I was contacted by the media today

[Waitone]

At the very best your comments will be used to "balance" the story's premise which no doubt will be anti-gun or anti-self defense. Is it worth the risk to your public image? Only you can say. Do not waste your time and energy hoping for a fair shake. The recorder will help you feel better but will do nothing improve the slant on your words.

Good luck and keep us posted.

 

[jlbraun]

Quote:
"We are a club dedicated to empowering ethnic minorities, women, and gay-lesbian-bisexual-transgendered people and informing them against the conservative, classist, discriminatory, anti-progressive, sexist, patriarchal view that only the police and/or government can be trusted to defend them. All of these groups have a history of repression and persecution, so our aim is to inform them, because the conservative media won't do its job."
Here's how it will look in print:

Quote:
"We are ... conservative, classist, discriminatory, anti-progressive, sexist ... have a history of repression and persecution, ... because the ... media won't do its job."

Blackbeard, do you work for a newspaper? That was masterful.

However, how does the OP know that the interviewer is not a lefty person with a favorable view of the RKBA? My existence proves that at least one such person exists.

 

[Dr. Peter Venkman]

Nope. There's no such parallel. A decision about whether or not to participate in an interview is not the same as voting in an election, working for a candidate, or any such thing. The same logic does not apply in the two situations because they are completely different situations.

Actually, there is a parallel. It's the same logic as "don't vote for the guy you really want, because he won't win anyways." "Don't bother giving an interview, because it won't make a difference anyways". It's the same thing in a different form.

 

[skinnyguy]

I can't remember the ladies name right off hand, but wasn't there an anti reporter recently who conducted an interview with somebody, and as a result her anti views seemed empty and misguided?

Do be very careful with what you say, the way you phrase things, and the tone with which you answer the questions. Be friendly, be honest, and study up on facts with Oregon sources. Being able to use local events and examples are much more effective than using national or worldwide examples since it brings things closer to home for the reporter and the reader.

 

[Feanaro]

No reporter would ever agree to this.

I'm not a doctor of journalism but I have done this before. Not for everyone, mind you, but it does happen.

 

[ilbob]

But, just for the sake of argument assume the interviewer did write an article that honestly represented the views of both the left and the right; how long do you think that journalist would continue in the employ of the left wing rag? Chances are better than excellent that the article will be neither fair nor balanced.

You may recall the story of Sean Kranish here in Northern Illinois. he got interviewed by the local rag, and they published a multi-page article on him that was astoundingly fair for such a far left paper.

I am guessing that the publisher did not know the article was being written or did not realize it would not vilify gun ownership and the day after it came out they published an editorial that all but disowned their own story.

I emailed the reporter afterwards. He was very careful about what he said, but did state that the article had been in the works for weeks and that his editor had approved the entire story. I don't know if he or the editor are still employed there.

 

[skinewmexico]

Give them a written statement, and tell them if they can't figure that out, they're on their own.

 

[kd7nqb]

I am very surprised how fast the thread exploded and I like it. Good ideas my main focus is going to be explaining that we are all about education from safety to personal defense. I will mention that CCW on campus is an ultimate goal but I will also explain that we strongly advocate working to change laws rather than break them.

Also, we already have a working relationship with one of the founders of the portland Pink Pistols, so I will make sure to mention that.

 

[Werewolf]

Also, we already have a working relationship with one of the founders of the portland Pink Pistols, so I will make sure to mention that.

Bring that person along to the interview. Be pretty hard for a lefty to bash, twist the words of or say bad things about a homosexual in this PC day and age.

 

[charon]

I work as a journalist today and have worked in PR for years in the past.

The best thing to do would be to take part in the interview IF you have media training and have ALL of your facts down cold. It could be OK even lacking media training if you have to have the answers to the factual arguments down cold and some understanding of what to expect.

What will he ask? Given your organization (2nd Amendment and College) the following jumps to mind:

1. "Need for hunting"
2. Collective right
3. Couldn't have imagined today's weapons back then/2nd outdated
4. The standard VT stuff comes to mind.
5. The standard guns in the home misinformation
6. Police will protect you
7. Is a tyrant likely today? (2nd helps make sure it's unlikely.)

