Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters You be the judge.

Several here call writers "whores" because they drop product names in articles. Here are some excerpts from writers I'll call "A" and "B." Based on these excerpts and in your opinion, do these writers qualify as "whores?" What if they have bylines of some of your favorite targets like Layne Simpson or Craig Boddington?
I'll let you know who these writers are after a few opinions are posted, but for now, you be the judge, whore or no whore?
Writer "A":
"...detachable swivels are far better. Winchester used them on the de luxe rifles like the Super Grade Model 70 and the now obsolete Model 52 Sporter. These can be purchased from Winchester. Smaller and neater detachable swivels are made by Paul Jaeger of Pennsylvania, and various other concerns."
"'French' walnut is the preferred material for fine rifle stocks made by such crack American stock makers as the late Alvin Linden and Bob Owen, and by Alven Biesen, Griffin & Howe, Leonard Mesa and other fine stockmakers who are still practicing their art."
"When I got them [two Winchester Model 70 rifles], both were standard weight jobs, but I had Al Biesen cut the barrels to 22 inches, lighten them up, smooth up the actions, checker the bolt knobs and then fit fancy stocks of French walnut on them. One wears a Weaver K-4 scope on a Redfield Jr. two-piece mount; the other a Redfield Bear Cub on a Tilden mount."
"I then cut the varnish off down to the bare wood with No. 400 grit wet-or-dry sandpaper, and finish with No. 600, both used wet. I then put on thin coats of George Brothers 'Linspeed,'which I first rub on by hand... ."
"Any one who wants to go further into the subject should get a copy of Alvin Linden's 'The Finishing of Gun Stocks,' published by the Stackpole Company of Harrisburg, Pennsylvania."
"In addition, the fine internally adjustable varmint scopes like the Weaver K6, K8, and K10, the 6,8, and 10X Lyman All-Americans, the Redfield 6x Bear Cub, and the Leupold Stevens 7 1/2x M-8 have made lighter, more easily carried varmint rifles possible... ."
"So sighted, the 7 mm with the 139-grain bullet at 2,900 as loaded today [by] Dominion brand in Canada, or handloaded to that velocity with Speer, Nosler or Sierra bullets of 140-145 grains, is on at approximately 250 yards."


Writer "B"
"Put a good Hawkins, Pachmayr or other reliable recoil pad on your rifle and forget about it [recoil]."
"In spite of current claims in some books, we five designed the Model 70 Winchester...They gave each of the boys one apiece. Don Martin took an '06. Jay Williams took a .375. I don't know what the other boys asked for. I took a .375 and a .300 Magnum as they gave me two rifles... ."
"The Noske internal windage and elevation scope in either 2 1/2 or 4 power offers the finest hunting scope, to my notion, of them all."
"The .300 Holland & Holland Magnum cartridge, when loaded with the Western 220-gr. boattail with pin point of lead exposed, and also with the 225 gr. Peters belted bullet, and the 225 gr. Western Tool & Copper Works bullets, is the best and most powerful of all .30 caliber rifles for timber hunting."
"On double barreled rifles, the ideal combination would be a set of these Gibbs Express sights,..."
"I feel certain that if we had both had rifles fitted with those fine wide Gibbs Express rear sight, or no sights at all for that matter, we would have killed that purp,... ."
"Pacific also manufacture a good line of hunting sights for most military rifles. D.W. King Sight Company make another excellent line."
"The Zeiss Zeilklien and Hensoldt Klein Dyalyt are two of the finest imported scopes, especially on the Remington or Enfield actions,... ."

I'd guess A is Jack O'Connor and B is Townsend Whelan.

Now you are making me feel OLD, but I ain't bitchin' about it, alternative is worse, LOL!

Reognize some of it, but not which name for sure.

Going with Jack and Elmer.

Didn't ask who they were, and am not ready to tell.
The question is; by the standards this forum claims to hold writers to, (no discounts, no product brand name mentions, etc.), do these excerpts indicate whore or no whore?

O'connor for the first, not sure about the second.

I don't think any writers are 'whores' present or past. They are just people trying to walk the tightline between keeping readers informed the best they can without offending the sponsors of the rags they write for. When your hands are tied as to what you can say and can't say it is a difficult balancing act if you ask me... and a thankless one some days.

Very good example and lesson here with me Scott. I misread what you stated. Probably a lot of what goes wrong on this forum. I think what I did wrong, was read your top of post understanding what you want, then got so hung up on trying to remember where I've read your A & B, and ASSUMED without double checking, and without THINKING, followed right along with the wrong train of thought in mind, so posted A & B names.

And now, I'm going to have to go back and review again after this.

D&*n, this stuff gets convoluted.

No I don't think they were at all. Remember it was well before the Internet and people were interested in what the "big guys" shot and how they set up their equipment.

Now if they wore patches on their jackets like the NASCAR people <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/crazy.gif" alt="" />then it would be a different thing altogether.

As Bill Clinton would say, it depends on your definition of a whore.

We have no way of telling whether the writers, whoever they are, were compensated for their statements in product or money. Nor do we have any indication their statements don't represent their true opinions.

