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

True in spades of the very few appraisals of guns that I've seen � long ago, now � in Consumer's Report.

� Consumer's Union didn't select the guns that were most likely to be of interest to shooters who were seriously concerned about performance, quality, and reliability.

� The evaluators didn't know guns well enough to know which features to evaluate.

� The evaluators didn't know how to evaluate the features that they considered.

Result: The Consumer's Report evaluations were totally, frustratingly useless to shooters. Total objectivity is fine, but not at the cost of pertinent familiarity. Some hobby or professional interest and knowledge ("bias") are necessary for an evaluation to be of any use to the shooter who might buy the product. Gun-writers are usually intensely interested in the products that we write about. Independent evaluators are not.

Also:

My experience indicates that the products that I get directly from the suppliers are 100% typical of what anybody with a checkbook or credit card can buy across any local counter. The skeptic can suspect careful selection and tuning all his suspicious little mind desires, but my experience argues vehemently that they occur only in the imagination of the skeptic.

All I stated are basic scientific reseach principles, practiced by every reputable scientist, worldwide. The opinions, presumptions and aspersions are yours, entirely.

Remseven, you are saying the same thing. The writer can be honest as the day is long (and I have no reason to "suspect" otherwise, nor do I imply otherwise), if the manufacturer cherry picks the goods, all that work is wasted. Garbage in, garbage out, as the computer boys say.

If someone wants to claim "unbiased" reporting, it takes more than personal integrity. It takes proper sampling.

Am I "suspcious" of manufacturers cherry picking? Yup! A good review is better than no review (there are no bad reviews). Does it happen all the time? I don't think so, but how am I, the little guy with my $5.00 in my pocket buying the magazine, to know which article is based on an average item, and which was the best out of 10 boxes the manufacturer opened? FWIW, Dutch.

Business relationships begin and develop, or end, between people, not companies.

You win some, and loose some, man to man. And without grudge, and then go on.

At least it seems so from where I stand, outside here on the jello.

.Mike

Dutch, my friend, your head is too high in the clouds to leave your feet firm on the ground. Haven't you read anything that I've posted here? Can't you imagine that I know more about all this from being in the middle of it for so long than you can accurately imagine by looking at it through a reversed telescope with rose-tinted lenses? How did you ever learn anything from somebody else?

Let me get this straight. If you are not a gun wrtiter, you are as dumb as a rock and don't know squat about guns, unbiased sampling or writing for a gun magazine. If you are a gun writer, you know it all about what it takes.

I believe the mention for Consumers Report was thrown in with the intention of showing how they acquire thier test article, not how they report.

I reiterate, it is time to throw out the BS flag.

There are a great number of folks on this forum who know a hell of a lot.

My final assumnption is that you, Mr Howell, got treated the way you did because of your attitude, if the contents of your post regarding this thread is any indication of the type of correspondence you have with the manufacturers. The old "I am right and everyone else is wrong and can go suck eggs" went out a long time ago

Ladies and gentlemen: I believe we are beating a live horse here. Most notably Ken. Ken: I think the common perception is that priviledge will introduce bias. A glance at the world and the corruption of perks surfaces in all sectors of society. You (and I apologize for using that term) may or may not be above that plain. I have no personal familiarity, so no justification what so ever for judgement either way. I will admitt my concern surfaced when the initial text inferred one was soliciting priviledge. Some of us might be jealous of that potential because we have less opportunity or are not in the proper circle. Others of us may worry about tainted reporting. Both of these realities and concerns will remain with society into infinity, and no amount of banter will resolve either issue. Admittedly, most of us at one time or another will take advantage of priviledge. Everyone of us here, with the likely exception of myself, can make constructive contributions to the many subjects discussed on this board. We are friends after all, and my best arguments have been with friends. I hope this does not degrade further. I would like more members here, not less. While some of us may not have come up with the ultimate quip yet, lets go on to more enjoyable and constructive banter. I think Ken should get in some final licks, and we all send peace and a hand shake around the board. I will check this thread one more time and not open it again. Ken, a handshake. 1Minute

From the outside looking in, the fact that a writer calls a company and asks to "buy" a rifle from them suggests that he's looking for a freebie, which is fine, but don't make it out that you're looking to outright buy one.

If I want a product, I buy it from a retailer like any other consumer.... and I my "review" is 100% without bias.

I view the products you "buy" as a tool for you to do your job, no different than your computer or your shooting bench.

I simply have trouble reading a "review" about a product that is only when the product is purchased factory direct (hinting at endorsement only when profitable).

What about the other good products out there... those that must be purchased over the counter? Readers deserve that much!

280_ACKLEY

Dr Howell and all,
I've learned a bit from this thread. Thank you.