You have to have a factual understanding on the pro positions on these issues at the top of your head, with additional support at your fingertips in case you forget. Some of my personal debate counters to the broader "common good" arguments:

1. If the ban on drugs doesn't work at all, why should any ban on X be any more effective?
2. Alcohol is far deadlier, but we treat it's misuse as a personal responsibility. Do you advocate further restriction on Alcohol as well? Why don't we don't ban whiskey and limit ourselves to near beer.
3. If guns are the source of firearm violence, why is it there are no drive by shootings in my neighborhood or through the vast majority of neighborhoods in America?
4. The recent gun ban failure studies and English experience
5. The fact that even though VT incidents are exceedingly rare, they get a media circus. About 200 people are killed by lighting each year. How many by a VT each year
6. Number one mass killer weapon of choice is Arson (Google Happy Land social club and Dupont Plaza Hotel). Arson can kill a family of five and it barely makes the paper, if they are shot it's a week long affair with calls for new bans and restrictions.
7. If the second is outdated, what about the first. The Web can easily be used to recruit hate, pedophiles find victims, The Turner Diaries has killed more people than my gun... etc.
8. FBI statistics on rifles used in homicide (AWB) and average number of shots used in a firearm homicide (check NRA/ILA)

Don't wing it. If you don't know the answer say: I know of some information on that but I want to be accurate. Let me look it up and e-mail it to you this afternoon.

Rehearse you messages and talking points. Stay on message and don't be swayed (as noted in previous posts). Be comfortable. You are right and just on this issue. Don't let the reported put words in your mouth, etc. Keep the messages short, direct and simple.

Take the reporter shooting to a reputable range with a diverse group of shooters. Probably the best way to sway the interview. Have a reasonable and fun selection of guns to shoot to make it a pleasant experience. Good photo op too.

Good Luck

 

[Rumble]

can see it now: Following the above advice the interviewer writes: The interviewee sat there in silence, confused and unable to articulate or even form the most base response to my question - thus perpetuating the stereotype held by many liberals that gun owners are illiterate, inarticulate, knuckle dragging morons.

Fair enough (note that I pointed out the reporter was bound to write "He refused to answer..."). My implication (or intended implication) was that in such a position, answer some other question. Politicians and other talking heads do it all the time.

Frankly, I'd either do it with written statements, or not do it at all.

 

[Blackbeard]

Have a fact sheet handy that you can reference during the interview. You can give her a copy afterwards, too.

 

[News Shooter]

Don't do it

I just broke my promise

This is a no-win for you

 

[vynx]

Don't answer any question if you don't like the way it is phrased (you know the kind that however you answer it comes out wrong or like you're the badguy).

Instead, take a cue form the politicians, smile nod and then give out your prepared in advance statement.

Mention gun saftey - how Eddie Eagle saves childrens lifes and "its all about saving the children - if even only one childs life is saved by our 2nd amendment club then by golly its worth it".

My point is you are not there to answer the reporters questions - you are there to get your point across - remember your audience and choose your words accordingly.

Another trick is to get the reporter out of psync (sounds like sink?) - slow her down - speed it up - you can always pause, then slowly repeat the question, then take a drink of water, then hmmmmm, etc.

 

[kd7nqb]

He got back to me tonight and said that he does not have enough time for an interview and would instead like me to just type out an email with some basics of my group so that will be much easier.

 

[bumm]

I myself probably wouldn't be able to resist the temptation to go in and say my piece, choosing my words very carefully, and doing my best to anticipate my answers to the most slanted questions I can imagine. After all, if we don't push our cause, who will?
Unfortunately though, if they can't make you look like a knuckle dragging idiot, the article will never see print. They won't print it if it doesn't go their way.
Marty

 

[Boomerang]

You must do it in writing. They will catch you off guard with questions that you cannot counter effectively without provable research.
The best outcome would be for you to have the questions beforehand and post them here for group answers. Then write the answers that cannot be refuted.

 

[The Unknown User]

1. Nothing good can come of this. Really. They're preying on the fact that anyone who is open about being the president of a club for a controversial issue probably wants to spread their ideals. Don't fall for it.

2. Statistics used to defend or support controversial issues are almost always inherently confounded, and thus are statistically insignificant.

3. The topic of the Constitution WILL come up, and you WILL lose that fight. The Constitution is out of date, and the rights guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment have nothing to do with CCW rights, self-defense, etc. You WILL NOT win that argument.

4. People are SHEEP and will believe what they read; they will NOT believe what you say, despite how educated, logical, or confident you are.

Conclusion: do not do this.

