PDA

View Full Version : Please Do Not Talk To The Press. . .


oaklander
04-02-2009, 3:54 PM
It appears that certain Calguns members have decided that they want to get some press. Getting press is easy. Getting BAD press is also easy.

Bad press hurts our cause. One BAD story, if forwarded to the right politician, can result in a new bill that will take thousands of hours and dollars to defeat.

Good stories will not "all of sudden" make fence sitters sympathetic to our cause. They certainly won't convince anti's to change their minds.

Therefore, my suggestion (and I am only speaking for myself and not necessarily for the CGF) is to NOT TALK TO THE PRESS.

The recent KPBS article about UOC was a hit piece. There is no reason to think that the liberal press is going to present a fair article about guns or gun rights.

No matter how you argue it, it gets twisted. If you say "self defense is a God-given right," they will make you sound like a religious zealot. If you say that "guns are needed to protect oneself against the criminal element," they will make you sound like a racist. If you say that "guns are a constitutional right," they will make you sound like a militia member.

There is absolutely NO advantage to talking to the press. If a press member contacts you for a comment (or an article), the correct response is "I am sorry, but I can't help you."

I'm not basing this on stuff I've read on the internet. I'm basing this on having worked in the marketing and public relations field for 15 years.

Joe
04-02-2009, 3:58 PM
I'd have to agree with you here. Sounds like great advice to me

sorensen440
04-02-2009, 3:59 PM
I agree
its not a war we can win in the media

PatriotnMore
04-02-2009, 4:10 PM
I agree. Unfortunately, its like trying to warn people against voting for Obama, their going to to it anyway, even in light of solid reasoning and fact.

redneckshootist
04-02-2009, 4:12 PM
I agree you oaklander, sadly there will be some people here who will not take this advise.:(

ZirconJohn
04-02-2009, 4:16 PM
Yup-yup, been there, done that... either your reporter will get you, and if'n they don't... then the follow-up article from the opposing side will when they quote you out of context, spin, and twist your statements!

chris
04-02-2009, 4:18 PM
why the hell would i want to talk to the press all they do is twist and contort anything you may say to them. walk away is the thing to do.

Linh
04-02-2009, 4:24 PM
Yeah I won't talk to the media, only reason would be if they have a 5 million dollars check for my retirement.

edwardm
04-02-2009, 4:39 PM
Oaklander, wise words. But...

Who *will* talk to the press? Ultimately the press will be an indispensable part of turning the tide (whether as a cause or an effect, I haven't figured out yet). Someone has to speak to them, and I'm pretty sure that referring them to a local or national NRA spokesperson isn't going to work very well, especially where California-specific issues come up.

At the same time, having dealt with the press myself in the recent past for non-firearms issues, I can certainly attest to the fact that words must be chosen more than just 'carefully', conveyed in the proper manner, even with the correct intonation of voice and accompanying body language. Reporters are hounds, and good at what they do.

I would suggest CGF create a media relations arm with designated spokespeople, canned fact sheets, talking points, the whole 9 yards. Assuming of course something like that doesn't already exist w/in the org.

It appears that certain Calguns members have decided that they want to get some press. Getting press is easy. Getting BAD press is also easy.

Bad press hurts our cause. One BAD story, if forwarded to the right politician, can result in a new bill that will take thousands of hours and dollars to defeat.

Good stories will not "all of sudden" make fence sitters sympathetic to our cause. They certainly won't convince anti's to change their minds.

Therefore, my suggestion (and I am only speaking for myself and not necessarily for the CGF) is to NOT TALK TO THE PRESS.

The recent KPBS article about UOC was a hit piece. There is no reason to think that the liberal press is going to present a fair article about guns or gun rights.

No matter how you argue it, it gets twisted. If you say "self defense is a God-given right," they will make you sound like a religious zealot. If you say that "guns are needed to protect oneself against the criminal element," they will make you sound like a racist. If you say that "guns are a constitutional right," they will make you sound like a militia member.

There is absolutely NO advantage to talking to the press. If a press member contacts you for a comment (or an article), the correct response is "I am sorry, but I can't help you."

I'm not basing this on stuff I've read on the internet. I'm basing this on having worked in the marketing and public relations field for 15 years.

MudCamper
04-02-2009, 4:43 PM
Do we really need another thread about this? This has been hashed to death over and over in several threads in the last couple weeks. Everything that will be said in this thread has already come up in this one (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=164253).

yellowfin
04-02-2009, 4:43 PM
It's a catch 22. We don't get any good press, but in trying to rectify it we get at best no press or we get the bad press we probably would get anyway. Meanwhile the public thinks we're invisible at best or at worst what their only information says we are.

jnojr
04-02-2009, 4:45 PM
+1

And even if the reporter is fair and unbiased an interested in writing a real, journalistic news item... their product goes through editors.

glock_this
04-02-2009, 4:48 PM
Sorry.. guess I will be the dissenter here. Reading this kind of irks me... smacks of the exact kind of stuff many of us hate, someone telling/asking/insinuating to us how and when to act. A subtle manipulation.

Heck, I bet if actually really approached nearly everyone of us would talk to the media as you/we/I think you/we/I would be the one to finally tell the correct story and think it will get told. If asked, I would answer questions. Why not? For fear it will get twisted? That is a chance anyone takes and one I would be willing to take.

Without people talking to those of us OUTSIDE this group - as most of us in this group have a similar way of thinking about our mutual interest so no reason to try to convince them - perceptions will never change, actions will not be taken, nothing progresses. What good is it of us to all sit around and talk amongst ourselves about outside perceptions, and just furthering 'their' perceptions of us since we opt not to engage?

Part of the problem, as I see it, is that too many of 'us' fall back on the same old mantra statements: "self defense is a God-given right" and "guns are needed to protect oneself against the criminal element", and "guns are a constitutional right" that we all get painted as extremists, zealots, kooks with no command of anything beyond those top 3 standard bullet points. In fact, I think better than just saying do "NOT TALK TO THE PRESS", we would be better served on trying to educate ourselves in better methods of arguments, better methods of talking points, better methods of selling the views. Instead, what I think the bigger issue is is that those that DO speak speak poorly for the cause. Use the lowest common denominator arguments and facts that just feed into the perception of gun owners and ownership.

So, it is not so much, in my view, about "don't talk to the press" it is more about "know what your talking about" and if you do not, then maybe you ought to not talk to them until you do. But if you do know & are educated on the topic at hand, talk and speak well and do not come across like a stereotypically viewed gun owner. Do not feed into the stereotype.

my .02 cents...

oaklander
04-02-2009, 4:58 PM
Sorry.. guess I will be the dissenter here. Reading this kind of irks me... smacks of the exact kind of stuff many of us hate, someone telling/asking/insinuating to us how and when to act. A subtle manipulation.

I'm not being subtle - I am strongly suggesting that people do not talk to the press.

Heck, I bet if actually really approached nearly everyone of us would talk to the media as you/we/I think you/we/I would be the one to finally tell the correct story and think it will get told. If asked, I would answer questions. Why not? For fear it will get twisted? That is a chance anyone takes and one I would be willing to take.

I've had MANY opportunities to talk to the press about guns. I have refused every single time. I would hope that others do the same.

Without people talking to those of us OUTSIDE this group - as most of us in this group have a similar way of thinking about our mutual interest so no reason to try to convince them - perceptions will never change, actions will not be taken, nothing progresses. What good is it of us to all sit around and talk amongst ourselves about outside perceptions, and just furthering 'their' perceptions of us since we opt not to engage?

It is not advisable for amateurs to attempt to spin the media. At a national (and state) level, the NRA works very hard to get us good press and good PR. Please let them do their job. You do not help by getting your "own" stories.

Part of the problem, as I see it, is that too many of 'us' fall back on the same old mantra statements: "self defense is a God-given right" and "guns are needed to protect oneself against the criminal element", and "guns are a constitutional right" that we all get painted as extremists, zealots, kooks with no command of anything beyond those top 3 standard bullet points. In fact, I think better than just saying do "NOT TALK TO THE PRESS", we would be better served on trying to educate ourselves in better methods of arguments, better methods of talking points, better methods of selling the views. Instead, what I think the bigger issue is is that those that DO speak speak poorly for the cause. Use the lowest common denominator arguments and facts that just feed into the perception of gun owners and ownership.

