Not meeting the press

I guess in light of this national conversation we’re having on guns, different local TV and radio people are scouring the interwebs looking for gun rights people to interview. I’ve received several of those requests in recent weeks. I respond with something along the lines of:

Sure, I’ll be happy to appear on your program and I will also waive my speaking fee of $100,000 provided that my interview appears unedited. I’ll have my lawyer send over a contract once I hear from you.


I’ve yet to get a response back. Go figure. I don’t actually have a speaking fee but I can gauge their seriousness with that.

19 Responses to “Not meeting the press”

  1. I’m gonna have to put that one in my back pocket.

  2. Other Steve says:

    Explain to me again, the problem with getting good information out there?

    Skip the clown college laughs about a speaking fee, simply state you’re going to need final approval of your text (which is a common and reasonable thing) and move on.

    If I got that response back it would go in my crazy person pile or right in the shredder. Instead of getting you on, I’d get some rambling lunatic that would make my boss happy.

    Do harm or do good, you can’t do neither.

  3. Guav says:

    I agree with The Other Steve. I’d rather have you on there, edited to sound your worst, than Alex Jones or one of these other idiots they find. I think you should rethink your nonparticipation. We really need to make sure that these interview slots are filled by people who won’t “scare the white people.”

  4. SayUncle says:

    Goddammit. Now you guys have made me rethink this whole GFY thing.

  5. SayUncle says:

    Also, “Goddammit” is probably why I’m not the best choice.

  6. Other Steve says:

    Go Fuck Yourself… never works without consequences.

  7. Guav says:

    I have my share of press experiences … Some of them were edited to make us (nothing gun related) come off in a light we felt was negative or foolish, but many of them were not, and I don’t regret any of them. If they’re intent on editing the interview to sound as nutty as possible, then it’s important that their source material be as un-nutty as possible, to minimize the negativity.

    You win some and you lose some, but they’re going to find SOMEONE to interview–if not you, then who?

  8. SJ says:

    Well, they are attempting to use your face, name, and quotes to make money.

    Why not charge an appearance fee?

  9. Seerak says:

    Rather than insist that you be “unedited”, insist that you have your own unedited copy of the proceedings. Bring your own camera even (preferably with a cameraperson who doubles as witness). Then let them risk exposure with selective editing if they dare.

  10. Alien says:

    @Seerak – I’ll agree that it’s crucial to produce your own unedited copy – I wouldn’t answer a “do you know what time it is” question without my own video camera recording the entire exchange. The problem is, you don’t have a broadcast station with ready viewers and they do. True, putting the true copy on the internet will have some impact, but the Low Information Voters (LIV) who make up the majority of the evening news viewers won’t see it, and their impressions will have been formed from the original airing.

    One thing our side hasn’t done – at least I haven’t seen the NRA, SAF or any other outfit do it – is run a “prep school” on how to handle on-air interviews. Speaking in positive sound bites as responses to questions is very much a learned skill, and using LIV-understandable terms and language is also. If one looks at the Dana Loesch/Scottie Hughes vs Piers Morgan interview, that’s a fairly good example of sticking to the points and not letting a bombastic host sidetrack you. CNN has the broadcast time to let Morgan roam, your local 6 PM newscast will have under two minutes for the piece. (As an aside, I keep waiting for someone on our side to – very politely – ask Mr. Morgan why he talks over and shouts down our representatives: “Are you so fearful of your audience hearing about gun owners’ position that you have to interrupt me and talk over me? Are you so afraid your audience will hear both sides and make up their own minds that you can’t let me answer your questions?”)

    One thing I haven’t seen done yet is our side taking control of the interview by turning around some of the questions and throwing them back. For example, with Loesch, Morgan keeps asking if she thinks 2A means we should be able to own tanks, trying to establish a foundation for 2A being ridiculous. The correct answer is “2A was included in its prominent position in the Constitution to ensure American citizens have the same power to oppose a tyrannical government as the government has to exercise that tyranny over them. Which is why, Mr. Morgan, we fought – and won – a revolutionary war to establish our independence from your country, the rulers of which even today are imposing their tyranny on their subjects.”

    Not everyone can think on their feet (who hasn’t come up with a better response 30 minutes after a discussion ends?), so not everyone should be representing us in such an important debate.

    Unc, if you can find a kindler and gentler way to rephrase “fuck you, that’s why” and smile politely while doing it, I’d suggest giving it a shot. Even without the $100K speaking fee.

  11. Bill Twist says:

    Other Steve is right when he says “Go Fuck Yourself… never works without consequences.” It’s absolutely true: I once gave myself gonorrhea.

  12. mariner says:

    Another way to turn a question back on the interviewer is to ask if 1A includes broadcast television, since that wasn’t available to anyone in the First Revolutionary times.

  13. comatus says:

    Damn. You might’s well “take a chance” with that studio audience. It can’t be any tougher crowd than you’ve got right here.

  14. Some Law Talking Guy says:

    You’re shooting yourself in the foot. I’ve had people brag about waiving their “speaking fees” when my clients put on completely uninteresting industry events. We assign those folks to the circular file, because they’re likely going to be more hassle than they are worth.

    On the other hand, any reputable news organization will agree to give you a final approval right on their edits to the interview, and I’m not aware of any that would object to you making your own recording the interview. That’s pretty common, especially on a heated, high profile issue.

  15. Gerry says:

    It is never a debate or even a discussion in these things. You get to make your points and go home.

    If you fine with that then go for it.

  16. Crawler says:

    I agree with Uncle.

    Given the media well known propensity to always twist and spin any topic toward the agenda they wholeheartedly support and champion, and in the case the disarming of America, anyone that offers an opposing view, no matter how much constitutional common sense, history and facts are offered, media will always make the interviewee look and sound as ridiculous as a toothless tornado eye witness.

    Those vermin would go back years to find just one repulsive post and/or comment on this website to highlight and bleep on the air, or in print, to debase their opposing view guest.

    So yeah, if I were asked for an interview I’d probably want at least a hundred grand, too, knowing that I would be their sacrificial lamb right out of the gate.

    I trust media about as much as I’d trust a sow with cubs after stumbling upon her…

  17. Mike123 says:

    Why are not doing the interviews? If its because you are afraid of setting the movement back, don’t worry. Yeager has that covered. I think you have a breadth of knowledge that would be helpful to the cause and interesting.

    If its for other reasons, then that is fine.

  18. SayUncle says:

    Thanks for the advice all but my issue is that I simply don’t trust them.

    Now, about that nicer, gentler way to say “because fuck you” . . .

  19. Jake says:

    I’ll agree with Uncle, here. Why? Three words: The Zimmerman Edit.

    He looks like he’s up to no good… he looks black.

    How long has it taken George Zimmerman to recover from that horrendously damaging edit by the media, even with a completely neutral third party releasing the unedited recordings to the public?

    Face it, even with someone recording the interview and posting it for everyone to see, probably 95% of the people who watch the edited version will never even think to wonder how it was edited – they’ll probably just assume it wasn’t edited at all, and accept however the media chooses to portray you.

    Rule 1: The media lies. Don’t give them any statements to twist against you.