Don't you just hate it........

[Hambone]

Spent 10 mins over lunch flicking thru one of the on line magazines that aim for those that use various means to punch holes in paper at what ever distance takes their fancy.

And noticed an article on a subject that should interest a good few .22BR shooters. Ha! What a joke. It was simply a glorified advert that a college first year media studies student could have written.

Don't you just hate it when the shooting media use any excuse to run thinly veiled adverts for their advertisers under the guise of informative article's. They must think we all came over on the last boat out of dumbass.

Now I know you're never going to get a honest, hard nosed, unbiased editorial about advertisers product. After all no magazine publisher is going to bite the hand that feeds it every month. So why bother? I suppose it keeps your advertisers happy, and it fills in what might be otherwise blank content space. The publisher gets paid for the pleasure. But does it serve any other purpose? Does it honestly help those that happen to read it in any way?

Where does journalistic integrity end and base commercialism begin in the shooting media?

 

[Cheechako]

A contray opinion.

Publishing anything today is an expensive proposition. Most newspaper and magazine publishers rely very heavily on advertising to make ends meet. Articles are always chosen that will compliment their biggest advertisers.

Shooting media is no different. Why should it be???????

Ray

 

[Boyd Allen]

It has been a long time since I bought a shooting magazine that is available on news stands. My interests have become too narrow for me to enjoy the sort and level of information that is typically available in these sort of publications, BUT no one could make a commercial success publishing what interests me in a periodical. Without advertising, we would have nothing to read. IMO the best strategy is to be aware of this, and to "read between the lines", besides, looking at the benches, rests, and general approach that many gun writers employ, is usually good for a laugh. In making this generalization, I note that there are exceptions. Jim Carmichel, is extremely knowledgeable and skilled. Perhaps, after his recent retirement from the staff of Outdoor Life, he will favor us with some more technical examples of his literary talent, than the target market of that publication would allow.

 

[Jim Wilkes]

I agree Boyd. Good writing for the most part is a thing of the past, at least in the informative nature. Kids in college learn how to write beautiful script that says nothing. Its just for pure entertainment.

 

[Hambone]

Hey! I have nothing against advertising per se`. I'm more than aware of the commercial realities that necessitate such matters. But where do you draw the line. Thinning veiled articles on subjects of interest, please .............why not just be open about it. The least that could happen is a element of respect being generated.

Or are there no more "Jim Carmichel's" out there.

 

[Cheechako]

In the past, I did a little writing for a couple of magazines. The editors, even back then, were very sensitve to the content of my articles whenever they touched on products being offered by their advertisers. If I crossed, or even got near the line, they would inform me in no uncertain terms, or simply edit my material, which was their right.

Not even guys like Jim Carmichel were exempt. If you read his old articles carefully, you'll see that he tried to include as many big names as he could, while still staying on subject. A favorite load for his 30-06 would include WW brass, Hornady bullets, CCI primers, Hodgdon powder, loaded on an RCBS press and fired in a Rem rifle.

As far as being open about it, It would be hard for a reader not to be aware of it.

JMHO

Ray

 

[Hambone]

Ray

I guess what hacks me off the most is the blatantness of it. Which is different from being open about it. It was one of the reasons why I ceased buying magazines years ago. I occasionally get copies of the likes of Precision Rifle and Varmint Hunter pasted on to me but I'm not tempted to resubscribe.

Just would appear that the on-line publications that have become available over the past few years are no better, some might say worse.

I'm aware that its a case of communal back scratching between publishers, advertisers, and those who write the articles. Just a shame that its your average reader on the range or at the reloading bench that's left with the itch crotch after the dust has settled.

 

[Roger T]

Would you purchase a subscription for a "Consumer Reports" style shooting/outdoor mag then? If so, there's your FUTURE FORTUNE.

 

[Hambone]

I would.

I sense the under current of the main magazine buyers is that of grudging acceptance that the publishers/editors/owners look after #1 first.

If I got such a mag off the ground would you be seeking IP rights?

 

[benenglish]

Would you purchase a subscription for a "Consumer Reports" style shooting/outdoor mag then?

One already exists.

http://www.gun-tests.com/about/

Those guys take great pleasure in handing out "F" ratings and telling you not to buy particular products. They accept no advertising.

They have a few strikes against them, though. First, they understandably limit their tests to firearms and related products with mass-market appeal. If you're *seriously* into any particular segment of the shooting world, you may well know more about it than they do. Second, the magazine is thin, light. I suppose it's a small operation so there's just not much content in each issue - normally 4 tests (normally group compare-n-contrast tests), letters, an editorial, and not much else.

I used to subscribe and respected their work. Over time, my interests became more specific and esoteric and I let my subscription lapse.

 

[benenglish]

The editors, even back then, were very sensitve to the content of my articles whenever they touched on products being offered by their advertisers. If I crossed, or even got near the line, they would inform me in no uncertain terms, or simply edit my material, which was their right.