Again, let's leave it to the pros.

So, it is not so much, in my view, about "don't talk to the press" it is more about "know what your talking about" and if you do not, then maybe you ought to not talk to them until you do. But if you do know & are educated on the topic at hand, talk and speak well and do not come across like a stereotypically viewed gun owner. Do not feed into the stereotype.

my .02 cents...

See above.

Dick Thomas
04-02-2009, 5:04 PM
WELL SAID - - - nothing good can ever come from talking to the press. Never Never talk to the press.

b.faust
04-02-2009, 5:09 PM
Maybe CGF should get a standard press pack together that can be sent out if needed.

dustoff31
04-02-2009, 5:23 PM
Excellent advice from Oaklander, and another former CA resident.

"Do not fear the enemy, for your enemy can only take your life. It is far
better that you fear the media, for they will steal your HONOR. That
awful power, the public opinion of a nation, is created in America by a
horde of ignorant, self-complacent simpletons who failed at ditching and
shoemaking and fetched up in journalism on their way to the poorhouse."

----Mark Twain

Paul
04-02-2009, 5:33 PM
Agreed - always stay in your lane is what I say.

I've been in military television for 27 years and have had more than one run-in with the liberal press. MTV came aboard USS Carl Vision and we gave them very open access to the ship's crew. I escorted them around the ship just to keep them from getting lost and they could interview anyone they wanted. They interviewed about 120 folks across the five days and shot video of the day-to-day routine.

When the MTV editors got done anything that looked good was cut out. They didn't show the 99 bathrooms on the ship that were clean and functional, they showed the one with an overflowing toilet. They didn't show shout-outs from the 115 sailors that had positive things to say about their service, they showed the five who told lies about how bad it was. MTV was never invited back aboard a USN ship again - and ABC got it in the shorts too. We don't mind a slanted story but at least put some tiny bit of balance to the slander.

The media are experts at crafting images to look good or bad - look at a pro-gun rally and you'll find everyone who looks shabby or is missing teeth with plenty of wide angle shots to show how small the crowd is if it's small or tight shots to hide the crowd if its large. An anti-gun demonstration will get flattering camera angles, interviews with spokesmen who are shared questions with in advance, and favorable lighting. I see the propagandist hands across the wires.

jjperl
04-02-2009, 5:35 PM
I agree. Talking to the press in most cases is like talking to a hardcore anti-gun liberal. Chances are they are going spin any pro-gun argument you make to their benefit. Best keep your mouth shut.

truthseeker
04-02-2009, 6:15 PM
What is funny, is that when I was in the military the "higher ups" told us to NEVER talk to any reporter about the military!

The way the journalist's work these days is to make headlines and your story of how the "sky is blue" will be turned/manipulated into shocking news about how you think the sky is falling!

That is exactly why the top stories in the news are always filled with murder, robberies and violence.

hoffmang
04-02-2009, 6:24 PM
If you haven't spoken to employed members of one of the following you probably shouldn't be talking to the media:
NRA
SAF
CRPA
Cato
ILJ

People who directly interface with folks above will be the ones talking to the press. When you are working with the groups above, you generally know the bent of the reporter and editor before you give the interview. That is key.

A key rule. If you can't cite the specific expected leanings of the reporter in question, you should not be speaking to him or her.

I say this as a person who has been a media figure for 10 years.

-Gene

leelaw
04-02-2009, 6:34 PM
why the hell would i want to talk to the press all they do is twist and contort anything you may say to them. walk away is the thing to do.

Because some people with no training or experience with media interviews believe that they can make anyone "see the light".

This has been brought up on CGNs several times, both by media reporters fishing for candidates to interview, and those openly advoctaing seeking out specific reporters to "teach" them "the truth".

pullnshoot25
04-02-2009, 6:37 PM
I feel (nay, know) that a lot of the content in this thread has to do with me. Thus, I shall respond appropriately.

The SD Reader interview was not some haphazard agreement by some unknowledgeable nerds. This interview garnered Gene's blessing and was conducted with two other individuals, one of them a moderator here on CGN (grammaton76), the other my brother (elsensei), both being excellent orators and of good demeanor.

We as a team have done nothing but uphold and defend the image of an upstanding citizen, gun owner and patriot here in California and elsewhere. We made sure this reporter was not looking for a hackjob (like KPBS) and was either willing to understand or contemplate the draconian intricacies of firearms law and to report it accurately. As such, I think that the forthcoming article, despite the wave of justifiable opposition, will be a good article.

As for the KPBS reporter, I stood down on doing an interview with them since she would not at least go shooting with me (part of the teaching process that the SD Reader reporter gladly undertook) and also told everyone on OCDO to stand down on them as well. Unfortunately, she decided to use my YouTube videos and old posts to fabricate part of her mangled story but that is the unfortunate consequence of having publicly shared information.

The question that remains to be answered is this... If I don't do these interviews, who will? Will it be someone that they can twist around or will it be someone that knows something? What "professionals" do people such as redneckshootist advocate that I appeal to? Are there open carry people here besides MudCamper that can do such an interview? What defines "professional"?

Back to Chem.

EDIT: Read Gene's response, that sort of sums it up.

Fate
04-02-2009, 6:40 PM
Three rules for the common man.

Rule #1: Don't talk with police
Rule #2: Don't talk with the press
Rule #3: See Rules #1 & 2.

SDJim
04-02-2009, 6:56 PM
Agreed - always stay in your lane is what I say.
I've been in military television for 27 years and have had more than one run-in with the liberal press.
Paul,
We're you on the Lincoln for the '00-01 cruise and then transferred to AFRTS after we got back??

nicki
04-02-2009, 7:02 PM
I guess me and my crew are unique.

I have talked with the press and I have gotten balanced articles in the bay area.

I have gotten a reasonable film piece from a foreign film on me.

Overall, the opinions I got on the film and articles from non gunnies was balanced.

My friend Deanna Sykes talked with the Sacramento Bee the other day, I found the article here on Calguns and I thought the article was balanced.

Now, for new posters, Deanna, myself and Tom Boyer up in San Fran are different from most of you, but this is a diverse board.

Our experience has been the press stories are balanced, even positive on our group. Of course our group, the Pink Pistols has a major advantage in dealing with the press that most other gun groups don't.

It is our gut feeling based on our experiences and the experiences of other chapters nationwide that the press is reluctant to run a story that could be percieved as homophobic.

Where I am going with this is that if you have a liberal reporter, a liberal editor and then they interview what they percieve as a right winger who talks about "their rights" without regard to the implications of "their rights", the story will probably come out poorly.

The reporters I dealt with want a story and I helped them with theirs, but like I said, I'm unique.

In the few stories I was in I took the reporters shooting. I think that actually shooting helps the story.

In all honesty, I would have to agree with Oaklander that it is probably best for most of us not to talk to reporters.

Still, Guy Smith who writes GUN FACTS does maintain contacts and he has developed a good relationship with the press in the SF Bay Area.

But all my dealings with the press will be under the PINK PISTOL FLAG just in case.

Nicki

CitaDeL
04-02-2009, 7:13 PM
We are damned if we do, and damned if we dont.

On one hand, if we have someone speak on our behalf and they suffer an embarassing gaffe- we likewise are embarassed and repelled by the attention.

On the other, if we have no one speak on our behalf, the media will find someone and make them our spokesperson.

So logically we must have an orator or representative and endure the medias attempts to twist their words....or accept without exception every slur against us and the second amendment.

trashman
04-02-2009, 7:24 PM
It's also worth being reminded the journalists work for news outlets, which are by and large for-profit organizations trying to sell ad- or tv-space. They do this by attracting readers.

They attract readers with sensational stories.

They have a profit motive in presenting every story as sensationally as possible. These stories will not align with the facts, especially on complex issues such as gun legislation in CA.

--Neill

jwissick
04-02-2009, 7:27 PM
I disagree. Allowing the anti-s to be the only voice represented in the press is giving them too powerful a weapon. The problem is that most gun owners have no clue about how to talk to the press. The press loves a story with conflict. It makes a story that writes itself. There are right and wrong ways to talk to the press.

