Ammo For Sale

« « Brilliant marketing | Home | Gun Porn » »

Media Requests

As mentioned before, I generally don’t do them. I get a half dozen or so every year. This one stood out to me:


Say Uncle,

Greetings. I’m a journalist writing a story about the state and future of the gun policy debate in this country, and I’d like to include your voice and perspective in the piece.

Is there a time and a number at which I might reach you at your convenience? Or, if you’d prefer, I can send you some questions via email.

In any case, thanks for your time,



No thanks. Based on your other work, I see no indication to expect of (sic)* any sort of reasonable treatment.


Fair enough. Thanks anyway.

So, this person tacitly agreed with my assessment? After all, his other “journalistic” work consisted mostly of Media Matters nonsense. I do entertain some media requests but they mostly don’t work out since I give them pre-conditions.

Generally speaking, I simply don’t value the opinion that is counter to civil liberties and don’t engage them because it’s pointless and they’re not worthy of it. Doubly so when they control the final product. So, no thanks.

* Yeah, I’m asshole enough to (sic) myself.

14 Responses to “Media Requests”

  1. Crawler Says:

    “Doubly so when they control the final product.”

    And even if the [s]journalist[/s] opinionist was worthy, he more than likely would be overruled by the [s]editor[/s] Supreme Opinionist.

    I might have told him, “Yeah, yeah, I’ve seen and read your work before on Wiki.”

  2. Stevierayv Says:


  3. rickn8or Says:

    Sort of a “Never wrestle with a pig; you’ll get dirty and the pig likes it” kinda thing?

  4. Jim Scrummy Says:

    Smart. Sadly, I’ve come to view all MSM “journalist” types as the enemy, because they are the enemy.

  5. Patrick Says:

    I have a fair amount of experience doing these things on TV, print and radio. I had the same approach you had, at first. My predecessor wouldn’t talk to some journos, at all. I would evaluate the reporter and then ignore them or call them shills. I changed my mind, though.

    The response you got was not an acknowledgement that you were correct; it was just them writing you off as someone who won’t work with them to advance the story. You are now in their black book as: Say Uncle. In other words, they probably won’t call back or pass your name to other reporters.

    They have a world view and you do not share it. We all know that. The question is whether our world view will expand if we hide it from the press. I am more comfortable with you speaking on our behalf than many, because I have the experience of your blog to know that even when you get riled up you don’t get crazy. You are not, “That Guy”.

    I will suggest that if you speak to them you not view them as an enemy. Think more of them as people you know who have differing opinions. Not friends, but definitely not “The Other”.

    Don’t view them as enemies, because you need to build some rapport with them. Not to change their mind, but to ensure you can speak with them and they will work with you to make a story. We all say dumb things at times, and out of context quotes are easy to play. Don’t be an ass and be nice, and when you say something you wish you had phrased differently, ask them to let you do so by replacing the record. I’ve never had them tell me no. I even had one radio reporter allow me to re-record something I wanted to do better, and that was just minutes before he was supposed to be done editing the piece.

    They generally won’t turn to the dark side, so don’t try. But I have had some luck with a few and even gotten a few stories modified to our advantage, though I generally considered a big score to be neutralizing a hit piece into a pro/con objective report. The reporters have eventually told me (after many interviews and many hours) that they don’t like guns but they came to respect our point of view and understand better where we are coming from. It does help, even if they still want the 2A to go away. Be a nice human and see if it helps.

    I still vet the reporters, though. Some just are not worth the time, because they are not nice people and have no intention to be honorable. We know who they are and they have been the minority, in my experience. When CNN called about a special report with a certain on-air personality, I told them (nicely) to kiss my ass. It was going to be a dogpile of shouting and dishonorable lying and I don’t think that helps us.

    You don’t have to talk to anyone. You do this blog for your own reasons and you don’t owe us anything. Heck, even I stopped doing them for personal reasons (too much time commitment).

  6. Patrick Says:

    One more note (sorry about the huge responses): if you give solid interviews to a reporter, they will slowly start to increase your percentage in a story because their faith in you goes up. That is important, because that’s how our story gets told. The more reliable a source you become, the more they will share your contact info with other reporters and other media. At it’s peak, I was getting calls 3-4 at a time from TV, print and radio whenever something happened.

    So it’s not half-in. Just a warning. They have deadlines and will consistently turn to reliable (and sane) sources for views, if only because having you on speed dial is a hella lot faster than developing a new source.

  7. Kristophr Says:


    Yup. Reporters are basically lazy.

    They all, as a group, got through college by taking soft arts courses, that you can get straight As in simply by regurgitating the leftist bilge the prof spews.

    If you can allow them to phone it in by providing a packaged opinion that will get by their boss, they will use that.

  8. Lyle Says:

    “The question is whether our world view will expand if we hide it from the press.”

    We are the press. Our world view is expanding. Their numbers (the antis) are shrinking, and it’s not because we think we need their soap box to advance our ideas of liberty.

    On the contrary; they need our attention to keep them afloat, for example; Piers Morgan’s ratings and buzz are never as high as when he has Ted Nugent or Dana Loesch on his show. Without our views, they go down the tubes.

  9. KM Says:

    Unc, you must like to talk about facts and reality.
    Something that gives libs the vapors…it interrupts all the blather about feelings.

  10. Huck Says:

    “Smart. Sadly, I’ve come to view all MSM “journalist” types as the enemy, because they are the enemy.”

    I feel the same way Jim. There aint no more “journalists”, they’re leftist propagandists.

  11. Sigivald Says:

    Did I miss something with the “expect of” thing?

  12. jon spencer Says:

    If you do talk to reporters, record everything.

  13. Robert Says:

    ^^ What Jon said.

    Plus, tell them that the unedited recording will be released on YouTube / etc. at the same time their report goes live.

  14. mikee Says:

    The few things I know a little bit about get misreported completely in the press all the time.

    I’d expect the same to be true of almost everything written by non-experts (i.e., reporters) who are:

    1. regurgitating what they are told by unreliable sources


    2. writing a story when they have already written the outline completely no matter what you tell them.

    So I’d suggest talking to them, while recording for YouTube release, but only after they agree to pass a firearms safety class and go shooting at a range with you.

    The well known “first shot smile” converts more nongunners to gun rights activists than anything else I know.