15+ years ago I took a stab at supplementing my income as a magazine writer (not in the shooting industry, btw) and managed to get several hundred short articles and a couple of dozen features published. My experience was exactly the same.

The primary magazine I wrote for had a rating system that topped out at 5 "stars", with half-stars allowed. Anything rated below 2.5 stars had to be cleared with the editor, first. Sometimes they'd take my article, negative as it was, and just up the number of stars. I don't think I ever saw a 1-star rating on anything since nearly everyone in the industry advertised in the magazine.

One exception - I got a review sample from a new player in the field that was complete crap. I emailed the editor and asked, pretty please with a cherry on top, "Can I give this guy a one-half star rating?" He emailed me back, paraphrasing "They haven't bought any ads and they're so small we don't think they ever will. Give 'em hell." I would have felt bad about hurting their business (the review essentially put them out of business) except for the fact that their product was just horrible, so bad that only a completely incompetent or totally shameless person would dare charge money for it.

I long ago learned to "read between the lines" of all published tests. Here's an easy example - look at the latest issue of American Rifleman. In the test of the PMR-30 pistol they go to far greater than normal lengths to describe the fussy steps required just to load the magazine and briefly state that they wound up not loading it to capacity. Since the high capacity of the magazine is the whole reason that pistol exists, the "read between the lines" truth appears to be the it's such a piece of crap it isn't worth the bother. But they don't exactly say so in those words, do they?

 

[Hambone]

If you look for advertising in an article, any article, rather than just reading the article, you will find it.
Do you wear your clothes inside out? That's the only way to hide the brand names now.
Do you buy the stripped down, cheapest car on the road? That's the only way to get around showing the brand.
Advertising is everywhere.

Unfortunately in the article concerned you didn't have to go looking for the advertising. It jumps off the page at you. Thinking about it I'm starting to feel that its the cynicism of it all that hacks me off the most.

What clothes I wear, if they have labels, have them on the inside. Although my jeans do have Levi on them so I guess that counts. My Ford pickup still has the name on it somewhere, but you'd need to wash some of the crud off to try and find it.

 

[Hambone]

One already exists.

http://www.gun-tests.com/about/

Those guys take great pleasure in handing out "F" ratings and telling you not to buy particular products. They accept no advertising.

They have a few strikes against them, though. First, they understandably limit their tests to firearms and related products with mass-market appeal. If you're *seriously* into any particular segment of the shooting world, you may well know more about it than they do. Second, the magazine is thin, light. I suppose it's a small operation so there's just not much content in each issue - normally 4 tests (normally group compare-n-contrast tests), letters, an editorial, and not much else.

I used to subscribe and respected their work. Over time, my interests became more specific and esoteric and I let my subscription lapse.

Thanks Ben

At least its a step in the right direction. Fair play to those guys.

 

[280rem]

Not to hijack this thread but does anyone know what Jim C. is up to? I read an article that he wrote
a couple of years ago on the development of 8208 but have seen nothing since. Outdoor Life was the
last magazine I held onto but when he retired I let it go too.

Regards, John.

 

[AMMASHOOTA]

I agree Boyd. Good writing for the most part is a thing of the past, at least in the informative nature. Kids in college learn how to write beautiful script that says nothing. Its just for pure entertainment.

Hmmm, i need to *partially* disagree with you there. My wife and I are both Journalism school graduates (Syracuse University, '71, '72) and our daughter just graduated two years ago, same school, same department.

She got a great education (as you should for $50K / year) and has gone on to be a first class journalist in her field in a very short time.

that being said, i would agree that over 90% of the graduates coming into this very watered down and sanitized profession know little about anything that would resemble the journalism we grew up -- assuming you are somewhere near as old as we are. PC attitudes have destroyed this once fine profession -- except for the small number that still search for the truth regardless of the cost.

if our daughter is any indication of the latter, i can assure you there is a light at the end of the tunnel. we may not see it in our lifetime, but i believe she will.

 

[AMMASHOOTA]

Ray

I guess what hacks me off the most is the blatantness of it. Which is different from being open about it. It was one of the reasons why I ceased buying magazines years ago. I occasionally get copies of the likes of Precision Rifle and Varmint Hunter pasted on to me but I'm not tempted to resubscribe.

Just would appear that the on-line publications that have become available over the past few years are no better, some might say worse.

I'm aware that its a case of communal back scratching between publishers, advertisers, and those who write the articles. Just a shame that its your average reader on the range or at the reloading bench that's left with the itch crotch after the dust has settled.

i sure hope for your sake it is a water based paste...

 

[Hambone]

PC attitudes have destroyed this once fine profession

Its done that and more. The pendulum has swung way to far.

Unfortunately the shooting magazines, especially the purely online publications, rely heavily on non professional writers for their monthly article lists. Now whilst these non professional writers might be good at their chosen discipline, it doesn't always transfer over into an ability to express themselves proficiently via the written word. The temptation to fill the monthly quota with a thinly veiled advertisement for one or more of the magazines advertisers and score a few freebies along the way may be, must be devilish to resist..