If you think that talking to the press is a bad idea, you really need to talk with Guy Smith of Gun Facts www.gunfacts.info. He makes a great case of why needing the press is necessary and HOW to do it.

trashman
04-02-2009, 7:28 PM
We are damned if we do, and damned if we dont.


We are *more* damned if we do. CGF, NRA, et al have better and more effective means of making change - ones that lead directly to the halls of Sacramento.

Spreading the word is always a good thing -- but we should carefully choose the medium.

There has never been a single sudden positive shift in gun politics for us because of how the media has reported a story. But oh my...how many times and how many laws do we have because of yellow journalism following a school shooting, or high profile police killing.

--Neill

M. Sage
04-02-2009, 7:29 PM
Hmm. You know, putting Pink Pistols out on point on an issue like this might not be a terrible idea.

hoffmang
04-02-2009, 7:29 PM
We are damned if we do, and damned if we dont.


No. We are winning in the courts.

Alan Gura, Don Kilmer, Chuck Michel, and others like them are going to be speaking to the media about how the courts have again upheld the bill of rights. We all need to very carefully choose who speaks to the media in this state.

In other states the calculus is different. Here we need the courts to build our credibility with a media that things all gun owners need psychological counseling.

If your not a transvestite or openly gay, I'd suggest you stay away from the topic of firearms in the media. Even if you are one of the previous two categories you had better know what angle the reporter is heading down before you agree to the interview.

Pullnshoot: I wouldn't be all that happy with all the outcomes of your foray. We were lucky that damage was controlled and I prefer you not spin it to this community in a different way.

Which article do we want to read. The one where the local police tell everyone how dangerous open carry is or the one where Alameda whines that the courts have stripped them of banning guns at gun shows or DOJ whining that it lost it's handgun roster. Which one creates a more lasting impact on the people who could otherwise care less about gun rights?

-Gene

jasilva
04-02-2009, 7:41 PM
You guys ever notice that whenever the press gets the "man on the street" for his point of view they always find the dumbest among us? What makes any of you amateurs that are asked by the press for an interview think that you are NOT the dummy?:hammer:

oaklander
04-02-2009, 8:11 PM
Are you him?

LOL - I've been trying to get him to come on board here at Calguns. But so far, no luck. He lives about 5 miles from me in Alameda. . .

I disagree. Allowing the anti-s to be the only voice represented in the press is giving them too powerful a weapon. The problem is that most gun owners have no clue about how to talk to the press. The press loves a story with conflict. It makes a story that writes itself. There are right and wrong ways to talk to the press.

If you think that talking to the press is a bad idea, you really need to talk with Guy Smith of Gun Facts www.gunfacts.info. He makes a great case of why needing the press is necessary and HOW to do it.

M. Sage
04-02-2009, 8:14 PM
Are you him?

LOL - I've been trying to get him to come on board here at Calguns. But so far, no luck. He lives about 5 miles from me in Alameda. . .

I found that site after I moved out of Alameda. I literally lived around the corner when we were on Union St!

Paul
04-02-2009, 8:23 PM
Paul,
We're you on the Lincoln for the '00-01 cruise and then transferred to AFRTS after we got back??

Yes I did. :)

I checked aboard during the extended rehab while the ship was in Bremerton and we were living in Everett. That 2-hour ride back and forth everyday was killing me.

Not as bad as when I checked aboard Carl Vision when I rented an apartment in the home port of Alameda and the ship was up in Bremerton. That commute was bad.

ohsmily
04-02-2009, 8:27 PM
Sorry.. guess I will be the dissenter here. Reading this kind of irks me... smacks of the exact kind of stuff many of us hate, someone telling/asking/insinuating to us how and when to act. A subtle manipulation.

Heck, I bet if actually really approached nearly everyone of us would talk to the media as you/we/I think you/we/I would be the one to finally tell the correct story and think it will get told. If asked, I would answer questions. Why not? For fear it will get twisted? That is a chance anyone takes and one I would be willing to take.

Without people talking to those of us OUTSIDE this group - as most of us in this group have a similar way of thinking about our mutual interest so no reason to try to convince them - perceptions will never change, actions will not be taken, nothing progresses. What good is it of us to all sit around and talk amongst ourselves about outside perceptions, and just furthering 'their' perceptions of us since we opt not to engage?

Part of the problem, as I see it, is that too many of 'us' fall back on the same old mantra statements: "self defense is a God-given right" and "guns are needed to protect oneself against the criminal element", and "guns are a constitutional right" that we all get painted as extremists, zealots, kooks with no command of anything beyond those top 3 standard bullet points. In fact, I think better than just saying do "NOT TALK TO THE PRESS", we would be better served on trying to educate ourselves in better methods of arguments, better methods of talking points, better methods of selling the views. Instead, what I think the bigger issue is is that those that DO speak speak poorly for the cause. Use the lowest common denominator arguments and facts that just feed into the perception of gun owners and ownership.

So, it is not so much, in my view, about "don't talk to the press" it is more about "know what your talking about" and if you do not, then maybe you ought to not talk to them until you do. But if you do know & are educated on the topic at hand, talk and speak well and do not come across like a stereotypically viewed gun owner. Do not feed into the stereotype.

my .02 cents...

Well, you are exactly the type of person we DON'T want talking to the press until you follow your advice and learn more. Just today you asked some absurd question about the legality of owning more than one 10 round mag (yes, really) and epoxied magazines, bullet buttons, etc. I can only imagine what you might say to the press about specific laws or even general precepts of 2nd amendment issues.

The problem is, not everyone has the ability to A) learn the nuances of the law and more importantly B) speak well and articulate a cogent argument and/or position. Do us all a favor and don't give a statement to the media if the situation arises....there are NRA spokesman and lawyers (TMLLP) for that.

oaklander
04-02-2009, 8:29 PM
Here's a simpler way of putting things:

http://i39.tinypic.com/2irutcl.jpg

Codelphious
04-02-2009, 8:35 PM
What are we if we don't voice our opinions? Nothing more than slaves. That is exactly what the powers that be want of us.

Have you at all considered the possibility that the desired result of the media is to quell dissenting opinion, and by being dishonest in their account of facts they can, through fear and coercion, silence dissent?

Moreover, insisting that people silence themselves for the so-called greater good is an insult to everyone here. You are in effect saying that "we" are not intelligent enough to convey our opinions in a substantive way, and that we should therefore restrain from exercising our rights.

That is absurd.

While I know Oaklander means well, his thoughts are misdirected. Now more than ever, we have to stick together and voice our opinions as a whole, and most importantly STOP letting "the right people" take care of things. It's time to take care of things for ourselves. We need to drown the media and government with our dissent. We the people.

CCWFacts
04-02-2009, 8:35 PM
Sorry.. guess I will be the dissenter here. Reading this kind of irks me... smacks of the exact kind of stuff many of us hate, someone telling/asking/insinuating to us how and when to act. A subtle manipulation.

Glock_this, perhaps if I may say, what you hate is being told what to do, when the orders are backed up by force. That's what happens when the government tells you you have to pay some tax, you can't have some kind of gun, you can't make a certain financial transaction. You disobey those orders and they (ultimately) can use force on you.

In contrast, the orders people are giving here are backed by reason and by reason alone. No one here can use force. All we can do is be more persuasive, use better logic, make a better case.

The problem isn't being told what to do; the problem is being told, and not having a choice. Here you have a choice, and that's what matters.

oaklander
04-02-2009, 8:42 PM
Um. . .

I know the arguments:

"Let's stand up for our rights!"

"We need to voice our opinions."

"Don't let them get us down."

The problem is that those statements are not arguments. They are platitudes. They sound great, but in this instance, they are the wrong thing to do.

You haven't posted much here, which makes me think you haven't read much here either. You might want to see what we've done, without the use of the press, before you contribute further to the discussion.

What are we if we don't voice our opinions? Nothing more than slaves. That is exactly what the powers that be want of us.