My definition of a whore would be someone who wrote something he knew wasn't true because he got paid or compensated for it. There is no way to tell that from your quotes.

B, doesn't sound like a whore and he sounds like Keith. The truth seems to me to be the final arbitor of value in an article.

ss

A seems a bit opinionated, but wouldn't call a whore. Is sourcing me to help find help if needed. I'm fully aware my opnion of what I know of some of A's info, is different. Not knowing, I look for any help or information that will get me started with what I want.

As for the B section, no whore equation there for me either. Only critique I could make, would sometimes "in my opinion" used greatly, gets somewhat tiring, but here I realize your posts are out of context to the whole article. Used too much throughout an article makes me suspicious of maybe being a disclaimer for some reason.

If I use some info from a writer that I find to not be accurate, does not work for me, untrue, then over time that writer will lose credibility, and I will look for one whom I can trust.

Even a negative, is a learning experience. We go on from that, I believe. That is a principle some just do not understand I'm afraid. If they wish to remain in a negative cloud (this is not saying they are right or wrong either), some of the rest of us want to go on to find something that is positive for us. Life is too short to worry about the negative for some of us.

Kind of like trying to get the + and the - juxtaposition reversed on magnets. It's not natural! Takes a strong bond to hold that kind of effort together.

Jack and Eleanor O'Connor hunted with custom rifles paid for out of their own pockets, and built by gunsmiths who were friends and whom they respected, and didn't need any plugs to add to their backlog of orders. That is a lot different than being flown to a lodge for a canned hunt by a manufacturer of mass marketed rifles in the latest magnum.

Also, he was right about Jaeger swivels being excellent. That is why everyone else copied them when the patents expired, but failed to duplicate their quality.

When O'Connor was touting scopes, the models he named were about all that was available. Most hunters were still using iron sights on leverguns or sporterized military bolt actions.

Come on, Scott, 'fess up. Who are they? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/confused.gif" alt="" />

The first one is Jack and the second Elmer. You, really know how to make a guy feel old. I dont have the time to bash writers just not my thing, but I do like seeing the old guys stuff again. They didn't write, they talked to me. I dont know if anyone else felt that way just the way it came for me. Oh, and I dont have anything against whores either.

Many Thanks

HBH

A is J O'C, from his use of 'obsolete' and 'standard weight jobs'

B is Keith, from the reference to designing the model 70, and his old friend (judge) Don Martin.

I also agree with a previous poster, in an earlier time, this was the best way to get the word out on what the "big boys" were using.

What I'm interested in knowing is where these quotes came from. Did they come from magazine articles, or from a "how-to" book, like 'Rifles for Big Game'

thanks for digging them up Scott.

Sycamore

What difference does it make who the writers are?
You guys are completely missing the point that Scott is trying to make. Too bad!

And I don't hide behind some "handle" either, I use my real name.

Jim Bledsoe

Mister BLedsoe;

Good post.

Dan

Scott,

Great post. I appreciate you taking the time to put the "A" and "B" together to make your point.
Not sure where all of the "whore" stuff comes from, but you can bet I'm not into that kind of bashing.
Personally, I don't have a problem with either "A" or "B". If the context in which these statements were made supports integrity, not an issue for me. It's the writing style that is alluring for me, given integrity.

Don

Thanks for the post, Scott. I recognized each writer within the first couple of sentences, having probably read 99% of what they published in their lifetimes (and even some they didn't). But of course your point (or at least one of them) is that the great "productless" writing of yesteryear was full of products. And yes, O'Connor and Keith did receive a lot of freebies, both in products and trips.

JB

Well you can take the names out of the artical, but then the next question would be, who will handle all of the (where can I have this done) mail the writer recieves?

Most of the thoughtful critics in these unfortunate threads have thought of the problem more in the nature of an inherent conflict of interest then "whoring." Some writers seem to want to deny the conflict and get bent all out of shape at the suggestion. Others clearly recognize the problem and deal with it as best they can, usually through full disclosure - or at least as full as possible. The quotes mentioned qualify as pretty full disclosure and would meet the standard, if there were a standard.

The other question is what the writer's reponsibility is to the reader. Some think there is none. That seems wrong and some are offended by that. Such a belief doesn't mean the writer is a whore, but it does bring into question his intelligence if somewhere along the line a certain responsibility to the reader isn't recognized.

I have been surprised by what seems to be (on the part of some) an overreaction to these legitimate issues being raised. Taking the position that the writer is above having to respond to such questions is at worst arrogant and at best ill advised.

I can not defend those who took the opportunity of these questions being raised to overreact on the other side, but they just obscured the issues and were othewrwise not helpful, although they drew most of the attention.

Now I'm tired of the whole thing and I doubt if anything has changed. Those who do their job well, and as ethically as is possible, will continue to do so. The others will continue to work for Prxxxxxx. Sorry, just a joke. I couldn't help myself. Let's just say they will continue to do work that is less than it could or should be.

I'd like to say it's been fun but it hasn't.

Best wishes to all.

t <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />