Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Ask The Gunwriters How NOT to treat a writer

Thanks to all for sharing some interesting rationalizations.
t

I recognize the fiscal realities, but to come right to the point, buying stuff directly from the manufacturer for review still creates the possibility, if not probability, of a biased sample.

It's bad enough that most gun reviews are based on single samples. Buying it directly from a manufacturer who knows the purpose of the purchase is a fatal flaw in the "system". Even affording the writer the presumption of no bias, he can't write an unbiased article with a biased sample.

Perhaps the "system" is set up so that there is no other way to get the materials for a test. Perhaps there is no sample bias in most cases (powder and bullets come to mind). But for major items like optics and firearms, all the protestations to the contrary, if the system leaves no choice but to use potentially biased samples, then the system is biased.

Based on what I read on this forum, the large majority of readers came to that conclusion, long before. Gun magazines (or any other advertising driven publication, for that matter) do not "review" things in the sense that Consumer Reports reviews things. You do not get the "good, bad and the ugly". JMO, Dutch

The "thinking" that's so abundantly evident in the opinions of all you fellows who aren't gun-writers is "that's how it would be with me, so that's gotta be the way that it is or oughta be."

It ain't necessarily so, Bub!

You aren't me � or Rocky � or Steve � or John � or Bryce � so your imaginings of how it'd be with you don't apply to us at all, in any way.

Has any of you given a nanosecond of thought, for one thing, to the notion that I (for example) already have a strong positive leaning toward any product that I request a quote on or a consignment sample of? That I buy for review or simply for my own use?

Has any of you given a nanosecond of thought, for one thing, to the notion that we often buy at discount items that the suppliers know (because we tell 'em so, up front) are for our personal use and not for review?

I could go on ...

... but I'd just be adding things that you don't know about � probably can't imagine � if you're not one of us.

So what is your honest opinion about us and our modus operandi really worth outside your mind? How much real-world value does it have even there? How accurately or justly can you judge anything that you know so little or nothing about?

trying hard to think longer than a nanosecond here.
here are some opinions:
1) ken's key issue was one of courtesy.
2) some of you guys did not understand that, and chased the full-disclosure rabbit through the briar patch and down the hole.
3) these are separate issues, period, no matter what you "think" of networking for a better price.

This is getting complicateder and complicateder! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif" alt="" />

... and more � of giving us credit (a) for integrity, (b) for good judgment, and (c) for knowing how the Hell to do what we do, in the best way possible, all things duly and carefully considered ...

... which you can not know or judge from afar, no matter how intelligent, imaginative, or ethical you are.

Hey, wait a minute, Ken! You guys don't have something going like Yale's ultra-secret Skull and Bones society, do you? <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/ooo.gif" alt="" />

(added: the silence is so deafening, I'm going to add a smiley just to make sure I don't get on the bad side of them!)

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

I'm not sure if Mr. Howell responded to my post, or not, but let me re-state --- explicitly -- that at no point did I ever imply bias on the part of any writer.

Rather, I stated that even a super-naturally ethical, even handed and unbiased writer will write biased articles if the manufacturer has the opportunity and motive to bias the sample. The basis of any scientific work is randomization. If a sample is not random, it is biased. If the sample is biased, the conclusions will be biased. FWIW, Dutch.

Having published a few scientific studies in peer reviewed journals, the heart of the matter was stated rather plainly by Rocky. 99.9% of the populace have no idea how much effort (inclusive of time, money, etc) goes into good publications - be they groundwater fluff like I do or a "short" article on handloading. The peer review process alone really sucks until you get the hang of it. I guarantee there ain't too many "rich" gunwriters.

Getting a break on components so that the rest of us benefit (both manufacturer and consumer) is a reasonable request; especially for a thorough review by a competent evaluator/writer.

Then you're using the statistician's sense of the term bias in a forum populated by ordinary mortals who sense the term as a personal inability or refusal to be objective. Fair enough but misleading.