Have you at all considered the possibility that the desired result of the media is to quell dissenting opinion, and by being dishonest in their account of facts they can, through fear and coercion, silence dissent?

Moreover, insisting that people silence themselves for the so-called greater good is an insult to everyone here. You are in effect saying that "we" are not intelligent enough to convey our opinions in a substantive way, and that we should therefore restrain from exercising our rights.

That is absurd.

While I know Oaklander means well, his thoughts are misdirected. Now more than ever, we have to stick together and voice our opinions as a whole, and most importantly STOP letting "the right people" take care of things. It's time to take care of things for ourselves. We need to drown the media and government with our dissent. We the people.

eaglemike
04-02-2009, 8:44 PM
What are we if we don't voice our opinions? Nothing more than slaves. That is exactly what the powers that be want of us.

Have you at all considered the possibility that the desired result of the media is to quell dissenting opinion, and by being dishonest in their account of facts they can, through fear and coercion, silence dissent?

Moreover, insisting that people silence themselves for the so-called greater good is an insult to everyone here. You are in effect saying that "we" are not intelligent enough to convey our opinions in a substantive way, and that we should therefore restrain from exercising our rights.

That is absurd.

While I know Oaklander means well, his thoughts are misdirected. Now more than ever, we have to stick together and voice our opinions as a whole, and most importantly STOP letting "the right people" take care of things. It's time to take care of things for ourselves. We need to drown the media and government with our dissent. We the people.

I've spent a LOT of time reading the history on this site, regarding the OLL effort and other things. I think the advice given by Oaklander is right on the money.

Listen to those that have been setting things up. Don't sabotage things now.

If you want to be a participant, toss some $$ to the CGF. Put your money where your mouth is.

N6ATF
04-02-2009, 8:50 PM
There is a basic chain of command to be aware of when dealing with print media.

Reporters under editors under publishers.

You will sometimes find a reporter like me (or Rosa, some of us feel) who will write the truth and either challenge or strip out all the bias and hyperbole from the victim disarmers. Typically these are far and few between. But not non-existent, which is why this endless drumbeat of tinfoil hattery by YOU in particular, oak, really gets on my nerves, as it should anyone opposed to universal statements the victim disarmers are ever-guilty of making.

That reporter may not always have an editor who will take exactly what they have wrote and send it to publishing (save proofreading and asking the reporter to add more facts, make it more interesting). As editorials ever-increasingly are used to cover fluff instead of serious issues, it is difficult to predict what an editor will do when a reporter files a story antithetical to victim disarmament. In larger papers, sub-editors who rarely get published themselves may get to the story before the managing or executive editor. Insidious, editors can be. This is why I ended up self-publishing.

Finally, publishers are more accountable to ad revenue than they are to either side. In a way, they are the most logical signpost to look to. If they have numerous firearms advertisers as the SD Reader does, they would not want to lose them by allowing a victim disarmament piece. Unless perhaps it was so badly written it served more as a sales bump to the advertisers just as Obama is to the entire industry. With KPBS/NPR there are no firearms advertisers, and no revenue to lose. They will run their membership campaigns until they are blue in the face because their victim disarmament policy eliminates a non-trivial segment of society from wanting to support an immoral and dishonest station. They know this, and prefer to beg.

To sum up, politely put off the reporter and get contact info, then start by looking at the top, then try to feel out whichever editor is closest to editing the story (and if they think revolvers are assault weapons, run exactly the opposite direction as fast as you can), and finally, vet the reporter.

TheBundo
04-02-2009, 8:59 PM
One thing about this group that is the same as any other loose-knit group, is that there are a wide variety of personalities. Some are great, others quiet, some annoying, and some, down-right counter-productive. At the Alan Gura meet in Santa Clara, I was sitting next to the most annoying guy, who simply wouldn't stop trying to say what Alan was going to say next, muttering it, and stepping on what Alan was saying. I guess he wanted to make sure we that were seated close to him realized what a "genius" we had in our midst. I guess he fits in the "Insecure" category. :)

oaklander
04-02-2009, 9:03 PM
Your initial post kind of made sense. Then you edited it once, and it made less sense. Then you edited it a third time, and it now makes no sense. Doesn't that kind of prove my point?

:rolleyes:

Typically these are far and few between. But not non-existent, which is why this endless drumbeat of tinfoil hattery by YOU in particular, oak, really gets on my nerves, and should anyone opposed to hyperbolic statements the victim disarmers are ever-guilty of making.

Codelphious
04-02-2009, 9:10 PM
Um. . .

I know the arguments:

"Let's stand up for our rights!"

"We need to voice our opinions."

"Don't let them get us down."

The problem is that those statements are not arguments. They are platitudes. They sound great, but in this instance, they are the wrong thing to do.

You haven't posted much here, which makes me think you haven't read much here either. You might want to see what we've done, without the use of the press, before you contribute further to the discussion.

Yet another insult... Pehaps if I spent more time posting and less time reading I would know better what goes on here? :confused: That logic is flawless.

While I'm sure most people post dribble simply to up their post count, post counts mean nothing to me. I was a reader of these forums long before I ever became a member. In fact, the only time I log in is to convey an opinion I feel strongly about.

I contend, perhaps if most people here followed suit this thread would have no cause to exist. Nevertheless, that's no excuse to submit to the will of the media and government. We have more power in numbers.

dustoff31
04-02-2009, 9:12 PM
While I know Oaklander means well, his thoughts are misdirected. Now more than ever, we have to stick together and voice our opinions as a whole, and most importantly STOP letting "the right people" take care of things. It's time to take care of things for ourselves. We need to drown the media and government with our dissent. We the people.

Let's face facts. This is not a slam on anyone, just the facts as I see them. The achievement record of the "right people" speaks for itself.

What have the OC people achieved? Perhaps they manage to stay out of jail. Most of the time.

"We the people are going to drown out the media and government with our dissent", exactly how? By re-electing them again? We the people, used in the context that you do are a very small minority, one that can comfortably ignored by most CA politicians.

eaglemike
04-02-2009, 9:13 PM
Yet another insult... Pehaps if I spent more time posting and less time reading I would know better what goes on here? :confused: That logic is flawless.

While I'm sure most people post dribble simply to up their post count, post counts mean nothing to me. I was a reader of these forums long before I ever became a member. In fact, the only time I log in is to convey an opinion I feel strongly about.

I contend, perhaps if most people here followed suit this thread would have no cause to exist. Nevertheless, that's no excuse to submit to the will of the media and government. We have more power in numbers.

You might choose to feel insulted. I would argue there was no insult offered.

leelaw
04-02-2009, 9:14 PM
There is a basic chain of command to be aware of when dealing with print media.

Reporters under editors under publishers.

........ <snip>

doesn't this pretty much make Oak's point?

Regardless of the interviewee or interviewer, there are two more levels of filters which the story is passed through and edited to become sensationalized, dramatized, skewed, and/or misrepresented.

Sounds like yet another good reason why the seasoned professionals (NRA, etc.) should be left to do their job of talking to the media, rather then trying to make a point of how awesome your interview and persuasive speech skills are.

ohsmily
04-02-2009, 9:19 PM
While I'm sure most people post dribble simply to up their post count, post counts mean nothing to me. I was a reader of these forums long before I ever became a member. In fact, the only time I log in is to convey an opinion I feel strongly about.

Well, at least if you speak to the press, they won't see how unpolished you are in text....it is DRIVEL...it is a whole word unto itself. It sounds like dribble, but it 'ain't'. So, I guess in your case, if you are going to do something with the press, don't do it in writing....;)

Anyway, Oak isn't insulting anyone. In the end, you can do what you want. But, unpolished loudmouths who have no public speaking skills can and will do far more harm than good.

oaklander
04-02-2009, 9:20 PM
Look, I agree with most of the sentiments in this thread. I think it sucks that we can't talk about our love of guns and the Second Amendment without fear of being misquoted. All I am saying is that it is NOT a good idea to talk to the press. I don't think it's right. It's just the way things are.

It's also not my intent to get on anyone's nerves. But I'd rather do that than see anymore slam pieces like the KPBS story.

I'm also not slamming reporters. I have respect for what they do - but the reality in California, right now, is that they are not our friends.

