PDA

View Full Version : KXTV 10 story on UOC/AB 1934 in the works


jb7706
04-19-2010, 8:30 AM
Just got a call from a researcher/reporter (didn't catch her name) from channel 10 in Sacramento asking about the UOC ban legislation and my take on women and CCW. She received a no comment on all the above. Figured that someone may want to help keep an eye on the news to see what/how they spin this.

Manic Moran
04-19-2010, 6:52 PM
I know it's a long debate, but unless you're in a position where it would be 'out of your lane to comment' (such as a mid-level policeman) I really am not a fan of 'no comment' responses.

NTM

Baxter
04-19-2010, 7:26 PM
When I wrote Saldana ( I am in her district) I didn't get a comment either. What a surprise.

MP301
04-19-2010, 7:30 PM
Yeah, "no comment" looks like you ashamed of admitting you support us being armed. It is understandable to not trust the media, but a short "I support people's right to carry a firearm for personal protection" works well. How can that be twisted into anything other then what it is?

jb7706
04-19-2010, 10:18 PM
Yeah, "no comment" looks like you ashamed of admitting you support us being armed. It is understandable to not trust the media, but a short "I support people's right to carry a firearm for personal protection" works well. How can that be twisted into anything other then what it is?

It is the policy of the board of directors that I am on to not talk to the media. Our club has been burned by local news media in the past in spite of their promises to be friendly to us and our cause. I explained that to the caller.

That policy aside our bylaws prohibit our making any attempt to influence legislation. Commenting on bills being actively debated is walking a very fine line. She was not interested in my personal opinion, she wanted the opinion of the club.

I tend to treat the media much like a LEO on a fishing trip. The only thing that cannot be twisted against you is silence. When in doubt STFU and do no harm. Is that not the mantra that is repeated over and over again here?

curtisfong
04-19-2010, 11:22 PM
When in doubt STFU and do no harm. Is that not the mantra that is repeated over and over again here?

Yup. Very sensible, especially if you know the reporter you are dealing with is not interested in your side. If you know he is fishing for stuff to make you look bad, NOTHING you can say will be useful.

pullnshoot25
04-20-2010, 12:10 AM
It is the policy of the board of directors that I am on to not talk to the media. Our club has been burned by local news media in the past in spite of their promises to be friendly to us and our cause. I explained that to the caller.

That policy aside our bylaws prohibit our making any attempt to influence legislation. Commenting on bills being actively debated is walking a very fine line. She was not interested in my personal opinion, she wanted the opinion of the club.

I tend to treat the media much like a LEO on a fishing trip. The only thing that cannot be twisted against you is silence. When in doubt STFU and do no harm. Is that not the mantra that is repeated over and over again here?

What board/club are you in?

obeygiant
04-20-2010, 12:24 AM
What board/club are you in?

It appears to be the Folsom Shooting Club (http://www.sacvalley.org/SacVal/Board_of_Directors.html)

rmasold
04-20-2010, 12:36 AM
nice

Manic Moran
04-20-2010, 7:38 AM
It is the policy of the board of directors that I am on to not talk to the media. Our club has been burned by local news media in the past in spite of their promises to be friendly to us and our cause. I explained that to the caller.

OK, I can see how your 'no comment' position was out of your hands and mandated.

Still don't like it, though. As Winnie said, the only thing worse than being talked about poorly is not being talked about at all. In order to win the PR battle, you have to get your side of the story out. How often does 'Calls to Senator Blank's office have not been returned' or 'Congresscritter X has refused to comment' looked rather poorly on them on news reports?

NTM

Merc1138
04-20-2010, 8:04 AM
Can't recall the last time media put gun owners in a positive light.

http://www.dayofthejedi.com/articles/2008/05/images/motivators/b/037.jpg

jb7706
04-20-2010, 10:31 AM
OK, I can see how your 'no comment' position was out of your hands and mandated.

Still don't like it, though. As Winnie said, the only thing worse than being talked about poorly is not being talked about at all. In order to win the PR battle, you have to get your side of the story out. How often does 'Calls to Senator Blank's office have not been returned' or 'Congresscritter X has refused to comment' looked rather poorly on them on news reports?

NTM

Were I in a position to review the product and approve it's content before it aired I would love to speak out in support of our side. The media has a long history of creative editing to make a statement come out any way they want. I don't trust the news media, they have not shown themselves to be friendly to our cause. They have in fact spun stories in a less than flattering light on our own property in the past.

I'm not willing to risk saying something supportive that is then twisted into something I didn't intend later in the editing room. At least with LE they warn you that anything you say will be used against you, and at some point you will be afforded the opportunity to defend yourself. MSM is judge, jury and executioner all while you are bound and gagged if that is the way they want it.

In fairness I don't know that the caller was looking to hang us out to dry. They may well have been interested in a fair and accurate report. But since my mind reading powers are not really that great I have to take the safe option and give nothing that can be used against us.