 

[M249MachineGun]

Only do the interview if the reporter agrees to go shooting with you and your club. Every time he makes a 3" or smaller grouping he gets to ask a question.

 

[yhtomit]

Depending on how "left wing" is "left wing," it could be the people behind this paper aren't as predictably anti as you think.

Lots of leftists are not anti-gun per se; some of them are in favor of arming The People, even if their idea of The People might differ somewhat from your own

For instance: were the Black Panthers right wingers?

(Though he was himself not a Black Panther, see also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_F._Williams)

timothy

 

[Gunnerpalace]

Saw the email thing I was just about to say that if you do a sit down REMEMBER this as soon as you walk in the interview starts nothing is even off the record even if the interview is over and you are chatting with him on the way out, to your car ect, the interview ends when he is in his car and 5 miles down the highway with you in the opposite direction. My .02 1/5 cents.

 

[rbernie]

I wouldn't do it under any circumstances.

 

[Trebor]

He got back to me tonight and said that he does not have enough time for an interview and would instead like me to just type out an email with some basics of my group so that will be much easier.

This gives you an opportunity. When you write about your club make sure you are clear and concise and hit the high points that you really want to stress.

Is your club 100% student run? If so, say so. Things like membership numbers, when you were formed, etc, are always nice to know when writing a story.

If you have a diverse membership, mention it. If it's all a bunch of guys from the campus Young Republican's club, then leave that out.

Talk about the activities you do. If you only run informational meetings, say that. If you regularly meet at the range, mention that.

Something like this sounds good: "Our club works to educate members of the Univeristy about issues relating to the Second Amendment and firearms ownership. We also strive to provide a safe, friendly environment where any member of the campus community can come to learn more about firearms and shooting. At the range, we provide experienced shooters to work with the new shooters and we have a 100% accident free safety record."

"We always follow all laws and campus regulations regarding firearms and ammunition and pride ourselves on the character and conduct of our members."

Of course, only say what is really true and applies to your club.

When you write your response you could post it here before sending it to get some freedback.

EDIT: I forgot to mention. After the article runs, if it was at all neutral or positive, contact the reporter and mention that you saw it. Say that you were dissapointed that you never got to meet in person and offer to take him to the range. Set a date to go and follow up. Don't talk about the politics of gun control. Just focus on gun safety and show him the basics of shooting. He may or may not got a story out of it, but it'll go a long way towards establishing a good relationship.

 

[JKimball]

Only do the interview if the reporter agrees to go shooting with you and your club.

Seriously,that is exactly what I was thinking. Unfortunately, if he doesn't have time for an interview he probably would be even less inclined to go to the range. Still, I'd say give it a shot. I really think that is the best way to get through to anti's.

I'm a little surprised how many people are telling you not to do it. I kind of think we need to jump at every chance we get to improve the image of gun ownership. That doesn't mean winning the debate, but reaching out to people and trying to understand their concerns and help them see us as reasonable, rational, and good people. How could the president of a 2nd Amendment club refuse that opportunity? Even if he is going to be unethical about how he uses your words, you've got to do your part.

My advice would be to stay away from the guns cause gun crime debate and focus on the civil rights issue. Make it clear that you are on the side of the founding fathers by using their classic quotes. Americans have a hard time bashing Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Ben Franklin, etc.

I like the ideas that have been shared about painting your position in terms that leftists identify with. Another good parrallel is the wiretapping issue. Is it worth giving up our civil rights so the government can keep us safe?

I'm looking forward to seeing your response.

 

[ranger335v]

BT, DT. The reporter may well be a "nice guy", after all obvious jerks can't be a success in that business. And that's the trap! Believe me, the story is already written and their slant will be the centeral thrust of the story they tell. All you will be able to do is give them a few quotes that the reporter will use to give a sense of objectivity to their efforts to "expose" you as a danger to society. As mentioned above, they only need to edit your responses in such a way as to make you appear a dangerous dunce.

If you do it, and I wouldn't again (different subject, same methods), answer directly but with the fewest possible words. The more you expand your comments the more fodder you will give them to stick a knife in you and twist it. Again, the story is already written, all they want you for is to give it a false cloak of objectivity. No recorder will stop it or correct them later.

Want proof? Watch what happens on the floor in congress on C-Span in the morning and listen to how it's protrayed in the evening! You will likely think they are "reporting" on a different event from what you saw.