EDIT: my demotivator is supposed to be humorous - that's why I picked that particular photo. Again, not my intent to insult anyone. Sorry N6 if you felt insulted.

AndrewMendez
04-02-2009, 9:32 PM
Does anyone here work for any newspaper that can write an article?

wildhawker
04-02-2009, 9:45 PM
Oaklander, wise words. But...

Who *will* talk to the press? Ultimately the press will be an indispensable part of turning the tide (whether as a cause or an effect, I haven't figured out yet). Someone has to speak to them, and I'm pretty sure that referring them to a local or national NRA spokesperson isn't going to work very well, especially where California-specific issues come up.

At the same time, having dealt with the press myself in the recent past for non-firearms issues, I can certainly attest to the fact that words must be chosen more than just 'carefully', conveyed in the proper manner, even with the correct intonation of voice and accompanying body language. Reporters are hounds, and good at what they do.

I would suggest CGF create a media relations arm with designated spokespeople, canned fact sheets, talking points, the whole 9 yards. Assuming of course something like that doesn't already exist w/in the org.

Agreed; while I firmly believe that most of us are NOT the type to function as communications/public relations specialists, someone qualified needs to or the void will be filled (by well-intentioned gunnies in over their head, if not worse).

wildhawker
04-02-2009, 9:47 PM
Do we really need another thread about this? This has been hashed to death over and over in several threads in the last couple weeks. Everything that will be said in this thread has already come up in this one (http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=164253).

You're right, it has been discussed ad nauseam... and yet many continue to ignore the well-reasoned suggestions and pleas of some to proceed with ill-advised and detrimental actions such as this.

hoffmang
04-02-2009, 9:51 PM
What are we if we don't voice our opinions? Nothing more than slaves. That is exactly what the powers that be want of us.


Do you think the Brady Campaign, LCAV, or VPC puts ranting individuals in touch with the media or do you think the limit press interaction to their leadership and those folks they've trained to be on message.

N6: If you're a media person then you know how it works. 80% of the coverage of most any topic except raw breaking news is manufactured. I know. I've manufactured lots and lots of press. Google can prove that.

Edited to add: A lot of you thought my comment about being gay above was a joke. It is not. Anti-gun media will be much more reluctant to attack an openly homosexual pro-gun messenger. The other category I stupidly ignored was women. If you are white or male, you probably shouldn't be talking to the mainstream press about gun issues in California. Other states are different.

-Gene

eaglemike
04-02-2009, 9:54 PM
REMOVED
I read the poll thread started by pullnshoot25 ( http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=168732 ) regarding the published article. According to what you posted in that thread, and (what I believe is) the article on your site, the reporter skewed what you presented. Or maybe is was the editor - whatever. Doesn't this tend to support Oak's position? I agree there are likely a fair number of honest reporters. I do not think they are in the majority. One hundred percent of my limited exposure to the media along this line indicates most of them are looking for sensationalism, focused on a pre-determined agenda. I think examples of this would be easy to find. They would not all be firearms related, but I think I could prove the point.

wilit
04-02-2009, 10:14 PM
Therefore, my suggestion (and I am only speaking for myself and not necessarily for the CGF) is to NOT TALK TO THE PRESS.


Uh oh. My wife is the press. Can I talk to her? :p

oaklander
04-02-2009, 10:15 PM
Uh oh. My wife is the press. Can I talk to her? :p

No, you may not talk to your wife!

LOL

edwardm
04-02-2009, 10:25 PM
You know, I think sentence the second, below, proves the point you're trying to make. Whether subtle or unintended, I'm going to stick my finger in it....

"love of guns". Can you imagine what a liberal, anti-gun, agenda-based reporter would do with those *three* little words, folks? A simple slip, a poor choice of words, and the whole thing is, at best, a wash. At worst, we're all apparently in need of psychotropic drugs, shock therapy and long-term confinement to a padded room.

Can you find an honest reporter in California? Sure. They're usually married to, or shacked up with, the honest politicians in California. Put another way, the condors outnumber them, 2 to 1. ;)

Look, I agree with most of the sentiments in this thread. I think it sucks that we can't talk about our love of guns and the Second Amendment without fear of being misquoted. All I am saying is that it is NOT a good idea to talk to the press. I don't think it's right. It's just the way things are.

oaklander
04-02-2009, 10:26 PM
Good point! To a non-gun person, saying you "love guns" does sound a bit crazy!!!!

Yet another reason I don't talk to the press about guns.

You know, I think sentence the second, below, proves the point you're trying to make. Whether subtle or unintended, I'm going to stick my finger in it....

"love of guns". Can you imagine what a liberal, anti-gun, agenda-based reporter would do with those *three* little words, folks? A simple slip, a poor choice of words, and the whole thing is, at best, a wash. At worst, we're all apparently in need of psychotropic drugs, shock therapy and long-term confinement to a padded room.

Can you find an honest reporter in California? Sure. They're usually married to, or shacked up with, the honest politicians in California. Put another way, the condors outnumber them, 2 to 1. ;)

yellowfin
04-02-2009, 10:32 PM
Do you think the Brady Campaign, LCAV, or VPC puts ranting individuals in touch with the media or do you think the limit press interaction to their leadership and those folks they've trained to be on message.How much longer are we to play ping pong with those particular three groups? When are we going to start taking them down?

7x57
04-02-2009, 10:34 PM
To a non-gun person, saying you "love guns" does sound a bit crazy!!!!


One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them.


:D

Those crazy, crazy rebels. But then, all the founders were gunnies to a man.

7x57

Futurecollector
04-02-2009, 10:49 PM
OH man and the camera crew said they would be here in 15, :( you have to kill all of my fun!!!

hoffmang
04-02-2009, 10:53 PM
How much longer are we to play ping pong with those particular three groups? When are we going to start taking them down?

I expect we're one or two Supreme Court cases from their financiers truly giving up on them and narrowing them down to one.

Remember, even the KKK survived the success of the civil rights movement. Misguided groups are very hard to end.

-Gene

edwardm
04-02-2009, 10:53 PM
There is no need to "tak[e] them down". They'll just be made irrelevant as the courts (hopefully) continue to swing in our favor. But like Mr. Gura said - the wrong case or the wrong plaintiff plays right into their hands.

How much longer are we to play ping pong with those particular three groups? When are we going to start taking them down?

artherd
04-02-2009, 10:55 PM
How much longer are we to play ping pong with those particular three groups? When are we going to start taking them down?

We're simply going to make them irrelevant very very soon. Even better than taking them head-on, as we don't get our hands dirty or look like lunatics.

luchador768
04-02-2009, 11:33 PM
The San Diego Reader just published a Mexico drug cartel/United States gun importing FUD piece. A few quotes; "I hate to tell you this, but Americans make me sick...who is it that makes the narco trafficers millionaires? Americans. Who is it that has shipped THOUSANDS AND THOUSANDS of weapons into Mexico that makes all this violence possible?? Americans." And this random number pulled from outer space; "since 2006 more than 14,000 handguns and assault rifles (sic) along with 863 HAND GRENADES have been seized by Mexican law enforcement." "ATF and the Mexican government agree that 90% orginated in the USA." There are alot more gems, but mostly it comes down to the loyal, hard working, noble people of Mexico being victimized by the gun toteing, drug addicted Satan to the north. This is the media outlet that is going to give Pullandshoot a fair article?

N6ATF
04-03-2009, 12:55 AM
N6: If you're a media person then you know how it works. 80% of the coverage of most any topic except raw breaking news is manufactured. I know. I've manufactured lots and lots of press. Google can prove that.

Yep, today it's 80%. I don't even want to pick up some papers anymore because it's mostly "Special to the {Insert Name of Paper Here}" instead of a real byline, touting the latest award winner or addition to a local hospital's high-tech equipment, etc...

Looking over my clips back when I got paid to write for a paper...
1 was about an emergency Ultralight landing (I love emergency stories)
1 was an obituary about a locally famous teacher who had a performing arts center named after her while still alive
1 was about the 25th anniversary of a performing arts school I went to
6 were, in hindsight, pretty boring, as I think they all started as press releases and I fleshed them out.