I will offer my perspective again as a consumer...that it is often times perception that matters more than reality. Thank you for sharing the "reality" of gunwriters trying to get access to goods to review for our benefit. I believe that some of the others have shared the "perception" that some hold of product reviews and the challenges in coming away with valid fact and unbiased thoughts when that little man in the back of your head is wondering how the dots in the background are connected.

I recall a while back that there was a magazine called Gun-Test that was founded on a premise similar to what some have floated here; That to avoid the "appearance" of bias or undue influence, they would not accept industry advertising, would purchase the goods being reviewed as ordinary shooters would. I subscribed in years past and saw more than a few recommendations to NOT BUY. A recommendation that in conventional magazines I'm sure would have resulted in consequences from so named manufacturers. In fact it was no small validation of my "fan-dom" that one of my favorite writers had an article published in Gun-Test because now I "knew" he had passed muster with the editorial board as being unbiased!
http://www.gun-tests.com/performance/jun96cases.html

I read the gun magazines for pleasure. I read other things for work where industry bias is a real concern and disclosures are a standard part of each article. That may be one way to help with consumer "perception" in the more skeptical.

saddlesore, I don't think that is what was meant. I made a few fun posts regarding "insider knowledge" simply because in about every industry I've been involved in there has been a normal, routine way of doing things that from the outside can and often will feed suspicion regarding integrity and such. Bad things can happen in any field and they do. It's clear to me that Clay Harvey, for example, is not praised for his past performance.

That a gunwriter will correspond with a gunmaker shouldn't surprise us, nor should it seem odd that discussion of items and possible testing thereof would follow. With that comes price in one form or another.

Some great part of a fine gunwriter's work reflects his association with the manufacturers and that can be of great benefit to people like you and me.

This is a general comment on this thread, and not directed at any particular person. I can't figure out how to get rid of the [Re:] in the heading.

Anybody in a management position in the gun business, and related fields, where the objective is that the company make a profit, should know who Ken Howell is. He should also know what Ken Howell's reputation and competence are. Ken Howell should not need a photo ID and a letter from his mother. If this manager can't figure this out he should turn in his MBA and do and do something else for a living.

There have been, and will always be, individual writers who take advantage of their positions and abuse the system. Several of that type have been discussed on this forum. The bad ones make their bad reputations, just as the good ones make their good reputations. They can always be weeded out.

These matters should be handled in the real world by people with the experience to make good judgement calls, not in the theoretical world of a debating society.

How ridiculous!

I've tried to say simply that any gun-writer knows more about how his craft works than anyone else can possibly know about it without having tried it.

If you aren't a gun-writer, your skeptical conjectures about gun-writing are far less valid than what the gun-writer's experience has shown him to be the case. This point is no different from how invalid a child's concept of medical treatment is, compared to the knowledge, judgment, and experience of an old country GP.

Your deep, intimate, and detailed knowledge of guns can not possibly qualify you to guess accurately about how suppliers select the products that they send to writers.

And neither ridicule nor burlesque exaggeration is a substitute for fact or logic. Nor are they honest argumentation. Your ridiculous misrepresentation of my assertions exposes your unreasonable and unfounded bias, not mine.

Yes, but lawyers deserve it......grin

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

Let me assure you my own hackles are still down. I am fully aware of the fact that some people think gun writers get VIP treatment from product makers, are given vast quantities of free stuff in return for "wink wink" objective reviews or product mentions - or that even the more honest of writers are subtly influenced by the generosity of suppliers.

I've tried to show a small slice of "our" side of the issue, not to defend gun writers, but to illuminate the real story just a bit. If I seem to be defensive either on my own behalf or the behalf of other writers, it's because of the sheer inanity of opinions voiced in this and other posts about gun writers.

To those who would espouse a theoretical ideal of how the gun writing business ought to be, may I very cordially invite you to enter the business yourself? If you can get published on a regular basis for several years using the ideal methodology you preach, more power to you and I'll give you my undivided attention to learn how you did it. But until then, I'd sooner listen to the wind blow. Because Ken is right: you may know a lot about guns or shooting, but you have no concept of the business of gun writing.

That's neither an insult nor a putdown, merely a fact. Most of you have no concept of the business of being a pilot, an architect or a ditch digger. And are as little qualified to judge how those businesses should be done.

Off of soap box.

I guess you could make an argument to that effect! Ken doesn't deserve it. And I see the same types coming out in judgement of his ethics, morals, and ability to be objective, and all on so little evidence, and some based solely on the fact that they can't call a manufacturer and get a freebie, so if Ken can and does, he's unethical. Im calling BS. He's not a cop or judge on the take...he's a writer for a publication, the manufacturers can make decisions to give away their product to anyone they choose...the smart bet is on someone that has the ability to reach many people to tell them about it.

