Have posted most of this before, but will do so again.
I started writing for magazines over 40 years ago, back when magazines were much like newspapers, keeping editorial and advertising completely separate. The theory back then was to write to attract readers, and if the magazine attracted enough readers then advertisers would sign on, so they could reach more potential customers. As a result, magazines were always looking for new writers, and I managed to be making my entire living writing within about 6 years. Have been doing so ever since, but only relatively recently started writing for gun magazines. Instead I wrote about a variety of subjects, including history (both human and "natural"), fishing, hunting, optics and the West, for magazines including National Geographic, Sports Illustrated, and regional "general interest" magazines, along with just about every major (and some minor) hunting, shooting and fishing magazines.
But the business changed, at least somewhat, starting in the late 1980's, when a certain New York publishing company decided to please advertisers instead of readers. That was when many magazine articles started with a paragraph clumsily mentioned plenty of advertisers' products. Luckily, the magazines I wrote for didn't go that route, but these days it's harder to find ones that don't.
In fact this year I quit writing for one magazine that had been a steady market for me over the last 20 years, and a well-paying one, because instead of wanting me to write the historical and technical firearms articles I'd been doing, they wanted me to write stiff to please advertisers. (Interestingly, the publishing company that started this trend failed a couple years ago.)
I don't mind testing advertisers' products, but damn sure don't want to do it all the time, and the magazines I write allow me to pass on projects if I don't want 'em. I also retain the right to mention flaws, or even not write about the product at all if it doesn't work right.
I also often buy stuff to write about, rather than test products directly sent by manufacturers. In fact, I've purchased all three of the 6.5 Creedmoors I've owned from stores or other shooters. The one I've mentioned here, in fact, I bought from a Campfire member, who would probably be willing to confirm that. Partly I buy my own test subjects because I can then NOT write about them if they don't work, but it also allows me to really wring things out over a period of months or even years, instead of coming to a quick conclusion about some new cartridge, rifle or scope based on one sample.
But another thing that's became obvious during the last 20 years is that writers don't HAVE to write for publishers. Instead they can go directly to readers, either via the Internet or by self-publishing books. My wife's a writer too, and right now about half our income comes from our own book publishing company, plus our own on-line quarterly magazine, RIFLE LOONY NEWS. (As a matter of fact the latest edition of RIFLE LOONY NEWS just got e-mailed to its subscribers today, if any of you are reading this.)
There's no advertising in either the books or RLN, which I'd guess is partly why both are pretty popular. Yeah, I get "paid" to write both the books and the magazine, by readers paying for them.
Fair enough. My question is why then do you avoid certain subjects(specifically manufacturer related), and push certain products more than others? Do you find it acceptable for a manufacturer such as Winchester to have problems with primers and sweep it under the table? Is it Ok for another manufacturer, Hornady to use those primers and not care one iota? These are very well documented issues, it's not like I'm making s h i t up. Would it be ok if one of your readers lost their eyesight to a Winchester primer? What about anbody else? Where do YOU draw the line?
You may disagree with my posts, and that's ok, but the reality is that I post about real s h i t, and even though I may be an a-hole, I wouldn't wish a face full of hot gases on the haters that post here.