I read the poll thread started by pullnshoot25 ( http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=168732 ) regarding the published article. According to what you posted in that thread, and (what I believe is) the article on your site, the reporter skewed what you presented. Or maybe is was the editor - whatever.

Editor, according to the staff list. It's an important distinction. Like I said, editors can be insidious. They can even pretend to be reporters and completely redo stories when the actual reporters have just done their jobs and only written the facts. How dare we not spew and quote BS and FUD all over the page!

So to answer your question, "Doesn't this tend to support Oak's position?"
No. Reporter (me) did his job, editor (not me) was not to be trusted on any level!

I agree there are likely a fair number of honest reporters. I do not think they are in the majority.

Then you disagree with Oak. His position as stated repeatedly is that no reporter is a friend, no reporter can be trusted. AT ALL. This deliberately ignores the fact that reporters don't run the printing presses alone, and some of us reporters have a freaking conscience and get screwed by our editors for writing just the facts, ma'am.

nicki
04-03-2009, 1:29 AM
Guys.

News organizations want conflict and controversy because that is what people buy, they don't care about the facts.

Humans respond to emotion 24X more than logic, that is the way we are genetically wired, Vulcans are another story.:rolleyes:

Are unpreparred gunnie in camo's talking about his rights, then a follow up of some gun related tragedy is the typical news we see. It is conflict news.

That is why most gunnies should avoid the press but at the risk of being called a heretic, we have a problem with our professional spokespersons and I'm making my comments not to bash them, but to give constructive criticism.

Our spokespersons speak well to the choir, but they don't reach much beyond that.

There are alot of problems in society caused with guns. Our opponents have changed the dialogue that we have problems in society because of guns.

The real issue isn't even guns, rather the real issue is the failure of many public policies which create problems that foster crime.

Instead of talking just about gun rights, we should be focusing on the root causes of crime in our society and fixing government policies that create the messes in the first place.

The public will side with us on defending guns if we are seen as actively trying to reduce violence with guns.

One thing is clear though. We need to develop articulate Calguns spokespersons in different parts of the state.

We got 25k members, surely we could find 10 to 20 people in this state.

Nicki

M. Sage
04-03-2009, 4:12 AM
N6ATF is right. It should really be "media aren't our friends". Either way, it's not worth the risk of having a story spun back around against us, whether it be by a reporter or an editor. Because it is going to happen, especially in CA.

What are we if we don't voice our opinions? Nothing more than slaves. That is exactly what the powers that be want of us.

Nobody's saying "don't voice your opinion". Heck, I bet Oaklander can tell you about how "closet gun owners" hurt our cause. What people are saying is "don't voice your opinion to the press." They're not friendly. They will use dishonest methods to discredit you and our cause. You can give the perfect interview, and they'll leave what doesn't work on the cutting room floor so that something you say is taken out of context.

Not to mention that most of us here are exactly experienced in this kind of a forum. Reporters are. How often can someone who is totally inexperienced step up against a professional and expect to win? Can you say "never"?

Media is hostile and are professionals at twisting stories all out of shape to suit their purposes.

Tell me again why it's a good idea to talk to them?

Mazilla
04-03-2009, 6:39 AM
All I am getting from this is "don't talk to the press, leave it to the professionals". I don't recall EVER seeing a "professional" spokesperson in favor of 2A posting his/her info here as a consistent, reliable contact for media interviews(If there is such a thread it should be a sticky).

You cant tell everybody not to talk to the media and not tell them EXACTLY who should. It's easy to give no answers, but who can you name specifically that any person here can pick up and dial at will? If I'm approached by the media it would be nice to have somebody specific to refer them to, like a name and phone number.

Where is the thread for that one, the one that actually addresses the problem with a real solution? <seriously, somebody link it to me, I'm new>.

Let me make this clear, I'm not going to rely on a phantom "professional" who I've never heard of, and don't have a name or contact info for to be my voice. If you're going to speak for me, you better be 100% in favor of my end goal or else you're speaking for yourself.

Edit: I guess I could just tell them to call my "buddy" Wayne at the NRA. LOL

B Strong
04-03-2009, 6:44 AM
It appears that certain Calguns members have decided that they want to get some press. Getting press is easy. Getting BAD press is also easy.

Bad press hurts our cause. One BAD story, if forwarded to the right politician, can result in a new bill that will take thousands of hours and dollars to defeat.

Good stories will not "all of sudden" make fence sitters sympathetic to our cause. They certainly won't convince anti's to change their minds.

Therefore, my suggestion (and I am only speaking for myself and not necessarily for the CGF) is to NOT TALK TO THE PRESS.

The recent KPBS article about UOC was a hit piece. There is no reason to think that the liberal press is going to present a fair article about guns or gun rights.

No matter how you argue it, it gets twisted. If you say "self defense is a God-given right," they will make you sound like a religious zealot. If you say that "guns are needed to protect oneself against the criminal element," they will make you sound like a racist. If you say that "guns are a constitutional right," they will make you sound like a militia member.

There is absolutely NO advantage to talking to the press. If a press member contacts you for a comment (or an article), the correct response is "I am sorry, but I can't help you."

I'm not basing this on stuff I've read on the internet. I'm basing this on having worked in the marketing and public relations field for 15 years.

AMEN!

When the media was running a full court press during the first California AW ban hysteria, SF TV stations would always go to Vic Hollbrook at H & H in Redwood City.

The media loved Vic - black T-sihrt, 5 O'clock shadow, talked tough, all the stereotypes the media loves.

Tried talking Vic into having a suit stashed away to change into, take a shave, etc.

His reaction was "**** them."

He didn't do us any favors.

Just say "NO" to media interview requests.

trashman
04-03-2009, 6:44 AM
Let me make this clear, I'm not going to rely on a phantom "professional" who I've never heard of, and don't have a name or contact info for to be my voice. If you're going to speak for me, you better be 100% in favor of my end goal or else you're speaking for yourself.


Are you going to be as "clear" about accepting responsibility for setting our larger RKBA cause back because you say something that gets twisted and used by anti-gun politicians to criminalize UOC?

--Neill

Mazilla
04-03-2009, 6:45 AM
Are you going to be as "clear" about accepting responsibility for setting our larger RKBA cause back because you say something that gets twisted and used by anti-gun politicians to criminalize UOC?

--Neill


So I can give them your number Neill?

Edit to add: And LOL @ the thought that I would be the sole destruction of the RKBA cause for saying I enjoy the shooting as a sport, because it's difficult and takes careful calculations. Between threads about me keeping my mouth shut, and threads about me not UOC'ing I don't need any lawmaker to take away my rights...you guys are doing a bang up job already. ;)

edit....again: Just so there is no confusion, I know that everybody here is doing their best for the best interest of RKBA. Thats a joke ^ before anybody gets their feelings hurt. :)

jb7706
04-03-2009, 7:19 AM
Pro 2A and the media. Kind of reminds me of the story of the frog and the scorpion.

Story here (http://allaboutfrogs.org/stories/scorpion.html) in case you have never heard of it.

trashman
04-03-2009, 7:28 AM
So I can give them your number Neill?

LOL...absolutely not. (You've obviously never seen me in front of an audience :rolleyes:). You should give them CGF's contact info and let those guys field it. That's what this whole thread is about.

Between threads about me keeping my mouth shut, and threads about me not UOC'ing I don't need any lawmaker to take away my rights...you guys are doing a bang up job already. ;)


Trust me, every gunny in California feels your pain. I bite my tongue in private conversations when RKBA comes up all the time because folks have very, very emotional responses to this issue. And that includes me...

--Neill

Mazilla
04-03-2009, 7:33 AM
LOL...absolutely not. (You've obviously never seen me in front of an audience :rolleyes:). You should give them CGF's contact info and let those guys field it. That's what this whole thread is about.

Thats what I was hoping for, a name and number of somebody/anybody who they could actually talk to. If it's not too much trouble would you mind linking that info for me. I'm going to look, but you will probably beat me to it. Is there a public relations office or something?



Trust me, every gunny in California feels your pain. I bite my tongue in private conversations when RKBA comes up all the time because folks have very, very emotional responses to this issue. And that includes me...