Good point, bwinters. In truth, I don't have a gripe with gunwriters and their integrity. Those who don't have it will be shown up.

I am really interested in the secret society I betcha they have, though! <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/ooo.gif" alt="" /> When bored, I just love to investigate things like that. I may soon switch to my Sherlock Holmes avatar for this one. I actually do Sherlock one better -- sometimes when I get going not even facts can deter me!

My experience � many years, many suppliers, many products (good and bad!), for review and for personal use � indicates without exception that the samples sent to writers are not carefully selected by the suppliers but are truly random. So in this again, we have a firm outsider opinion that's based on assumptions that are less firm than Jell-O � because the opiner flat doesn't know the real-world facts of what he's talking about.

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

I wrote: "Even affording the writer the presumption of no bias, he can't write an unbiased article with a biased sample".

Misleading? Or long toes? FWIW, Dutch.

I might add that any writer who will trade his professional/personal integrity for X dollars off a review item ain't working for very long. I'm sure there are those that give benefits of the doubt on occasion but ask yourself how many of those writers are you reading on a regular basis.........

I can think of a few that I don't even read the opening sentence <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/ooo.gif" alt="" />.

And to carry this line of thought a bit further and from the perspective of the manufacturer, if you do provide a "sample" is that sample going to be random and the same product Joe Sixpack would get if he bought it at Wally World? Or is it going to be a tuned up, especially selected one for what may be an evaluation?

Also from the perspective of the supplier or manufacturer, how many calls do they get from writers or wannabes, or down right frauds, to get a break on a product?

Being a confirmed skeptic I'd think more of an evaluation or a mention of a product if I knew it was the same product I, Joe Sixpack, would get if I went to a retail store to purchase. I suppose that's why I don't place my stock in evaluations of any kind short of Consumer's Reports and the like.

Over the more than 40 years I've been reading gun articles it seems to me that if the manufacturer sends its best examples, those best examples have, nonetheless, been criticized by gunwriters on many, many occasions.

I simply want a well-informed analysis of an item. The problem with some "unbiased" outfits is that they don't know enough about the specific field of interest to be all that illuminating.

All that I can tell you comes from long experience.

All that you can opine comes from conjecture and suspicion.

Which is more likely to coincide with the facts of the real world? Experience or conjecture?

Dutch - If I may counter, while the product may be biased, the writers findings will not be, he reports what he sees, tests or finds out, if he wishes to maintain integrity. I'm of the the mindset I would think it would be very difficult for a writer to report or find on any product he found above normal for its use.

Of what advantage would that be to manufactuer? He will be getting report on product that the product is not going to deliver on average.

It is a Catch-22 situation. Manufactuer I would think would hope for report that is average representation of product, instead of what they public would view as not. I would also think the manufactuer would DESIRE to have a fair write-up, as to what the product can deliver, in order to make a favorable for public opinion. Word of mouth still sells best, no matter how many commercials/ads costing millions reach. Whose word or info would you hold to be true, and in what order: commercial, advertisement, write-up from well-inown source, or trusted personal contact.

Would think general public would be aware of this (OK, there are exceptions to that, sad to say). If consumer not aware of this, why should manufacturer or writer be responsible for stupid.

Bias may exist anywhere, why it is important for those whose integrity is at stake to guard against.

Above being said, why I'm the only person in the world who has no bias, LOL!

"I can think of a few that I don't even read the opening sentence <img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/ooo.gif" alt="" />." - bwinters

-----------------

<img src="/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> Yeah, but you're probably smarter than I am. I'll confess once again that what I read maybe 30 years ago has likely forever damaged my sensibilities ("the raw, stump-busting power of the .44 Magnum..."), but I'll betcha if the same dude were to offer similar hyperbole today in an article of even vague interest I'd read it. Would I blow gaskets? Sure.

People like me never learn.

Ken,

Your getting a big heaping helping of what lawyers get everyday...everybody knows the law...except lawyers of course!