it didn't help.

Oh yes.

Basically, I killed that show by proving that somebody determined enough could kill an episode. The whole thing being based on a lie, the release signature of yours that they have on file is worthless because the terms of the contract aren't laid out ahead of time. And it has to be that way for the concept to work.

That's the weakness. So if I was able to kill my episode, others could too. With no way to predict which efforts would actually appear on-tube, it's not just this show that's dead, it's the whole idea.

Somebody out there realized it and didn't like it one bit. I still get extra spam and really weird sales pitches on my cellphone that this twit signs me up for.

One mortgage scam was so bad about not believing me about "do not call please!" that I finally pretended to be a sucker, got deep into the pitch, got their contact info and THEN said "ok, lemme talk to a manager". At which point I explained what was up, how they WERE going to put me on "do not call" and if they didn't I was going to solve the matter with a shotgun. Understand, this was after a year and a half of this crap from this one obviously scammer outfit. Only time I've ever threatened to shoot anybody when I didn't mean it. Worked though.

But anyways. Crossballs was a really psycho example.

More commonly, you'd be dealing with a local news outlet. Not so bad...just be careful. If it's a "documentary" get the names of the players involved and research 'em. If the agenda is obvious, back out.

 

[lionking]

I might be willing to do it in certain conditions,like a live broadcast.Though I must say the way I look might not help...Im not a clean cut type.

I remember after Columbine there was a auditorium show about it with Clinton there.The people who spoke for the progun side did not think about what they said and how it could be twisted.One guy,all he could say out of the audience was "guns dont kill ,people do".Well maybe true but in emotional times like that not the best answer for progun stance.

Then there was a woman who said if there would have been armed guards the killers might have been stopped sooner.Well maybe true again but most people dont like to think that armed guards should be in schools...she got booed also.

Then there was Clinton who said "I just want America to be a safe place".My reply to that would have been look at the Murderous governments through history who attempted to make everything "safe".

In a debate like that you need to be calm and real thoughtful what you say,try to show compassion yet try to let others see the bigger picture.

 

[GEM]

My comment on Unintended Consequences was based on a statement from a review in the American Handgunner, IIRC.

My point was that on gun lists the notion of fighting is quite common but then the idea of going before the media scares people. Some gun folk would rather prattle about being the Wolverines from Red Dawn than coherently presenting themselves to the public.

I am readily identifiable and at work am known as an RKBA advocate and I am able to make a literate defense rolleyes: ) of our position. I use who I am on the gun lists (my sig says it and I just used my initials here as I was lazy on log in). I have talked to the media and been interviewed. I regard it has a moral responsibility to defend a basic human right.

An interview might go awry. I congratulate Jim for his efforts. It is a chance you take. Right now, brave men and women are risking their lives for this country. I can risk an interview.

 

[gezzer]

NO, Media will BURN you every time. This is from past experience personally

 

[crowbardog]

Like many have said before, something probably wouldn't be kosher about all of it. Especially when you consider the topic.

Now if it was a fairly unheated topic, well, I'm a camera whore. I've been on Michael Turko twice. The first was my company's attempt at getting a stoplight put in in front of the building. We had a home for the elderly accross the street and my fellow co-workers and I got tired of watching them have to dodge Dodges' everytime one of them wanted to go to 7-11. We got the light put in a few months after the show aired.

The other time was for inappropriate election posters that were at my college, back leading up to the 2004 elections. I would tell my professors about them, and most didn't care. So, I got Turko out there. The posters were gone the next day.

I was also on the news twice when I was in the Cub Scouts and Webelos (sp). Can't remember what for, though. I think one of them was regarding the pine wod derby. My den had some fast ones!

 

[Lupinus]

depends on who ran the show

Pro gun guys, in a heart beat

Someone like Micky Moore I'd laugh at him unless he gave me a paper to sign saying my segment would be unedited.

 

[Norm357]

Well, I was not on tv,



But when I was younger and a lot poorer, I was photograghed and interviewed for the local newspaper because I worked third shift at a C/store,gas station and I openly carried a gun. My store was one of the few in the county that had not been robbed. The guy from the paper did a good job. Not anti at all.

 

[GEM]

Going on progun shows is preaching to the choir - duh.

Flame suit on - what a bunch of wussies!! :banghead:

I'm disgusted.

Talk about sheep - we are the sheepdogs and we are too scared to bark!!
Sent your mail to your PVC pipe in the hills.

Thanks to those who posted that they did take this terrible risk!!

Flame suit off.

 

[pete f]

been interviewed for press and tv.

BOth times I ended up forcing them to get it right. The press story completely reshaped my words, I had taped the interview without the reporter knowing it. He had printed things in quotation marks as my verbatim speech that were NOTHING like what I had said. The paper had to print a page one retraction. I wanted the columnist fired but they choked it. My lawyer also got me some money for it.

The TV reporter asked me some soft ball questions then pulled the string and tried to catch me on some details. I had spent the night before reading all I could find on the subject and even had some supporting federal documents and stuff presented on the reporters own show. I had that recorded too by my wife with our home video camera. After the reporter was done, I told him that if he bent what I was saying to fit his agenda, My wifes tape would be at the competitors news desk by noon the next day.
I was very upset the next day when the report aired and it sounded like I was supporting kids having guns on school grounds. I had said that in my school experience, kids were trusted to bring guns to school because we would hunt on the way home. I had also said, that zero tolerance made no sense, as it removed common sense from the table. I used the example of a local student who had driven his fathers truck to school after his car failed to start, an empty shotgun hull from the weekend hunting trip, was now threatening to have the honor student removed from school for the whole year. I said that made no sense, that zero tolerance was a chickens way out of dealing with real issues. I called his boss and complained and sent him a copy of the tape, and threatened legal action for twisting what I had said. I also sent my tape to the three local competitors and offered to go on the air and just hang the guy out to dry, I got two nibbles and then the original TV station made a correction and also paid me some more money.

 

[Phil DeGraves]

On the other hand, Penn & Teller did a show entitled "Bulls***" about gun control. IT was VERY pro-gun, (actually it was very anti gun control) so much so that it was pulled from the internet. (you can still see some of their other programs). They don't pull any punches and really liked SAF Alan Gottlieb whom they interviewed along with other pro and antis.