I feel you on that one, I made the mistake of mentioning it to my LEO father in law and he went off on a small tangent about how stupid UOC is etc etc, and whenever I mention it around people who have never held a gun it instantly turns to "like the wild wild west" and so on.:rolleyes:

wildhawker
04-03-2009, 7:44 AM
Are you going to be as "clear" about accepting responsibility for setting our larger RKBA cause back because you say something that gets twisted and used by anti-gun politicians to criminalize UOC?

--Neill

What is clear by Mazilla's post is that his sentiments give further credence to the theory that there is a lack of buy-in into the Right Communicators.

Some here don't trust the prior-named entities to speak for them. There is an upside to this- many here are looking for a communicator here (from within the Calguns house), and are frustrated that they cannot see one emerging. This vocalized frustration goes to the buy-in most here have into the Calguns leadership. They're looking for our leaders to lead, beyond "management" (if such were possible in the context of these online forums and its members).

Some are simply impatient and overeager. Some, however, are looking for our community to speak for its own- Calguns may well be replacing (have replaced?) NRA, CRPA and others as their "home organization".

We have going on 26,000 members and over 9,700 active members. How sad to think that at least one of the thousands here could not function as the mouthpiece of this household.

WokMaster1
04-03-2009, 8:07 AM
I'm sure we've all seen on the news about some common joe or josephine from the street talking about how all guns should be ban because yaadah, yaadah, yaadah, blah, blah, blah.... And we all roll our eyes in unison & go, STFU dumb...... Let's not be that common joe or josephine.

It is a PR battle, not a school debate. It's easier to win the public over with a coordinated effort with facts & not opinions. That is why big companies & .gov departments always have a spokeperson & never ever allow the media to talk to it's staff/people when their reputation & image is involved.

The media will not blink about turning an interview with an average joe around & misquote you, spin your words & dice your tongue up. You can protest all you want & threaten then with lawsuit, etc, etc but even if you do sue, their attorneys bury you with papaerwork. Unless you are like Artherd or Gene who ooze $$$$$$$$ out of their sweat pores, it'll be of no help.

Let the designated people represent us. That is how it works in the media/PR world. It's a very cut throat business.

Just my $0.20 plus 9.5% sales tax.

redneckshootist
04-03-2009, 8:16 AM
Edited to add: A lot of you thought my comment about being gay above was a joke. It is not. Anti-gun media will be much more reluctant to attack an openly homosexual pro-gun messenger. The other category I stupidly ignored was women. If you are white or male, you probably shouldn't be talking to the mainstream press about gun issues in California. Other states are different.

-Gene
thats the main reason I will not talk to the media.......Im white, male, strait and to top it all off Im a redneck:TFH: Id hate to see the picture the media will paint of me.

PatriotnMore
04-03-2009, 8:24 AM
Lessons learned from watching the media, its uncool, and politically incorrect to be a white male, straight, and have a strong opinion about freedom, guns, and the Constitution.

gose
04-03-2009, 8:36 AM
There were two bay area news papers that ran stories last year where two cgn members were interviewed and both articles, even if not completely factually correct, came out pretty positive for "our" side.


There is absolutely NO advantage to talking to the press. If a press member contacts you for a comment (or an article), the correct response is "I am sorry, but I can't help you."

I agree that bad press might hurt us pretty bad, but I somehow fail to see how favorable articles can.
Showing people that shooting is well and alive in California is good in my book, hiding is not.

However, I do understand that the risk might out-weigh the reward in a lot of cases....

edwardm
04-03-2009, 9:15 AM
Not only uncool, but by latest standards apparently makes you a militia member, a.k.a. domestic terr'ist!

Lessons learned from watching the media, its uncool, and politically incorrect to be a white male, straight, and have a strong opinion about freedom, guns, and the Constitution.

glock_this
04-03-2009, 9:46 AM
Well, you are exactly the type of person we DON'T want talking to the press until you follow your advice and learn more. Just today you asked some absurd question about the legality of owning more than one 10 round mag (yes, really) and epoxied magazines, bullet buttons, etc. I can only imagine what you might say to the press about specific laws or even general precepts of 2nd amendment issues.

Though this thread has nothing to really do with the other and your are mudding the waters by melding the 2 to make a point, like the press likes to do, the quesiotn may have been absurd to you, but not to me. Heaven forbid I want some clarification, and then have to be made to look like a dolt for seeking correct info so I am educated correctly by someone who is suppose to be on the same side as me. But you see, this is the kind of mentality, bordering on elitist, that holds back a cause. So, what, your better than me because you knew the answer on that topic, I still felt in the dark so I asked, and in both that thread and here, you publically make me aware of that fact.

The problem is, not everyone has the ability to A) learn the nuances of the law and more importantly B) speak well and articulate a cogent argument and/or position.

we agree there.. and I said exactly the same thing already

Do us all a favor and don't give a statement to the media if the situation arises....there are NRA spokesman and lawyers (TMLLP) for that.

So, we want you talking for us any more than me as look how you handle this situation with me. Your no more a candidate to speak than I am.

Also, my comments early on, which I still fully stand by, were (1) more generalizing on the topic of "talking to the press", not specific comments to any 1 topic within this arena and (2) I clearly said "So, it is not so much, in my view, about "don't talk to the press" it is more about "know what your talking about" and if you do not, then maybe you ought to not talk to them until you do." - which, depending on the topic, I could certainly fall into. For example, I am not one to quote laws, articles, examples, numbers, statistics, etc.. so as my post eludes to, would not take on such an interview. But, I am a long time gun owner & user, so would entertain an interview on general gun owner topics, concerns, etc. that I was versed on. But then again, who deems a person knowledge base as worthy enough to be the speaker? I know some people, some here, that you would say "sure, he is worthy" and yet another person might say "no, he is not even close to knowing what needs to be know". It seem so arbitrary.

Anyway.. one final thing is that, when you sit and think about it, it is kind of an odd topic to be bantering about. "We" don't want people, especially not versed and prepped and such, talking to the press for fear their lack of knowledge will be spun to a degree it hurts the cause. Yet at the same time, the people 'we' seem to want to speak for us on the cause still get their knowledge, stats, quotes, spun anyway. As was said earlier, it is a Catch-22, damed if 'we' do and damed if we do not. This argument is predicated on the fact the the issue is that our cause has been portrayed incorrectly by certain speakers abilities or knowledge (or lack thereof) - maybe so, but the fact is, if it has been done so following interviews of both worthy and unworthy speakers.. so the people listed pages ago that should be the ones doing the speaking as they are the "pros" still can't control what comes of it. I find that ironic.

12voltguy
04-03-2009, 10:44 AM
if you are looking for validation in the press on + gun stuff, you are never going to see your validation
Rush Limbaugh said this just this week about his listeners, do not judge your beliefs on the biased press approval, it will never happen.
get laws changed, don't worry about the biased media, that is a losing battle, always has been, always will be

artherd
04-03-2009, 10:48 AM
N6: If you're a media person then you know how it works. 80% of the coverage of most any topic except raw breaking news is manufactured. I know. I've manufactured lots and lots of press. Google can prove that.

+100

Go in expecting a fair fight, and prepare to get your *** handed to you.

madmike
04-03-2009, 1:58 PM
My Father before he retired, worked for a Bay Area police department for many years. During that time he had the misfortune to deal with the media, both print and broadcast somewhat often. It seems to me I remember him being misquoted, taken out of context, and flat out lied about about every time.
I would only speak to the press in sign language, over my shoulder as I walk away.;)

-madmike.

johnny_22
04-03-2009, 3:45 PM
I was lucky enough to have a letter printed in the San Jose Mercury News. Little editing and my point of the inaccurate protrail of machine guns easiily bought at gun shows and stores, remained.

jasilva
04-03-2009, 4:23 PM
I was lucky enough to have a letter printed in the San Jose Mercury News. Little editing and my point of the inaccurate protrail of machine guns easiily bought at gun shows and stores, remained.