However, all that being said, this thread as earlier stated was not about that, but Ken's being put on ignore by this company, and treated rudely. And I think he also said he was calling to buy, not ask for a freebie.

I believe you, Rocky. But never mind that stuff. The secret society you guys have... does it have funny handshakes and things of that sort? Codes? Decoder rings? Now that free guns are gone, I'm looking for something to motivate me to really get involved.

here's a tidbit to chew on:
joe gunwriter calls a company and asks, basically, to bypass the wholesaler and retail man, and pay the company directly. the company still makes a profit.
now, why do this?
joe gunwriter is not gonna review the sales process, so why should he pay a profit to the middlemen? joe's gonna review the product, period. using this method, joe is not tainted by association with a dealer.
it is a whole 'nother thing if joe calls a friendly retailer, gets the item at dealer cost, then mentions the dealer's name in the article that follows. got some disclosure and ethics issues there.
good grief, this thread went awry.
ken can take care of himself - big time.
i know that, but feel compelled to get his back anyhow, probably 'cause i know just a little bitty bit about the publishing business.

Well.............

It appears to me there are the two camps on this issue. Those that believe all writers are whores and those that are willing to accept how business is done. Don't think you'll convince either side to change their minds.

I find it hard to slam anyone's integrity when I don't know them personally.

I ask this question: How the Hell is a writer supposed to acquire all the wherewithal to put an article together unless (s) he's rich enough to buy the material and rag he's writing for (b) takes discounts where available and purchases the stuff, or (c) prostrates himself and begs for "freebies" in any and all manner?

(a) If the writer is wealthy enough to purchase every thing needed for an article he probably would be doing something else besides writing the articles.

(b) A person known to give both positive and negative reports on articles that come his way, either through purchase or "freebie" loan demonstrates character that is above the moral acceptance line and reports honestly on his findings.

(c) the scribe that never finds anything wrong with material, heaps outlandish praise upon the item and appears in photo's decked out head to toe in brand name apparel most likely sold his soul to the devil and should be given short shrift.

Of the gentlemen writers associated with this board, I've never harbored the (c) feelings toward any of them, and believe they fall into the (b) catagory.

As stated earlier, I think it's time to bring an end to this overcooked turkey.

Look, you gunwriters, I'm going to give you some time before I do the Sherlock thing and really dig into things. But when I do get going, folks, like I said before, the facts won't deter me one bit. (I'm like the NY Times that way!) Your secret society is soon to be exposed!

"From the outside looking in ... " � a very pertinent phrase! What I've tried to do is to show how it really is, seen from the inside, on the basic assumption that the view from the inside is always more accurate than the view from the outside � especially when the view from the outside is determined more by a bias formed before-hand, at a distance, than from actual close-up observation.

" ... the fact that a writer calls a company and asks to "buy" a rifle from them suggests that he's looking for a freebie, which is fine, but don't make it out that you're looking to outright buy one."

That's your "take," as you honestly indicate � but it isn't mine, and it isn't how the suppliers whom I know understand it. I call. I ask for a price, which is usually already a matter of company policy that varies from company to company. If there were a standard policy that were the same for all companies, I wouldn't have to ask every company that I contact. Some companies even publish lists of their prices for writers.

The basic concept of courtesy prices for writers is a long- and well established standard that varies only in specific dollar or percentage detail from one company to another. If asking for a price were a sneaky way to beg for a freebie, there'd be no such standard policy and no such list.

I've gotten many products direct from suppliers through the years because in many cases I wasn't able to find 'em locally.

I ask what that company's standard writer's price is for a certain product. My contact tells me. I order one and give him my Visa number, or I mail him a check and a copy of my current license if a copy of the license is required and I haven't sent him one already. The entire matter is a standard, straight-forward, every-day proposition � a completely normal business transaction, not begging, haggling, or negotiating. It's all very old-hat and ho-hum ordinary.

The supplier's designated writers' contact takes my order or refers me to sales � somebody, at any rate, at a desk. He sends a shipping order downstairs, and some nice Hispanic lady sticks my address label on a box that contains whatever product I've ordered. She doesn't have or take time to open the box or others just like it right there in the same location to see whether the product is run-of-the-mill or somehow better than that. That box goes into a waiting FedEx or UPS semitrailer at the loading dock, along with pallets of similar boxes that are on their way out to other purchasers.

The very few times when I've asked for "special selection," I haven't gotten it unless "special selection" was an advertised extra-cost option that I paid extra for. Twice, I got specially selected items without extra cost � handgun grips and stock blanks � when Steve Herrett and Frank Pachmayr let me pick through bins and racks of 'em for the woods that most pleased me. Twice. In over fifty years. Hardly a prevailing practice.

None of the above is distant conjecture or skeptical suspicion.