Op-ed letters are not the same as news stories written by reporters. Letters can be cleaned up for spelling and grammar but it's unethical and can open the paper up to liability if they re-write/edit a letter to change the view of the writer.

fairfaxjim
04-03-2009, 5:49 PM
One thing that needs to be remembered about talking to the press - for the most part, they are not out "looking" for news, they already have an agenda, a story line, and have formed all the conclusions before they clear the elevator. What they are looking for are "tools" to be used to support their story. If you want to be a free tool for the press, bable on, because unless you are the one who supports their story, you will be edited, hacked, twisted, and made to look like you are saying water runs uphill. Look how often even professional spokespersons, media professionals, and people who talk in front of cameras all the time come off looking foolish. Throw in the fact that the person making and editing the film intends for you to look stupid, foolish, outrageous, like a kook, or dangerous and decide what the final product will be. You are NOT going to be given a fair outlet for your views or thoughts.

hoffmang
04-03-2009, 6:24 PM
Let me add another bit of the truth.

Wayne Lapierre and Chris Cox have some power over the media and that keeps them from being wildly misquoted. Their power is to deny any specific report/editor/news outlet from getting a quote from the NRA in the future.

There are basically no Calgunners that have the power of blacklisting to keep from being chewed up and spit out.

That's the truth of how real public relations on volatile topics works. Ignore that rule at the risk of your fellow gun owners.

-Gene

MT1
04-03-2009, 6:27 PM
I think it's a pretty simple request that has been backed up with evidence of what happens if you ignore it.

DDT
04-03-2009, 6:28 PM
Let me add another bit of the truth.

Wayne Lapierre and Chris Cox have some power over the media and that keeps them from being wildly misquoted. Their power is to deny any specific report/editor/news outlet from getting a quote from the NRA in the future.

There are basically no Calgunners that have the power of blacklisting to keep from being chewed up and spit out.

That's the truth of how real public relations on volatile topics works. Ignore that rule at the risk of your fellow gun owners.

-Gene

Yes, and if an NRA affiliated group were to appoint a handful of spokespeople (see Nicki's thread) there could be both a local voice and some level of NRA support on keeping the quotes/representation in-line.

oaklander
04-03-2009, 6:54 PM
When I say "the press is not your friend," I mean that in general terms. I do not disagree with you that there are good reporters out there. I used to be a reporter for my law school newspaper. I was also the production editor, and later went on to write professionally for national legal publications.

I consider myself fairly literate and erudite, and the fact that my words were misunderstood simply proves my point. If I can't make a simple statement without it getting dissected, analyzed and twisted, how can any of us be certain that what we say to the press will come out correctly?

That's why we leave it to the pros.

Again, as I have said before, I am sorry if I offended you, or any reporters who might be reading this. It was not my intent.

Then you disagree with Oak. His position as stated repeatedly is that no reporter is a friend, no reporter can be trusted. AT ALL. This deliberately ignores the fact that reporters don't run the printing presses alone, and some of us reporters have a freaking conscience and get screwed by our editors for writing just the facts, ma'am.

hoffmang
04-03-2009, 7:09 PM
Yes, and if an NRA affiliated group were to appoint a handful of spokespeople (see Nicki's thread) there could be both a local voice and some level of NRA support on keeping the quotes/representation in-line.

There is a quieter push on to have a short list of Californians - some of which are well known around this community - some less so - to be a go to group for California. However, that is something that does take real time to co-ordinate and manage for a lot of the good reasons pointed out above.

The quick answer is that if you get an interview request on firearms and you aren't female, homosexual, or a transvestite, you should probably say "no thanks" and forward it to one of the CA NRA reps of the Calguns Foundation at 650-275-1015, or email/PM one of the CGF board members. We'll deal it off to the right folks.

To give you an idea how bad this is, on the day the Heller decision came out, members of the media were requesting one of the CA NRA reps to find them a cammo wearing gun nut to talk to. I kid you not. Of course those requests were ignored.

-Gene

vf111
04-03-2009, 7:15 PM
I had a bozo from the Sacramento Bee approach me at the Cordova Shooting Center last summer asking if he could interview me for an article he was writing about the impending micro-stamping bill. It took every ounce of my willpower to keep from laughing in his face.....needless to say I declined to comment.

7x57
04-03-2009, 7:20 PM
This thread reduces to the following conversation:



Enthusiasm: we should get some good press.

Experience: this always backfires, for a number of systemic reasons.

Enthusiasm: yeah, bad press is bad. We need good press.

Experience: we almost always get bad press, so it's a losing gamble.

Enthusiasm: that's why we need *good* press. How about if we try it *this* way?

Experience: everybody tries that. It doesn't work.

Enthusiasm: how are we going to win if we don't get good press? We can't quit.

Experience: it isn't quitting, it's refusing to play a losing game. We'll get good press when we win the culture war.

Enthusiasm: we can't win the culture war without good press. Let's get some.

Experience: we can't get good press without winning the culture war. Let's not shoot ourselves in the foot.

Enthusiasm: we can't win the culture war without good press. Let's get some.

Experience: we can't get good press without winning the culture war. Let's not shoot ourselves in the foot.

Enthusiasm: we can't win the culture war without good press. Let's get some.

Experience: we can't get good press without winning the culture war. Let's not shoot ourselves in the foot.

Enthusiasm: we can't win the culture war without good press. Let's get some.

Experience: we can't get good press without winning the culture war. Let's not shoot ourselves in the foot.

Enthusiasm: we can't win the culture war without good press. Let's get some.

Experience: we can't get good press without winning the culture war. Let's not shoot ourselves in the foot.

Enthusiasm: we can't win the culture war without good press. Let's get some.

Experience: I sense that you are not understanding what I am saying.

Enthusiasm: we can't win the culture war without good press. Let's get some.

Experience: !@@E%^%&&*(


I seem to have heard the conversation before.

7x57

DDT
04-03-2009, 8:15 PM
There is a quieter push on to have a short list of Californians - some of which are well known around this community - some less so - to be a go to group for California. However, that is something that does take real time to co-ordinate and manage for a lot of the good reasons pointed out above.



That is excellent to hear. I'm glad it is now "out there" so others can understand that there is a path forward and not just a generic gag order.

To give you an idea how bad this is, on the day the Heller decision came out, members of the media were requesting one of the CA NRA reps to find them a cammo wearing gun nut to talk to. I kid you not. Of course those requests were ignored.


I don't suppose the same reporter called up ACORN asking to talk to a "crackhead multi-voter living off the government teet" when Congress gave them millions in the latest stimulus package.

N6ATF
04-03-2009, 9:23 PM
When I say "the press is not your friend," I mean that in general terms.

...

I consider myself fairly literate and erudite, and the fact that my words were misunderstood simply proves my point. If I can't make a simple statement without it getting dissected, analyzed and twisted, how can any of us be certain that what we say to the press will come out correctly?

Poor attempt at revisionist history. The fact is those weren't your words at all. YOU haven't said "the press is not your friend" in this thread until now. Or maybe you confused what you ACTUALLY said (and backed up with a "humorous" image later on):

I'm also not slamming reporters. I have respect for what they do - but the reality in California, right now, is that they are not our friends.

with someone else's statement:

the press is not our friend

We see YOUR words as clear as day. The only misunderstanding and twisting here is in your own mind.

jwissick
04-03-2009, 11:05 PM
It is not advisable for amateurs to attempt to spin the media. At a national (and state) level, the NRA works very hard to get us good press and good PR. Please let them do their job. You do not help by getting your "own" stories.
Again, let's leave it to the pros.



I am sorry, but the NRA / CRPA when it comes to local SF press, is non-existent. I have NEVER seen Worley or anyone else quoted or even interviewed on local news. Yet I do see MMM and the Brady bunch on the news frequently.

If we don't start learning to deal with the press in the correct way, the only people who will be seen presenting the pro-gun side will be Bubba and Gomer both in camo and spittin' chew. We have all seen them at pro-gun protests and gun shows... We simply can NOT afford to have them speak for us... and they will not listen to you when you say don't talk to the press and make us all look like fools. They would love to talk to the press so they can wave "HI MOM! I'z on the TEEVEE!" and tell everyone about their killer BFG2000

leelaw
04-03-2009, 11:09 PM
Locked at OP's request.